Bad Citizenship - birthright and dual - not in the original plan

Stumbled across Edward J. Erler's work out of Cal State University San Bernardino on the history of citizenship.

Don't read it.

Ok, read it...it'll change your mind. It did mine. Especially on illegal immigrants' stories and anchor babies...

And it's not just that. The article also includes dual citizens. I have a sister who was born with dual citizenship - I always understood it from the day she was born in Europe and I was 4 years old. always...until now. I have also always argued the "geography of citizenship". Erler's work opens the lid on the container that says "there's no there, there."

Click on the link to Hillsdale's site and read it completley. It's not the typical Imprimis esoteric blather.

Here's a sample:

The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of "birthright subjectship" or "birthright allegiance," never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a "debt of gratitude." According to Blackstone, this debt is "intrinsic" and "cannot be forefeited, cancelled, or altered." Birthright subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.

America’s Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that "the good People of these Colonies. . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved." According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as "high treason." So the common law—the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance—could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e., republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain!

Comments

[Bubblehead]

Dennis, I'd be interested in seeing if you could prove that you are a citizen under your proposed re-reading of the Constitution. Were your parents citizens? Do you have their naturalization papers? How about your grandparents? Great-grandparents? If not, how would you be able to "prove" your citizenship? (Of course, they'd have to be naturalized before having your next generation of ancestors, otherwise it wouldn't count under your proposed "interpretation".)

As far as being "under the jurisdiction of" the United States, that clearly includes anyone in the U.S. without diplomatic immunity. If someone here illegally commits a crime, we send them to jail. Are you calling for releasing all people who committed crimes while here illegally from prison because we don't have jurisdiction over them?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. And people talk about liberals having a skewed interpretation of the plain language of the Constitution... To see people try to take citizenship away from Americans is something that, to me, is beyond the pale.