Talk:Citizenship Clause

Natural-born citizens
This section in the article is highly unsatisfactory in that it gives more weight to the dissenting opinion in US v Wong than it does to the majority opinion. It leaves the impression that the dissenting opinion, that there is a question as to whether the children of transient aliens are themselves natural born citizens, was not "explicitly" contradicted by the majority and therefore remains an open question.

The fact of the matter is that the Wong majority decision gave citations of cases that do explicitly contradict the minority. It seems unreasonable that a long quote supporting the minority opinion in Wong be included and none contradicting it is given.

This is just some more of that Obama eligibility junk soiling the Wikipedia.

I'll leave this comment here for a while, and then go rewrite the section to be historically accurate.Kevin (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Kevin's posting of over two years ago. This Article is about the 14th Amendment, and not the Article involving eligibilty for the Presidency, which involves "natural born citizen[s]". Natural born citizen has its own page, and this one should point to that. Moreover, what the article says here is that something in Wong Kim Ark, the leading Supreme Court case on citizenship, is dicta, based on what the State Department Foreign Service Manual says. This is absurd, the Foreign Service Manual hasn't the force of law, much less the power to interpret Supreme Court decisions. Finally, one doesn't interpret language in the Constitution with simple references to Webster's, Oxford, or Black's Law Dictionary. Since Kevin's comment has been here more than two years, I will delete the text in this section, leaving only the link to the Wikipedia article for Natural Born Citizen. Vitacura6256 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[state] residence
I've reverted this edit, which added the editorial interpretation "[state]" into the middle of a direct quote. Aside from WP:QUOTE considerations, I think (as a non-lawyer) that this is just plain wrong. The quoted source cited this case for support, and it seems clear to me from that decision ("Held: The Alaska dividend distribution plan violates the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 58-65. ...") that the quote is saying that federal citizenship does not expressly equate state citizenship rights with residence. I may be wrong, and I invite correction from others more qualified in this area than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What is at issue in this case, then, is this third aspect of the right to travel-the right of the newly arrived citizen to the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of the same State. [Emphasis added.] -- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, at 502 (1999).


 * Saenz v. Roe was a case not so much about national citizenship, but about state welfare benefits and who was eligible for them. California's generous welfare benefits apparently were attracting lots of out-of-staters, and it was starting to get expensive for the state government. In order to mitigate the costs, California imposed a stricter residency and benefits regimen on those moving to the state. The issue in the case was over whether the state could establish different tiers within its own citizenry (e.g., 180-day residence [the generally normal legal length] and 365-day residence [the length required for full California benefits by the statute at issue]). The Court said no, as Amd. XIV says once residency in a state is established, that person is a citizen of that state (which reflects the text of the Amd.). This all assumes, of course, that the person establishing residency is already a U.S. citizen.


 * That's why I added the "[state]" editor's note, since the sentence as quoted is essentially taken out of it's context, and as such, doesn't accurately reflect what the Court is saying. Hope that helps. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Text moved here from the Birthright citizenship section
I've moved the following here from the Birthright citizenship section of the article: "Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:


 * Children born to foreign diplomats


 * Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States


 * Children born to Native Americans who are members of tribes not taxed (These were later given full citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.)


 * Children born to foreigners who do not have a permanent domicile and residence (i.e. legal residence) in the United States and are not carrying on business in the United States (as per United States v. Wong Kim Ark)

All other persons born in the United States were citizens."

This seems to be making an unsupported editorial assertion similar to the following WRT at least some of these categories of persons -- particularly the final category: "Document A says that Cocker Spaniels and Labradors are dogs.

Therefore, according to Document A, Terriers are not dogs."

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Loss of citizenship
I'm clarifying that restrictions on the ability of the US government to strip anyone of citizenship apply only to citizenship based on the 14th Amendment, and not jure sanguinis citizenship for children of Americans born abroad, which is established only by statute.Gmalcolms (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This section is grossly misleading. It says expatriation must be accompanied by an intent to relinquish "American Citizenship", while the cited case for footnote (26) deals with "US citizenship" of Afroyim. This is misleading in that the Citizenship being renunciated is "US citizenship" which is categorically NOT "American citizenship". ALL "US citizens" hold dual citizenship. They are "citizens of the United States", a democracy (Article I section 8 Clause 17, United States Attorney Manual 664, USC Title 18 section 7 (3)) as well as being "American Citizens". (See Blacks Law dictionary 5th/6th Add. "Dual Citizenship")

