Skip to main content

Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes defines "who are citizens". Can someone explain what the definition means?

Perry Hall, MD |

Article XXV, Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes LOCATED HERE: http://tinyurl.com/ceh3k7u was enacted 9 years after the 14th amendment and defines "who are citizens". It clearly says "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".

Can someone tell me what it means to be "subject to a foreign power" and what are some examples of how a child born here, would be subject to a foreign power?

If someone is a British subject by descent through British law, are they "subject to a foreign power"?

Attorney Answers 3

Posted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

Mark as helpful

1 lawyer agrees

Posted

Here's a quote from an Assistant US Attorney General, Walter Dellinger, in testimony before members of Congress, which you might find helpful:
"The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to reflect the existing common law exception for discrete sets of persons who were deemed subject to a foreign sovereign and immune from U.S. laws, principally children born in the United States of foreign diplomats, with the single additional exception of children of members of Indian tribes. Apart from these extremely limited exceptions, there can be no question that children born in the United States of aliens are subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. And, as consistently recognized by courts and Attorneys General for over a century, most notably by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, (6) there is no question that they possess constitutional citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment."
Here's the link: http://www.justice.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm

Mark as helpful

5 comments

Asker

Posted

So why does the case of Minor v. Happersett define a natural born citizen differently? It states: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." And why does the case of Elk v. Wilkins contradict that as well? "The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside." Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 306. And why does the Congressional record tell us to look to Vattel on allegiance? http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_1yk4:: And why does the Virginia Supreme Court also say look to Vattel on a test of citizenship? http://books.google.com/books?id=oKwUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA191&dq=%22vattell%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zMepUJ-uL7Gu0AGgtYD4BQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22vattell%22&f=false When we look to Vattel on allegiance or citizenship and pull up the section they cite (212) we get this: § 212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.,

Asker

Posted

PLUS, Wong Kim Ark is totally FLAWED and I have found out where it got botched!

Asker

Posted

Also, although Justice Gray in WKA says that the Chinese Exclusion Act does not apply, because it wasn't enacted when Wong was born. However, Gray failed to notice the Burlingame Treaty, which was in effect when Wong was born and which clearly states in article VI that the Chinese can not be naturalized! So why was Wong allowed to become a citizen? Burlingame Treaty Article VI http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/treaty1868.htm "But nothing herein contained shall be held to confer naturalization upon citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States."

Mark William Oakley

Mark William Oakley

Posted

I do not have the time to engage in an academic historical debate, other than to note that the 14th Amendment clarified the definition of "natural born" persons as anyone born on US soil, with the limited exception of children born to foreign diplomats stationed here at the time of birth, and native American Indians not already made citizens through prior treaties. All of the racially inspired treaties you refer to having to do with excluding or limiting Chinese immigration were all repealed long ago, and had little or nothing to do with "natural born" citizenship, but with the ability of immigrants from China to become naturalized US citizens once they arrived here. The US Constitution, as amended by the 14th Amendment, is the supreme law of the land, and cannot be varied or limited without a new amendment adopted and ratified as called for under the Constitution. Congress can pass no legally enforceable law, and the President can sign no treaty, inconsistent with its provisions.

Asker

Posted

Of course you don't, because you can't explain it! The authors of the citizenship clauses in the Civil Rights Act and the 14th amendment clearly agree that the 14th is synonymous with the CRA: Senator Trumbull (author of the CRA) "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14 This proves that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the same exact thing as "not subject to any foreign power" Senator Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction: "I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16 9 Years later the Revised Statues are enacted and the words of the Civil Rights Act are USED and CITED! That is THE LAW that Justice Gray was BOUND by at the time of Wong Kim Ark! PROVE ME WRONG!

Posted

'Subject to a foreign power'- a naturalized US citizen may renounce citizenship and take up the citizenship of another country. Hence a person who was born a US citizen may be subject to the foreign power.

Whether someone is a '[British] subject' is also subject to a foreign power is a matter to take up a Queen's Counsel.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. FOR EDUCATION AND INFORMATION ONLY. Mr. Rafter is licensed to practice before the state and federal courts in Virginia. There is no implied or actual attorney-client relationship arising from this education exchange. You should speak with an attorney licensed in your state, to whom you have provided all the facts before you take steps that may impact your legal rights. Mr. Rafter is under no obligation to answer subsequent emails or phone calls related to this matter.

Mark as helpful

6 comments

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Posted

flagged for imbedded links

Asker

Posted

lolol, I think you mean EMBEDDED links! And you are an "attorney"?

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Posted

iPhone. Thumb. Driving. You do the math,

Asker

Posted

"I" is nowhere near "E" on an iPnone keyboard...

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Posted

BTW, either spelling can be used, with an 'i' the past tense of embedded us affixed.

Asker

Posted

And you looked all that up while driving? Glad I'm not behind you!

State, local, and municipal law topics

Top tips from attorneys

What others are asking

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer

Browse all legal topics