Are you saying that there is no other way to get U.S. citizenship? It makes me wonder how did parents of John McCain get their citizenship etc.
I do realize that each state is also a sovereign republic. At least in theory. I mean Louisiana is not an international player compared to say Germany or Argentina. And there is no president of Louisiana, only a governor. So it looks like a scaled down version of a republic.
Keep them facts coming. For example I had no idea that John McCain is a citizen of U.S. and a lot of common folks are not.
You get citizenship either by being born in a state. Thus being a citizen of a state.
Or through the 14th amendment. Being born to U.S. parents outside the states.
Or through gaining your green card.
Note, that those who are not born in a state, are citizens of the federal government. Not to a state and are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.
Citizenship and civil rights
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Citizenship Clause
The purpose of the Citizenship Clause was to provide citizenship to former slaves born in the United States.
During the original debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause described the clause as . . . excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
The meaning was tested as to whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality, in the case of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the parents were Native American. The Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens despite the fact that they were born in the United States.
The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), regarding children of Chinese citizens born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.[2]
The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[3] Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment,[4] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[5] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)[6] and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).[7] Nevertheless, some claim that the Congress possesses the power to exclude such children from US citizenship by legislation.[4]
The Constitution does not explicitly provide any procedure for loss of United States citizenship. Loss of U.S. citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:
Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically, this is not loss of citizenship but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a U.S. citizen.
Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions which demonstrate an intent to give up U.S. citizenship.
For a long time, voluntary acquisition or exercise of a foreign citizenship was considered sufficient cause for revocation of U.S. citizenship.[8] This concept was enshrined in a series of treaties between the United States and other countries (the Bancroft Treaties). However, the Supreme Court repudiated this concept in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), as well as Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship.
And the states or not republics in "theory".
Their sovereignty has been usurpt by the federal government illegally.
The southern states have been considered conquered territory, and thus its people or considered "subjects" to the conqueror.
But that is only true to those who wish to be subjects.
Supposedly, when they states were readmitted to the union, the status of their citizens were to be reestablished also.
What happened "in theory" is that the freed slaves were given privileges as U.S. citizens from the U.S. government, as they were under its jurisdiction, and the slaves did not have the sames rights as those who were citizens of the states.
But, using the equal treatment under the law.... the federal government made everyone the same as freed men of slavery.
How?
Where did marriage licenses come from?
If a black person wanted to marry a white person, they needed permission from the government.
Thus a permit was needed for them to marry.
Well, that isn't equal treatment under the law... so thus, everyone was required to get permission from the state to marry.
Basically, everyone was brought to the same status as the federal citizen under the idea of equal treatment under the law, instead of the former slave being elevated to citizens of the state.
The Congress also passed the Fourteenth Amendment in response to the Black Codes that southern states had passed in the wake of the Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery in the United States. Those laws attempted to return freed slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement and by preventing them from suing or testifying in court.
Prior to the adoption of this Amendment, the Bill of Rights had been held by the Supreme Court to not apply to the States.[9] While many states modeled their constitutions and laws after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. According to some commentators, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the individual rights the federal government was already required to respect in the Bill of Rights and in other constitutional provisions; all of these rights were likely understood to fall within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the Amendment.[10] However, the Supreme Court limited the reach of the Amendment by holding in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was limited to "privileges or immunities" granted to citizens by the federal government in virtue of national citizenship. The Court further held in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) that the Amendment was limited to "state action" and thus did not authorize the Congress to outlaw racial discrimination on the part of private individuals or organizations. Neither of these decisions has been overturned and in fact have been specifically reaffirmed several times.[11]
In the decades following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned laws barring blacks from juries (Strauder v. West Virginia (1880)) or discriminating against Chinese-Americans in the regulation of laundry businesses (Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)), under the aegis of the Equal Protection Clause.
Beginning in the 1880s, the Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause as providing substantive protection to private contracts and thus prohibiting a range of social and economic regulation. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protected "freedom of contract" or the right of employees and employers to bargain for wages without great interference from the state. Thus, the Court struck down a law decreeing maximum hours for workers in a bakery in Lochner v. New York (1905) and struck down a minimum wage law in Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923). The Court did uphold some economic regulation, however, including state prohibition laws (Mugler v. Kansas), laws declaring maximum hours for mine workers (Holden v. Hardy (1898)), laws declaring maximum hours for female workers (Muller v. Oregon (1908)), President Wilson's intervention in a railroad strike (Wilson v. New (1917)), as well as federal laws regulating narcotics (United States v. Doremus (1919)).
The Court overruled Lochner, Adkins, and other precedents protecting "liberty of contract" in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), decided in the midst of the New Deal and in the shadow of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's threats to "pack the court" following a series of decisions holding other New Deal legislation unconstitutional. Whether the threat actually caused Justice Roberts to change his vote—some people at the time joked "a switch in time saved nine"—is still debated; Roosevelt's proposal to expand the Court was defeated.
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court held that the states could impose segregation so long as they provided equivalent facilities—the genesis of the "separate but equal" doctrine. The popular understanding of what was encompassed under "civil rights" was much more restricted during the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification than the present understanding, involving such things as equal treatment in criminal and civil court, in sentencing, and in availability of civil services if they apply.
The Court went even further in restricting the Equal Protection Clause in Berea College v. Kentucky (1908), holding that the states could force private actors to discriminate by prohibiting an integrated college from admitting both black and white students. By the early twentieth century, the Equal Protection Clause had been eclipsed to the point that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. dismissed it as "the usual last resort of constitutional arguments."[12]
Your view of the U.S. government as everyone's source of rights and authorities is perverted.
Its obscene.
Disgusting. and is widely held view by modern day ignorant masses.
How?
What does your high school text books teach you?
Abraham Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents.
He fought to abolish slavery.
The states are wards to the federal government.
We live in a democracy.
That andrew jackson was a drunken fool.
thomas jefferson was nothing but a slave owner.
FDR was one of our greatest presidents.
etc.
You haven't provided one constitution citation to back your federal citizenship for all people. And I am still waiting to find the secret passage I have skipped over so many times.