The matter is quite clear when you actually read the "act" passed  July 27, 1868. 3 weeks to the day after the 14th was "supposedly" ratified. It is the saving clause and was intended to allow freed slaves become American Citizens and free themselves of "federal subject" status. The "act" is contained in 15 Statute at large 249. Peace 98.206.222.240 (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Senatorial debate on the Citizenship Clause
I have removed the inclusion of Sen. Cowan from Pennsylvania among those who supported Sen. Howard's amendment since there is no evidence from the records of the debate preserved in the Congressional Globe that he did so. In fact, his statements seem to indicate the opposite, namely, he opposed the amendment because he was opposed to granting citizenship, solely because they were born in the United States, to the children of, for example, Chinese and Gypsies. Based on his voting, one can also see that Sen. Cowan preferred Doolittle's alternative proposal, of preserving the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, to that of the amendment proposed by Sen. Howard.Gmalcolms (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done a major rewrite of this section, to accurately reflect the content of the debate, as far as it concerned who qualified to be a citizen under the Amendment. In particular, I've removed the heavy, yet subtle, nativist POV of the earlier version by adding many more quotes with context, without removing the earlier ones. An abbreviated version of this will need to be substituted into the same part of the pages on the 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship, and perhaps jus soli citizenship.Gmalcolms (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Natural-born citizens (again)
It's not at all clear to me that the existing section on "Natural-born citizens" belongs in this article. This article is not about the natural-born-citizen clause; it is about the portion of the 14th Amendment dealing with citizenship. If natural-born citizens are to be discussed here at all, it should only be in the context of whether anything about the Citizenship Clause is relevant (as confirmed via reliable sources) to the definition of a natural-born citizen, or to the interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. — Rich wales 18:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Importance of the "jurisdiction" phrase
I am troubled by [ these recent edits], which appear to me to give undue weight to the necessity of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US as a precondition for being a citizen. That is, these edits make the text sound like the exceptions to jurisdiction may be as important as (or even more important than) the the general principle that birth in the US confers automatic citizenship. What do others think? — Rich wales 17:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The point of "referencing" or "verifying" here is not simply to confirm the obvious fact that the Citizenship Clause contains the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The point is that the interpretation and emphasis being offered by the proposed changes is something that needs to be tied to reliable sources which say that this is what the phrase means and how it is applied.  Stated another way, you need to be looking at books on the history of US constitutional law, and/or legal research articles published in recognized mainstream journals which discuss the way the Citizenship Clause has shaped legal developments in the area of birthright citizenship, and what is added to this article needs to describe material from those kinds of sources (with suitable inline citations).  —  Rich wales 21:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a conditional clause that is part of the Citizenship Clause that immediately follows the phrase "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". The definition of a conditional clause in English language dictionaries and in legal dictionaries with examples such as "on condition", "on condition of", "on condition that", "dependent on", "dependent on a condition or conditions", "depending on", "contingent on", "subject to", "subject to a reveiw", "and subject to", "and subject to the approval of.....", "and subject to the.......", not absolute as in "a conditional award" etc., all express that a condition or conditions, a prerequisite or prerequisites are necessary and are required and must be met or must be fulfilled before a person can be qualified or eligible to receive the desired result. The Citizenship Clause without or excluding the conditional clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside". And the Citizenship Clause that includes the conditional clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside". The fact that the conditional clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" obviously precedes the resulting phrase "are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" indicates that a prequisite condition or prerequisite conditions must be met or fulfilled before a person can be qualified or eligible to receive citizenship in the United States and in the State wherein that person resides. I have only pointed out the fact that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a conditional clause that indicates that there is a prerequisite condition or that there are prerequisite conditions that must be met or fulfilled before a person can be qualified or eligible to receive or to be granted citizenship regardless if that person is naturalized or born in the United States and in the State wherein that person resides. I am not attempting to state or identify what the condition is or what the conditions are that exist in the conditional clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Also, it is impossible for a universal rule or a universal law to exist if there are any type of exceptions to that rule or to that law anywhere at any time. Universal equates to absolute and without exception. Therefore the adjective, general, is a much better and a much more accurate word to describe a rule or a law that does have some exceptions to that "general rule" or to that "general law". I hope this clarifies these issues. It is shocking that there are a few people or that there are perhaps many millions of people who have not identified the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to be a legal conditional clause that is contained within the Citizenship Clause, which might be as a result of people attempting to define and understand the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment exclusively only from a purely political and philosophical point of veiw instead of reading and understanding the Citizenship Clause in the simple and basic English language sentence structure grammatical form that the Citizenship Clause is written in. MorrisonRemickWaite (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I repaired the formatting of your comment above. (Apologies for intruding on your writing, but you had — I assume inadvertently — mangled the formatting so as to make not only your comment, but much of the rest of this section of the talk page, unreadable.)  