“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James MadisonLet's see if Slopuke can understand this. 5 to 1 says he can't! LMAO
Many make the silly mistake of confusing temporary allegiance to a countries laws under the law of nations with that of allegiance to a nation. In school we pledge allegiance to the flag and the “Republic for which it stands,” not pledge our allegiance to local traffic laws. No one during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries confused owing allegiance to the laws with that of owing allegiance to a nation.
Many make the idiotic mistake of conflating allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship, the "Pledge of Allegiance" notwithstanding.
A person born in the US, even of ordinary alien parents, owes immediate allegiance to the United States and is bound by the tie of natural allegiance and is a natural born citizen. Such a person, born in the US under the jurisdiction of the United States, is born a citizen according to the 14th Amendment.
The court in Gardner v. Ward was wrong?
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805)
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.
Zephaniah Swift was wrong?
“that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term ‘citizenship.’” A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: Zephaniah Swift, In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795).
The high court of Kentucky was wrong in 1822?
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
The Oregon District Court was wrong?
Ex parte Chin King 13 Sawyer 333 (Oregon District June 25, 1888).“By the common law, a child born within the allegiance —the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents.”
Supreme Court Justice Noah H. Swayne was wrong, along with the concurring judges in the appellate court of Kentucky?
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.… We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.” U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb.U.S. 28, 1 Am. Law T. Rep. U.S. Cts. 22, 7 Am. Law Reg.(N.S.) 233, 27 F.Cas. 785, No. 16,151 (C.C.D.Ky. 1866)