Birthright citizenship is a lie. People often insist that birthright citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, just because it mentions born.
In the Supreme Court decision Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94):
“The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
Don’t be fooled by the Supreme Court’s use of the word persons. The plural of person is people, not persons. There is a maxim of law Homo vocabulum est; persona juris civilities. “Man is a term of nature; person, of the civil law”. So therefore, The Supreme Court’s criteria, quoted above, for 14th Amendment personhood: Complete, direct and immediate allegiance to someone else’s civil servants.
“We The People” created the government.
“We The People” (state citizens) created the Federal Government and are responsible for controlling and correcting the creature we created. State citizens ARE NOT automatically also federal citizens. Notice that the Supreme Court said “direct and immediate allegiance.” This is allegiance to someone else’s civil servants. It is another level of subordination away from “We The People” (state citizens) who created the Federal Government.
If you are subject to the federal government’s laws THEN YOU CANNOT BE ONE OF “We The People”. Even Vice President Thomas Jefferson reassured us that state inhabitants are subject to only three federal laws. In his 1798 Kentucky Resolution, state inhabitants are not subject to federal laws, except for the three crimes mentioned in the Constitution: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting, “and no other crimes whatever”.
He went on to state that federal power to create crimes within States cannot extend further — “(and all other their acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes other than those enumerated in the constitution) are altogether void and of no force, and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and of right appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own Territory.”
And the U.S. Supreme Court ruled twice that the first eight amendments of the U.S. Constitution do not apply to people in states. If you are not subject to federal laws, then you are not protected by federal laws, such as the first eight amendments in the bill of rights.
BORN
How can a newborn child owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to any political body? After all, John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government said that parental rights are all based upon “divine revealed law” in the Bible, and that children when they are 21 years old would choose which government to place themselves under.*
The 1941 US Supreme Court decision Edwards v. California, 314 US 160 ,stated at page 183:
… birth within a state does not establish citizenship thereof.”
Susan B. Anthony wanted to vote. The federal court ruled that she was not a 14th Amendment citizen.
U.S. v. Susan B. Anthony, 24 Fed 829 (1873) “The rights of citizens of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.”
Feudal Law
Citizenship by birth on the soil (jus soli) has never been true in America. This type of citizenship excludes “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country” (as was the minority opinion in the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision). Jus soli was created by feudal law. (see Amos S. Hershey, Essentials of International Law, MacMillian Publishing, 1912, at 237).
All serfs born on the soil are property of the landlord. It is the duty of attorneys to Attorn.
But what about federal citizenship?
The 14th Amendment’s phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” uses the definite article “the” jurisdiction. The 13th Amendment used the plural “their jurisdiction”, which refers to the several states.
- And in Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383 the court determined that “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government…” — as if one has to volunteer into citizenship by claiming to be one.
- U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542: “The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.”
- In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 S.Ct. 656, 662; 120 U.S. 678, at 690 found that: “In the Constitution and laws of the United States, the word “citizen” is generally, if not always, used in a political sense, to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state or of the United States. It is so used in § 1 of Article XIV of the amendments of the Constitution,… [NOT] the same thing as resident, inhabitant, or person.”
- The U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 at page 551 said: “The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.” YOUR NATURAL BIRTH WAS NOT VOLUNTARY.
How does birth voluntarily* submit yourself to government?
Answer: It does not.
- for the sad story of how you waived your rights in exchange for benefits, read my book The Citizen Cannot Complain.
- In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 was denied re-entry to the U.S. even though he was born here.
- In Ludwig Hausding’s case (1895) he was born in the United States, but resided in Europe since his infancy. Supreme Court says: not a citizen.
- In Flemming v. Nestor, in 1980, the Supreme Court said Mr. Nestor could not receive Social Security that he paid into. He was not a citizen.
If you don’t know how to defend your rights, you will lose them. I recommend that you study all the basic law procedures explained in “How To Win In Court” self-help course.
– – – – – –
* John Locke’s Second Treatise of government, which was the foundation for most of the Declaration of Independence, in his Chapter 6 “Paternal rights”, says that a child is not subject to legislated laws until he is old enough to make binding contracts. He said in paragraph 57: “for nobody can be under a law, which is not promulgated to him” and later in paragraph 73 when children become 21 years old they can choose which government to place themselves under, and, according to paragraph 62, this cannot happen until they have the recognized right to take binding oaths of allegiance.