As for your explanation for your edits, I think I understand what you are saying, but I believe this additional analysis is completely unnecessary for the average person to be able to understand what the text of the Citizenship Clause means.  You could just as validly say (or, in my opinion, not need to say at all) that "born or naturalized in the United States" is a conditional clause specifying a prerequisite that is required and must be met or fulfilled, etc., etc.  Indeed, I propose that this extra verbiage makes the text harder to read and understand, and even if it doesn't require substantiation from reliable sources, I do not believe it is necessary or appropriate.  If there is a consensus of other editors to the effect that this detailed explanation is necessary and desirable, that would be fine — but please don't put this back in simply because you (and only you) believe it belongs.  —  Rich wales 03:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually for you to accept that the adjective universal is accurate to describe a rule or a law that does have obvious exceptions, especially when universal does in fact refer exclusively only to something that is the same no matter what and absolute with no exceptions of any type, is very misleading to all readers. The adjective, general, does a much better job to much more accurately describe the fact that birthright citizenship in the Citizenship Clause is in fact not universal at all because there are some exceptions to the "general" rule or law or statute, regardless of how rare or infrequent those exceptions may occur. Also the average reader, may not understand at all that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is in fact of itself a conditional clause in the truest sense of 100% correct American English sentence structure grammar that was deliberately, intentionally and purposely written as part of the Citizenship Clause. Also, the phrase "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" does not have the conditional keywords to be defined as a conditional clause in any way, shape, form or definition. I do believe it will be a disservice to all readers to refuse to include a simple modified sentence to more accurately and truthfully identify and describe the grammatically correct legal conditional clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by retaining my last grammatical explanation edit(or somthing similar) as it was posted during the last edit that I had attempted which is: [{The conditional clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the Citizenship Clause indicates that there is a condition or conditions that must be met or fulfilled prior to granting citizenship to a child born on U.S. soil or that there are some exceptions to the general rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship}]. Most readers are probably not familiar with the legal importance that any conditional clause does allow for a system of checks and balances to prevent confusion and chaos. The conditional clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is an excellent example of a conditional clause that is meant to prevent confusion and chaos from occurring in an ever increasing population of citizens within the United States, so that the integrity and virtue of citizenship in the United States is maintained to be realistic, practical, sustainable, ethically fair and morally just. What the condition is or what the conditions are is a completely different issue from identifying an obvious gramatically correct conditional clause that is an important part of the Citizenship Clause. It is probably a fact that there are only a few readers who will know and understand that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a legal conditional clause. That is very critical for readers to have an accurate and truthful understanding of the definition and the purpose of the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Thank you for your time to read my reply.MorrisonRemickWaite (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I believe the text of this part of the article is more than adequate as it stands, and I oppose making sweeping changes along the lines you are proposing. I hope we can hear the opinions of other editors on this point, but again, I would not want to see this particular change made again unless it turns out there is a general consensus for it.  I do think it might be appropriate to change the single word "universal" in the existing text, either to "otherwise universal", or to "general", but that's about all.  And please note that I had to repair the formatting of your most recent comment — the biggest problem was that you cannot start a line of wiki-markup text with spaces.  If you want to indent material, you need to start the line with one or more colons.  Also, put your signature (four tildes) only at the end of your remarks.  I recommend you read WP:MARKUP for a description of how to write material in a Wikipedia page.  —  Rich wales 14:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Richwales, but I would add that this language couldn't possibly be considered for inclusion. At the moment it's still unreferenced original research, but the larger issue is that this is a fringe legal view occasionally espoused by those that believe the children of immigrants should not or do not become citizens at birth. That question was settled over a century ago in Lynch v. Clarke and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, yet some prefer to use semantic acrobatics to try to make the case for the opposite.  I don't know whether MorrisonRemickWaite subscribes to this novel theory, but language saying that it is "...meant to prevent confusion and chaos from occurring in an ever increasing population of citizens within the United States, so that the integrity and virtue of citizenship in the United States is maintained to be realistic, practical, sustainable, ethically fair and  morally just" would suggest that they do. In any event, it would be undue weight to include it in an encyclopedia article about the clause itself. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it, it occurs to me that there is a second reading of this phrase. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" could be read as inclusive instead of conditional. An expansion of the clause in this case might read "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." combined with "All persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.". This depends on how you read the clause. I think it's most commonly interpreted as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and, at the time of birth or naturalization, were subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.". But the clause isn't written in a clear manner for either case. Reminds me of the Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller regarding the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," clause. That would genuinely constitute original research, but is food for thought. FA Jon (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

