Citizenship Clause (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Citizenship Clause" in English language version.

refsWebsite

Global rank English rank

16loc.gov

70^th place

63^rd place

6justia.com

696^th place

428^th place

5web.archive.org

1^st place

3books.google.com

3^rd place

2state.gov

264^th place

249^th place

1umich.edu

459^th place

360^th place

1nytimes.com

7^th place

1constitutioncenter.org

6,211^th place

3,772^nd place

1nps.gov

135^th place

105^th place

1thenation.com

2,088^th place

1,251^st place

1findlaw.com

1,478^th place

868^th place

books.google.com

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).
Urofsky, Melvin I.; Finkelman, Paul (2002). A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512635-1.
Hu, Sen; Dong, Jlellin, eds. (2010). The Rocky Road to Liberty: A documented history of Chinese immigration and exclusion. Javvin. p. 189. ISBN 9781602670280.

constitutioncenter.org

blog.constitutioncenter.org

NCC Staff (June 2, 2015). "On this day in 1924: All Indians made United States citizens". National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on 14 September 2015. Retrieved 5 September 2015.

findlaw.com

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980): "As we have said, Afroyim requires that the record support a finding that the expatriating act was accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship."

justia.com

supreme.justia.com

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999).
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).

loc.gov

memory.loc.gov

Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 597.
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2896.
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Senator Reverdy Johnson said in the debate: "Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States ... If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2890, 2892-3, 2896.
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2890.
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2897.
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 572. During the debate on the Civil Rights Act, Trumbull stated, "The Senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of a child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment [to the Act] so as to make citizens of all people born in the United States who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might perhaps be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens'; but upon investigation it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily resident in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer."
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 498. The debate on the Civil Rights Act contained the following exchange:

Mr. Cowan: I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?
Mr. Trumbull: Undoubtedly.
...
Mr. Trumbull: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?
Mr. Cowan: I think not.
Mr. Trumbull: 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.
Mr. Cowan: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
Mr. Trumbull: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2891-2.
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, participating in the debate, stated the following: "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." He then proceeded to expound upon what he meant by "complete jurisdiction": "Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? ... We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. ... If we want to control the Navajoes, or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense?. ... Would he [Sen. Doolittle] think of punishing them for instituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? ... It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens."
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893.
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2891. During the debate on the Amendment, Conness declared, "The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate that same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage, whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal Civil Rights with other citizens." He further added that "they [the Chinese] all return to their own country at some time or other".
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2891-2. Cowan expressed concern over the prospect of a state not being able to determine its own citizens. In particular, he identified two groups that he felt were unsuitable for citizenship but would have such bestowed upon their children by the Amendment: Chinese and Gypsies, the latter of which he described thus, "who owe to her [Pennsylvania] no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognized no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own ...; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him, but, on the other hand, have no homes, pretend to own no land, live nowhere, settle as trespassers where ever they go." He subsequently cautioned against adopting the proposed Amendment, "Are these people, by a constitutional amendment, to be put out of the reach of the State in which they live? ... If the mere fact of being born in a country confers that right then they will have it. ... Therefore I think, before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less pestiferous to society than I look upon Gypsies."
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2893-4.
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2895. Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now" and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2894-5.

nps.gov

"1924 Indian Citizenship Act" (PDF). National Park Service. Retrieved 5 September 2015.

nytimes.com

Robert, Pear (1996-08-07). "Citizenship Proposal Faces Obstacle in the Constitution". New York Times.

state.gov

fpc.state.gov

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents (PDF) (Report). Congressional Research Service. August 12, 2010. p. 15 (page 18 of the PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-12-03.

travel.state.gov

U.S. State Department, Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality. Archived April 16, 2009, at the Wayback Machine

thenation.com

Eric Foner, "Birthright Citizenship Is the Good Kind of American Exceptionalism," The Nation Aug. 27, 2015

umich.edu

quod.lib.umich.edu

Opinion of Attorney General Edward Bates, November 29, 1862.

web.archive.org

See veto message by President Andrew Johnson
NCC Staff (June 2, 2015). "On this day in 1924: All Indians made United States citizens". National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on 14 September 2015. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents (PDF) (Report). Congressional Research Service. August 12, 2010. p. 15 (page 18 of the PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-12-03.
U.S. State Department, Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality. Archived April 16, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
"7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency". Archived from the original on 2016-02-20. Retrieved 2015-12-14.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)