“The Government is without power to take citizenship away from a native-born or lawfully naturalized American. The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes that this priceless right is immune from the exercise of governmental powers…the Court also has its duties, none of which demands more diligent performance than that of protecting the fundamental rights of individuals. That duty is imperative when the citizenship of an American is at stake --that status which alone assures him the full enjoyment of the precious rights conferred by our Constitution." Perez v. Brownel, U.S. Supreme Court

"The duties of citizenship are numerous, and the discharge of many of these obligations is essential to the security and wellbeing of the Nation…Deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the Government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be…[denying the citizenship birth right is] offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands. It subjects the individual to a fate of everincreasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people. He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of democracies.” U.S. Supreme Court

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of [citizenship], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the
principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.” United State Supreme Court

What this means is that the Framers of the Constitution—most of them not born within the jurisdiction of the United States—followed the maxim “protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem” which was the principle behind citizenship. This concept for you to find.

Those who want to negate the constitutional birth right of a person have to disprove what has already been established as a fact in the highest court of the land. The term citizenship is not just a word, it is a concept with legal roots in principles that extend beyond the birth of the United States of America.

It strikes me of odd that people in the United States are still wondering what constitutes to be a citizen. Citizenship is a right obtained either by birth, by transfer or by choice. Citizenship by birth is technically called “jus soli” citizenship, citizenship by transfer is called “jus sanguinis” citizenship, and citizenship by choice is attained by applying for citizenship through a process of naturalization. No citizen in the United States can lose his citizenship easily, in contrast, citizenship can only be lost by self declaration. It is illegal for the United States to enact laws that would take the right of citizenship in any other form.

For those who have mislead the readers, most countries recognize each of the citizenship concepts seen above. Citizenship by birth is a right obtained at the time of birth and is a compact between the individual and the country that saw his or her birth. Jus soli Citizenship is a social compact between the individual and the country and has nothing to do with the parents of the individual. This concept goes as far as the Greeks, the Romans and the concept was frther explored in the 1600s.

However, if you are interested to really understand this concept, please read the United States Supreme Court opinions related to U.S. citizenship, particularly “jus soli” citizenship. The most important case describing this was United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where Justice Gray explains the concept, what constitutes citizenship in the United States, how is the right of citizenship attained, how this right gave power to the Constitution, how the constitution guarantees the birth right of citizenship attained by a person, how the Constitution obtained its powers from the power that people have to attain their citizenship. No law can be enacted or passed in regards of taking away the birth right of citizenship because it in essence is unconstitutional. The Constitution of the United States does not have the power and does not give any one the power to limit the citizenship attained by being born in the United States juridiction.

This may be a hard concept for some to grasp, or accept, but the fact that we are considering not to uphold this right and principle in the United States is of concern. My generation is distroying the concept of citizenship to rob citizens of their birth rights just because they are labeled socially as undesirable people. We are destroying the concept of citizenship because we do not understand it and we are too lazy to understand it. This is in concecuence dangerous for everyone because if we give permission to the legislature to do what some sugest, it gives the government the power to also ellect who can and who cannot be a citizen by birth. Note I say, it gives the government, not the people, the power to ellect. That means a government clerk in an office may decide.

If you are more interested in learning what is citizenship and learn the struggle Americans have endure to preserve it, there is some reading to do. What some have offered to do has been done already and then deemed unconstitutional. Please read the following references.

Doe d. Duroure v. Jones 4 T.R. 300, 100 E.R. 1031 (1791).
Osborn v. Bank of the United States 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 738 (1824)
Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. (19 How) 393 (1857)
Udny v. Udny L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441 1869
The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. (16 Wall) 36 (1873)
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. (21 Wall) 162 (1874)
Moore v. United States 91 U.S. 270 (1875)
Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 (1879)
Ex parte Virginia 100 U.S. 339 (1879)
Neal v. Delaware 103 U.S. 370 (1880)
Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
Ex parte Wilson 114 U.S. 417 (1885)
Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
Smith v. Alabama 124 U.S. 465 (1888)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Milwaukee County v. M.E. White Co. 296 U.S. 268 (1935)
Magnolia Petroleum Co v. Hunt 320 U.S. 430 (1943)
Order of United Commercial Travelers
v. Wolfe
331 U.S. 586 (1947)
Hughes v. Fetter 341 U.S. 609 (1951)
Mah Toi v. Brownell 219 F.2d 642 (1955)
Lee Hong Lung v. Dulles 261 F.2d 719 (1958)
Perez v. Brownell 356 U.S. 44 (1958)
Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Howlett v. Rose 496 U.S. 356 (1990)
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. 514 U.S. 211 (1995)

I leave you with some thoughts directly from the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The question is now settled by the Fourteenth Amendment itself, that citizenship of the
United States is the primary citizenship in this country, and that state citizenship is secondary and derivative, depending upon citizenship of
the United States and the citizen's place of residence. The States have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any
classes or persons."

“[the Fourteenth Amendment] recognizes in express terms, if it does not create, citizens of the United
States, and it makes their citizenship dependent upon the place of their birth, or the fact of their adoption, and not upon the constitution or
laws of any State or the condition of their ancestry.”

“The language employed [in the Fourteenth Amendment] is unqualified in its scope. There is no exception in its terms, and there can be properly none in their application. By the language "citizens of the United States" was meant all such citizens, and by "any person" was meant all persons within the jurisdiction of the State. No distinction is intimated on account of race or color. This court has no authority to interpolate a limitation that is neither expressed nor
implied. Our duty is to execute the law, not to make it. The protection provided was not intended to be confined to those of any particular race or class, but to embrace equally all races, classes and conditions of men.”

Allegiance and protection are in relation to citizenship “reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,
it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens
also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as
citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts,
but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the
jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”