NY Times article on US citizenship law as an acceptable source (or not)
Everyone please take note that I have raised a question on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the appropriateness of this New York Times article as a reliable source for the following statement about the Fourteenth Amendment: "There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment." I believe this reference is acceptable as a source, but an IP editor has deleted it twice (see [ here] and [ here]), over [ my objection], stating in an edit summary that "these sources are editorials and, therefore, do not pass the requirements of a reliable source regardless of any other feature" — an interpretation of WP:NEWSORG which I am not comfortable with in this situation. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Naturalization Clause"
Regarding this reversion, the term "Naturalization Clause" almost always refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. See, for example, these sources:


 * Reyes, Carla. "Naturalization Law, Immigration Flow, and Policy" in Transforming America: Perspectives on U.S. Immigration, Volume 1, p. 149 (Michael LeMay ed., ABC-CLIO, 2013).
 * Gershman, Gary. The Legislative Branch of Federal Government: People, Process, and Politics, p. 432 (ABC-CLIO 2008).

The library web page does not reflect common usage. If anyone would like further reliable sources to back this up, just ask. Incidentally, for a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse, and I think it definitely improves the Wikipedia article to use proper legal terminology. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 is often called the "Naturalization Clause" despite what the library web page says, and the Citizenship Clause rarely if ever goes by that name despite what the library web page says.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with . The two sources he cites appear, to me, to be of much better quality than the web page from a law school library.  Note, in particular, that the Gershman source quotes a SCOTUS opinion (INS v. Chadha), in which Chief Justice Burger refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 as the "Naturalization Clause".  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Additionally, in Afroyim v. Rusk, both the (majority) opinion of the court and the dissent use the phrase "Naturalization Clause" in a way that unambiguously refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. I've found three law journal articles (one by notable legal scholar Garrett Epps) which also use the phrase with this same meaning.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional refs. I'll leave them out for now, since we don't want to overload the first sentence of the article with refs.  Anyway, the Wikipedia article has now been corrected.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the problem in the library web page appears to have originated with a questionable definition of "Naturalization Clause" in the current Black's Law Dictionary. I'm trying to get a clarification from the publishers of this reference work, and I'm also trying to get the people in charge of the library web page to fix the problem at their end.  To early to tell at this stage what, if any, positive results will come from my efforts along these lines.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good luck. It's a for-profit dictionary so make sure we get our fair share.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Discuss it in the body of the article first, then summarize it in the lead. Mercy11 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Ma'am or Sir, immediately as you command, it will be done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's now out of the lead, and into the main text of the article. I must object to your very odd edit summary: "This is a blatant case of WP:POV...."  I have seen some stuff at Wikipedia that is way weirder than this quoted edit summary, but still, perhaps it would be appropriate for me to explicitly deny any POV here.  You seriously think it is POV-pushing to ask that this clause not be called by the name of another clause?  Sheesh.  If you really believe that, please describe what point of view I am allegedly pushing.  Is it pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant, or something else?  I would be fascinated to learn what partisan goal is served by using correct legal terminology.  Moreover, I ask you to please stop removing reliable sources that a majority of editors here at the talk page have agreed belong in this Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This "Naturalization Clause" mixup has apparently been in the Citizenship Clause article ever since it was [ first created in 2007]. As best I can tell, though, the phrase "Naturalization Clause" has repeatedly been used to refer only to Congress's power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the original text of the Constitution).  Although this is a change to the Citizenship Clause article, the appropriateness of the change (correction, really) can be very firmly substantiated; I've found Supreme Court opinions and law journal articles using the phrase "Naturalization Clause" where the context makes it absolutely clear that the phrase refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, and I'll be happy to add these sources to the article if that's what is needed in order to convince people that the change should be made.  The only source I'm currently aware of that equates "Naturalization Clause" with the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause is Black's Law Dictionary — and although Black's is certainly a well-respected legal authority, to the best of my knowledge it doesn't cite any sources supporting this (or any other) definition, so if it comes down to Black's Law Dictionary versus two SCOTUS opinions and three or four law journal articles (at least one of which, btw, was written by Garrett Epps, a respected legal scholar and editor-in-chief of Black's Law Dictionary!), then I believe the appropriate thing for us to do is to go with what the bulk of the reliable sources say, and either ignore Black's on this one, or else indicate that it differs from the other sources but fails to explain why.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means, please feel free to add a footnote mentioning the discrepancy with Black's. I would add the footnote myself, but my edition of Black's is very old.  Maybe if you quote the pertinent statement in the most recent Black's, then I can find it online and can add the footnote to this Wikipedia article about the discrepancy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I must be a super-evil POV-pusher given that I'm trying to contradict the person who started this article in 2007.....Oh wait, that was me in 2007.. I must have had totally different political views then, or something. Ugh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The 10th edition (2014) of Black's Law Dictionary defines "Naturalization Clause" as "The constitutional provision stating that every person born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the United States and of the state of residence. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. See JUS SOLI."  I haven't checked this personally (yet); it was sent to me by someone who maintains the web page which was cited in support of equating "Naturalization Clause" with the Citizenship Clause.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rich. I don't see it online anywhere.  Whichever of us who confirms it first can add a footnote to the Wikipedia article, I guess.  My apologies for making this inadvertent error in 2007.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I laid eyes on the 9th edition of Black's Law Dictionary today (my local law library doesn't have the 10th edition yet), and I augmented the text with this source cite (in addition to several other sources illustrating the use of "Naturalization Clause" as meaning Article I, section 8, clause 4). —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well done. If the 10th edition is radically different, and you have deliberately used the 9th for that reason, then I'm a Monkey's uncle.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The 10th edition says the same thing as the 9th. A reference librarian from the University of Washington law library sent me the text of the definition from the 10th edition, but I can't cite that as a source.  As I said, my local law library doesn't have the 10th edition yet, which is why I cited the 9th instead.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine, you did an excellent job here. (Only paranoid maniacs would conclude otherwise, which is what happened to me once at ArbCom when I cited an old version of Black's Dictionary at another article — from which I am now banned for life.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Pending-changes protection; problems with quote from Senator Jacob Howard
I've enabled pending changes protection on this article. Any edits by a new editor (or someone editing under their IP address without using an account) will not appear to the general readership of Wikipedia until/unless an administrator (or other editor who has been granted the "reviewer" right) approves the edit.

There have been multiple attempts to add to the article a quotation by Jacob M. Howard (a Senator from Michigan, and the original author of the Citizenship Clause). I imagine the user or users in question may feel there is an attempt at censorship going on here; that is not true, and I'm going to try to explain why.

The Howard quotation is accurate to the best of my knowledge — but the way it is being inserted into the article's text is problematic. The source being provided for this quote (14thamendment.us) appears to be a birther blog site, and it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. And the claim that "This quote shows there was no intent to include illegal aliens or foreigners in this amendment" is unsourced original research — the new editor who inserted this claim along with the quote was trying to interpret the meaning or significance of the quote on his own, something we aren't allowed to do. Instead of trying to make a point by including and explaining material directly from a primary source, we need to report on the way the primary source material (the Sen. Howard quote) is discussed and interpreted in secondary sources, such as in legal articles published in recognized journals, and/or in holdings by the US Supreme Court or other courts. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo)  18:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 19:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

allegiance to any foreign sovereignty
source:

quote:
 * The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “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.”
 * Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Have we cited...
 * Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes
 * Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291

Here yet?

The quote above attributed to Bingham bears resemblance to Lyman Trumbull in the cited "1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893":
 * What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

I tried http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14 and then changing 2893 to 1291 in the "turn to image" field but it will only bring me as early as 2881.

Does anyone know why that is? I'd like to be able to verify and cite the Bingham quote that Hewitt mentions if it's true. Ranze (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC):Try http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=052/llcg052.db&recNum=348 Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I may have this wrong, but it looks to me as if Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 can be found at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332. That page is dated March 9, 1866 and, according to this, the first session of the 39th Congress took place between December 4, 1865 and July 28, 1866. That Congressional Globe page documents a statement by Representative John Bingham. However, I don't see the quoted text there. Perhaps I missed it (???). The quoted test is in the third paragraph in the center column of the page (beginning with "I find no fault ...").


 * Also, I see that there is some more discussion about this in the this 2008 Federalist Blog article from which the 2016 American Thinker article cited above got the quote and the cite. That article says that Bingham made the quoted statement while commenting on Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866). According to the Revised Statutes of the United States article, the statutes were not officially codified until June 22, 1874. Representative Bingham's remarks recorded in Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1290-93 concerned consideration of a bill (S. No. 61) titled An act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights and furnish the means for their vindication;. This bill may have eventually led to U.S.Public Law No. 1992; I'm not legally trained and I don't know. The version codified in 1874 can be seen here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see above that I looked at the Senate Journal for info on the 39th Congress. I should have been looking at the House Journal. Information there regarding the March 9 consideration of the S. No. 60 bill and concerning Representative Bingham can be seen beginning here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Citizenship Clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416013437/http://www.travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html to http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The newly added link works. However, the bot incorrectly placed the new link before closing italic marks and a period.  I fixed this formatting error and will report it as a bug.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Censorship !
Wikipedia is  not  allowing  any  quotes  from  the  men who  wrote  the  14th Amendment,  which  is a  clear  violation  of  Wikipedia's  own  rules ! Shame on Wikipedia ! Jurisdiction thereof  means  not  subjects  of  foreign  powers,  we have  many  such quotes,  and Wikipedia  censors  them !47.201.182.47 (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's more complicated than this. We are required (also a Wikipedia rule) to write articles according to a neutral point of view, which (to quote this policy) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.  So, this article should mention Reverdy Johnson's comments from the Senate debate about the 14th Amendment, but not so prominently as to give the impression that his views carry more weight than those expressed by Lyman Trumbull and John Conness.  The article must also acknowledge that US law, at least since the Wong Kim Ark ruling in 1898, has interpreted the Citizenship Clause to include everyone born in the US, with only narrow exceptions that do not generally exclude US-born children of foreigners.  You may personally disagree with this long-standing interpretation, and you may believe Wong Kim Ark has been misunderstood or was simply wrongly decided, but we are required to give the most prominence to the prevailing view, while (to be sure) recognizing dissenting opinions and making it clear that they do not constitute the mainstream position.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I correct  you.  The Supreme Court agreed  with  Wong  only  because  his  father  was  a  legal  immigrant  at  the  time  of Wong's  birth. Also, the quotes of Trumball and  Johnson  which I provided  must  be  included  in Wikipedia. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnson's comments, as it turns out, are already included in footnote 10, and Trumbull's words are in footnote 21. As for whether the reason SCOTUS upheld Wong Kim Ark's claim to citizenship was only because his father was in the US legally, this is a matter of dispute; some experts agree with you, but others do not.  (See the section "Wong Kim Ark and children of illegal aliens" in the Wong Kim Ark article for a lengthy discussion of this point.  It may be OK for the current article (on the Citizenship Clause) to note that differences of opinion exist on this matter, but it would not be OK to say categorically that Wong Kim Ark doesn't apply to US-born children of illegal immigrants.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And the quote you added back into the lead section just now (words of Senator Reverdy Johnson in the definition of jurisdiction) is still inappropriate, IMO, because it gives undue prominence to a specific point of view, in violation of the NPOV policy which I pointed out to you earlier. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnson and Trumball's quotes  are  extremely important  and  should not  be  buried  in  little  footnotes.  They  should  be  explicitly  quoted  in  the  Wikipedia  article  where people  will  see  them. Also,  Johnson's  quote  belongs  where  I  put  it in  the  Introduction  because  it  backs  up  the  first  sentence  in  the  paragraph  and ties  it  together.47.201.182.47 (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your additions along these lines have been reverted (vetoed) three times so far, by three different editors who were concerned about neutrality and undue weight. Your latest edit is pending review by some established editor and is not yet visible to readers in general.  I am not going to revert your latest edit myself because I don't want to be accused of edit warring, but we'll see what others think.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I corrected the sentence that said no Senator disagreed, because Senator Johnson clearly did disagree. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

References 15, 16, and 17 are no good
Refererence 17 to a supposed statement by the President is a dead link and should be removed. References 15 and 16 do not support the sentence at all. See reference 22 where Trumball says exactly the opposite, that Jurisdiction thereof means not subjects of foreign powers. Also, the Citizen Act explicitly excludes subjects of foreign powers, which contradicts the whole sentence. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I found a copy of Johnson's veto message via the Internet Archive web site (web.archive.org) and repaired this dead link. I'm continuing to look at the other issues you've raised.  When you said "the Citizen Act", did you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (the law which the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause was intended to replace)?  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Senator Trumbull's comments in footnotes 15 and 22 actually seem to be consistent with each other, provided you don't force phrases like "not subject to a foreign power" or "not owing allegiance to anyone else" — or even "subject to the jurisdiction [of the US]" — to mean "not considered a citizen / national / subject under the laws of any other country".
 * The plain fact is that the recorded Senate debate on the Citizenship Clause is a bit confusing regarding the question of exactly what "not subject to a foreign power" or "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant to the speakers — whether it meant "subject to US law", or whether it meant "not a citizen / national / subject of any foreign country". Some Senators did clearly state their belief that the new "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language would confer US citizenship on the children of German, Roma ("Gypsy"), and perhaps even Chinese parents.  Some expressed apprehension and even horror at the prospect of children with Chinese, Australian [aboriginal], or "Hottentot" ancestry being given US citizenship, though not enough Senators felt strongly enough about this matter to block the language or demand it be changed.
 * In the end, most of the angst expressed in the Senate debate dealt with whether children born within the Native American tribes would be considered US citizens — basically no one wanted this to happen, and there was debate over whether "subject to the jurisdiction [of the US]" would suffice to prevent this unwanted outcome, but in the end everyone seemed to agree this phrasing would do the job.
 * As for US-born children of foreigners in general, who (with narrow exceptions such as for children of diplomats) were considered subject to US jurisdiction in the sense of being obligated to obey US law and subject to punishment for breaking US law, several Senators acknowledged that this would happen and appear to have been OK with it — and, indeed, some thought it was already happening under the provisions of the existing Civil Rights Act of 1866 — and there wasn't any groundswell of opinion that this was something that must be prevented (except perhaps for children of Chinese).
 * You (and the rest of us) need to be careful not to prooftext a phrase like "not subject to a foreign power" and insist it could only possibly have meant "not claimed as a citizen of a foreign country", without regard to the overall context. Go read the full debate on the Citizenship Clause in the Congressional Record and see what meaning it conveys as a unified whole, and not just as isolated snippets.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I  meant  the  Civil Rights  Act  of  1866,  it  explicitly  excluded  subjects  of  foreign  powers,  which  is  perfectly obvious  in  meaning.  You  are  blurring  things together  into  confusion  where  there  is  none.  Some  of  the  Congressmen  and  the  President  were  apparently  not  aware  the  Civil  Rights  Act  excluded  subjects of  foreign  powers. The  President himself appears  to  have  exceptionally considered  those Chinese  already  living  in   Pacific  states,  and  Gypsies  already  here,  to  be subjects  of  the  USA.  The  bottom line  is   Senator  Johnson's  quote  which  I  inserted  it  says it  all, that  the  The Civil  Rights  Act of  1866  and  the  14th  Amendment  both  exclude  subjects  of  foreign  powers,  perfectly clear,  and  end  of  story. Today's  illegal  aliens  are  subjects  of  other  countries,  mostly  that  of Mexico.47.201.182.47 (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you making a distinction here between the US-born children of legally resident aliens and the children of illegal aliens? That would seem to say that legal alien residents are not "subjects of foreign powers", while illegal aliens are — a result for which I don't see any support in any of the materials we're discussing here.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My answer is Yes, and  that  is  how the Supreme  Court (Wong)  decided it in  1898. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is some seemingly relevant information re "subject to the jurisdiction" buried in a discussion of something else here. A snippet: "Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said 'Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power. No distinction is made there between non-citizens in the U.S. legally and non-citizens in the U.S. illegally. Wong seems to be the current definitive word on the matter regarding their children born in the U.S, though. Quoting from here, with some interpretation by me: "[Acts of Congress or treaties] cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, 'All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

illegal aliens  are  subjects  of foreign  powers,  no matter how  you  cut  it. Their anchor  babies are  therefore not  US  Citizens.47.201.182.47 (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No--foreign governments have zero power over them--and degrading baby Americans is insulting to the Constitution. Rjensen (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They are legally still citizens of Mexico, and therefore subjects of a foreign power.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.182.47 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there are some missing "in my opinion" disclaimers in the preceding assertions and that we're getting pretty far away from WP:TALK here. That said, as I understand it:
 * a Brit visiting the U.S. legally is a British subject.
 * a Brit in the U.S. as a legal permanent resident is a British subject.
 * a Brit in the U.S. illegally is a British subject.
 * a Brit who is a naturalized U.S. citizen is not regarded by the U.S. government as a British subject -- the U.S. government having accepted the renunciation of allegiance made in the Oath of Allegiance (United States). Said Brit may still be regarded by the British government as a British subject.
 * This applies regardless of the age of said Brit.
 * a child born in the U.S. who has a British parent is, with some special-case exceptions, a U.S. citizen by birth and is not regarded by the U.S. government as a British subject, but may still be regarded by the British government as a British subject.
 * This applies similarly from the U.S. perspective to Mexicans, Hondurans, Aghanis, whatever. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Seconding what Wtmitchell just said. And similarly, as far as Mexico is concerned, Mexicans who move to the US are still citizens of Mexico, regardless of whether US law considers them to have come legally or not. I'm really confused now, 47.201.182.47, because at first I thought you were arguing that the Citizenship Clause didn't confer US citizenship on the children of parents who were themselves still citizens / subjects of their old countries and not yet US citizens. That was basically the government's failed argument in the Wong Kim Ark case — that citizenship was to be inherited from one's father via jus sanguinis, and not based on place of birth. There are more than ample references in the Senate debate over the Citizenship Clause to show that this was not the position most of them were taking; see, e.g., Trumbull's comments in footnote 15, or Conness' comments in footnote 19, or Cowan's contrary comments in footnote 20. I can't find anything in the debate record to suggest that the Senators were drawing any sort of distinction here based on whether a child's parents were "legally" in the US or not. If there is some such statement, please specify exactly who said it and where his comments can be found. And for the moment, please don't cite what SCOTUS may have said or implied 30 years later about the legal status of Wong Kim Ark's parents; if what you say is really what the framers of the Citizenship Clause meant, it ought to be possible to find it somewhere in the Senators' own words recorded in 1866. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Citizenship Clause doesn't confer US citizenship on the children of parents who were themselves still citizens / subjects of their old countries and not yet US citizens. Yes that is correct. See Senator Johnson's quote for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.182.47 (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What, then, do you make of Senator Trumbull's comments in footnote 15? ("I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.")  Also, are you saying now that SCOTUS got it 100% wrong in Wong Kim Ark when they rejected the government's argument, which would have denied US citizenship at birth to children of non-citizens without regard to the legal status of the parents?  Previously, you seemed to say that Wong Kim Ark was good law, and that that case supported US citizenship at birth to alien parents, but only if said parents were in the US legally.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But Trumball's statement  in  reference  22  there Trumball says jurisdiction of means not  subjects  of  foreign  powers,  and  this  needs  to be  explicitly quoted  in  the  Wikipedia  article, and not simply buried in a little footnote.  Also,  SCOTUS  only  let  Wong  stay here  because  his  father  was a  legal permanent  resident  at  the  time  of  Wong's  birth. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We already have a quote in the article text from Senator Johnson that says this very same thing (which you yourself added to the "Senate debate" section of the article, btw). But whatever "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", "not subject to any foreign power", "complete jurisdiction", "not owing allegiance to anybody else", or other like phrases may mean, it's hard for me to see how the meaning(s) of those phrases could have been viewed at the time as inconsistent with Trumbull's statement (footnote 15) that "the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens".  Trumbull himself said not only this, but also that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else" (albeit specifically with reference to citizenship for Native Americans, fwiw) — so he evidently didn't see any conflict, which strongly suggests that "not owing allegiance to anybody else" might not in fact have meant to Trumbull what it apparently means to you.
 * As for what you've said about Wong Kim Ark, not only are you still not substantiating your claim that SCOTUS ruled for Wong only because his father was legally in the US, but you've also not given any explanation (as far as I can see) why illegal immigrants are subjects of foreign powers, but legal immigrants are not.   Note that Trumbull himself clarified what he meant when, talking about the idea of citizenship for Native Americans, he said that "It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens" — that is, he said that phrases like "complete jurisdiction" referred to being subject to US law.  Are illegal immigrants, or their US-born children, subject to US law?  If an illegal immigrant, or a US-born child of same, commits a violent crime in the US, do we arrest, prosecute, and send them to prison?  Or do we treat them like foreign diplomats (with "diplomatic immunity" from our laws) and do nothing harsher to them than declare them persona non grata and deport them to their country of origin?  Such people certainly are subject to US law, and thus they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, regardless of the circumstances under which they entered the US, and even if they still have citizenship in their old country.  (My personal opinion, to be sure, but backed up by many legal scholars and by multiple court rulings.)
 * You have repeatedly stated your views here, but your arguments for those views are (as best I can tell) either inconsistent or completely absent. At best, you seem to be relying solely on primary sources — specifically, your interpretation of what the Senators meant in the course of their debate.  Given reasonable uncertainty over exactly what the participants in that debate meant, it is essential that we bring in reliable, published secondary sources to clarify what was meant and to avoid our own novel interpretations of the primary source material.  The same thing applies, I believe, to your interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark decision — as you can see for yourself in the section of that article entitled "Wong Kim Ark and children of illegal aliens", there are some experts who agree with you that the decision applies only to children of legal immigrants, but there are many more experts who say it applies to children of illegal aliens too, and we cannot take your own personal understanding (however sincerely held) on this point as being definitive and trumping all other courts and experts who have said differently.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (inserted -- edit conflict) Also, there is e.g., this, and the doctrine of allegience, and Trumbull's statements about that, and the pages of that source surrounding the one I linked and describing statements made and positions held by others than Trumbull, and other sources. I don't think that WP:NPOV requires us to highlight Trumbill's POV as expressed at one point in time. The task here is not to highlight the POVs we agree with but to come to consensus about how to fit significant content in while respecting WP:DUE,. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I still  think  Trumball's  quote  in  reference 22 should be explicitly quoted in the wikipedia article, in italics, and not just buried in a little footnote. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a brief, relevant excerpt from Trumball's comments as inline text in the article. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This quote of Trumball should be explictly in the Wikipedia article, in italics, and not just simply buried in a little footnote: "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." 47.201.182.47 (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit hesitant to do this, but I'll try expanding the existing quotation from Trumbull. Note that I would object to including the entire Trumbull quote from footnote 22 as inline text in the article, per WP:UNDUE.  I also think, btw, that the entire sentence beginning with "There was no recorded debate over who was encompassed" should be removed, since it seems clear that there was in fact a fair amount of discussion by the Senators on this point.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The entire  quote  of  Trumball  is  extremely important, concise and right to the point. It must be included. "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." 47.201.182.47 (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume you are objecting here to my omitting the bracketed phrase "[the committee reporting the clause]". But if you look at the Congressional Globe transcript of the debate (referenced via footnote 22), this phrase isn't part of what Trumbull actually said — it was added afterwards by someone else recounting Trumbull's words.  Also, your addition of the words "however the Civil Rights Act does explicitly exclude subjects of foreign powers" (after footnotes 15, 16, and 17) is redundant, coming as it does right before comments by Senators Johnson and Trumbull which already say the same thing.  Finally, please note that the man's name was Trumbull (with two U's), not Trumball.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a fundamental contradiction in the Wikipedia article, where it says:
 * three senators, including Trumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on them at birth.[15][16][17] Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland pointed out that subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the proposed amendment undoubtedly meant the same thing as "not subject to some foreign power",[18] and Trumbull asserted that this was already true.
 * - THE CONTRADICTION  here  is  that  it  says  Trumbull asserted  they were  citizens, but  not  citizens.  The full quote of Trumbull, if added  to  Wikipedia would  clarify  his position  unequivocally. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * minor comment: not ideal to refer to references by numbers here, since those can change as references are rearranged on page or when new ones are added prior to it. Better to cite the actual ones you mean WakandaQT (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

English common law v French or International law
Citizenship_Clause:
 * This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli, or "right of the territory"—does not exist in most of Europe, Asia or the Middle East, although it is part of English common law

Even though the United States broke off from England and inherited some laws from it, per France in the American Revolutionary War it seem wrong to assume that the United States would necessarily use English interpretation over French or other European interpretations. Especially since the French Revolution followed (1789-1799) soon after the ARW (1775 to 1783).

Emer_de_Vattel discusses how Law of Nations had been available in English since 1760 and how Ben Franklin in 1775 thanked Dumas for sending him 3 copies of it in French. Franklin:
 * the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary to frequently consult the Law of Nations

The full letter can be found at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0172

This despite Vattel being an international lawyer from Sweden (not England).

Vattel wrote in Section 212:
 * The Citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they participate equally in its advantages.
 * The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are Citizens

There is strangely no mention of Vattel or LON despite Franklin's mentioning his consulting it. Why is this?

It's not like no sources have talked about Vattel's influence:

Vattel mentions in https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/vattel-the-law-of-nations-lf-ed#lfVattel_label_1646 :
 * there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.

Vattel writes this in a paragraph opening with "may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen" and says "this is called naturalization". So Vattel does not acknowledge children born to foreigners as natural-born citizens, but rather, foreigners who are naturalized at birth. WakandaQT (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Potentially of interest, but only if you/we can find reliable sources which discuss ways in which Emerich de Vattel's work has influenced US legal history. Note, in particular, that the Washington Post opinion piece cited here (by J. M. Opal) doesn't even mention citizenship (much less naturalization vs. natural-born citizenship), so it's not relevant to discussion of the meaning of the Citizenship Clause, the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, etc.  Even if evidence suggests that the Founding Fathers were influenced by The Law of Nations, that doesn't allow us to synthesize or extrapolate a conclusion that citizenship-related passages in the Constitution must be interpreted in keeping with de Vattel's ideas.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)