PART ONE
TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS
AMERICAN NATIONALS AT BIRTH AMERICA DISOWNED
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COLONIAL MENTALITY AND THE RIGHT TO U.S. CITIZENSHIP
B. TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS MANDATED BY LAW TO OWE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES ARE AMERICAN NATIONALS AT BIRTH NOT ALIENS OF FOREIGN BIRTH
C. THE STATUS OF TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS AS “NON-CITIZEN NATIONALS OF THE UNITED STATES” AT BIRTH WAS A “CONVENIENT CONSTRUCT” AND “A TERM OF ART” TO RECOGNIZE THEM AS “MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY” AND TO DISTINGUISH THEM FROM “ALIENS” OF FOREIGN BIRTH
D. UNDER THE 1934 PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE ACT, TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS WHO ACQUIRED AMERICAN NATIONALITY AT BIRTH ARE MANDATED TO CONTINUE TO “OWE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES” BUT, UNBELIEVABLY, ARE ALSO TO “BE CONSIDERED AS IF THEY WERE ALIENS”
E. DESIGNATING TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS AS ALIENS IN THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE ACT WAS INTENDED TO ANNUL AND INVALIDATE COURT DECISIONS RECOGNIZING THEIR STATUS AS AMERICAN NATIONALS AT BIRTH
F. TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS ARE STATELESS AT BIRTH AND SLAVE-BORN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART TWO
TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS
NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. THE PHRASE “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF” IS READ OFFICIALLY AND JUDICIALLY AS A “QUALIFYING PHRASE” OF THE ELEMENT PRECEDING IT, “ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES”
B. U.S. CIRCUIT COURTS REJECT THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE WORDS “IN THE UNITED STATES” INCLUDE THE TERRITORY OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
C. TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS CHALLENGE THE PREVAILING OFFICIAL AND JUDICIAL READING OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE
D. THE CONJUNCTION “OR” JOINS THE WORDS “BORN” AND “NATURALIZED”
E. THE WORDS “OR NATURALIZED” WERE INSERTED LATER
F. THE PHRASE “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF” IS ENCLOSED WITHIN A PAIR OF COMMAS
G. COMPARING THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE WITH A SIMILAR PROVISION IN THE 1866 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT ENACTED TWO MONTHS EARLIER BY THE SAME 39TH CONGRESS
H. THE PHRASE “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF” IS NON-RESTRICTIVE
I. THE PHRASE “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF” IS THE SECOND OF A COMPOUND SUBJECT
J. THE PHRASE “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF” IS AN ELLIPTICAL
K. U.S. SENATE DEBATE CONFIRMS THE PHRASE “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF” TO BE AN ELLIPTICAL FOR “ALL PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES”
L. THE ELLIPTICAL PHRASE “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF” DEFINES A STILL-UNRECOGNIZED CATEGORY OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES—“ALL PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES”
M. TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS ARE PERSONS “SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES”
N. UNDER THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE, TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS (THE ANTENATI AND THE POSTNATI) ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART THREE
TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS
PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE IS “DECLARATORY OF … THE LAW OF THE LAND ALREADY … BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL LAW AND NATIONAL LAW,” AFFIRMING THE COMMON LAW BIRTHRIGHT RULE--“BIRTH WITHIN THE REALM AND WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE”
01. Natural Law--The Common Law Rule on Birthright Citizenship.
02. “National Law”--Birth Within the Realm and Within the Allegiance.
03. The Law of the Land.
B. THE SECOND CATEGORY IN THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE, “ALL PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES,” DOES NOT REFER TO A DEFINED TERRITORIAL LIMITATION BUT TO “PERSONS OWING ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES”
C. THE SECOND CATEGORY IN THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE, “ALL PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES,” WAS PHRASED TO “INCLUDE EVERY OTHER CLASS OF PERSONS”
01. Children of U.S. citizens born abroad.
02. Children of U.S. born female citizen married to a foreigner.
03. Persons in the Territories or in the District of Columbia.
D. THE SECOND CATEGORY IN THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE, “ALL PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES,” CONFERS U.S CITIZENSHIP UPON PERSONS NOT ONLY AT BIRTH BUT ALSO AFTER BIRTH
01. The “Antenati”
02. The “Post Nati”
E. THE PHRASE “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF” WAS NOT INTENDED, AS CLAIMED OFFICIALLY AND JUDICIALLY, TO DISQUALIFY THE “RECOGNIZED EXCEPTIONS” UNDER COMMON LAW
01. Children of diplomats are already excluded in the Jus Soli principle.
02. It was Justice Miller--not the author Senator Howard--who said that the phrase was intended to exclude the children of diplomats.
03. It was not necessary to provide for the “recognized exceptions.”
04. If the phrase was intended to exclude the children of diplomats, why not exclude the children of “aliens” as well?
F. SENATOR DOOLITTLE’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT, “EXCLUDING INDIANS NOT TAXED,” WAS DIRECTED AT QUALIFYING THE SECOND CATEGORY IN THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE, “ALL PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES,” AND NOT THE FIRST, “ALL PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.”
01. Doolittle’s amendment “excluding Indians not taxed.”
02. The Second category acts as a constitutional “Collective Naturalization.”
03. The “Collective Naturalization” of Puerto Ricans and Guamanians was unnecessary.
04. The Second category avoids the difficulty of the “antenati” encountered in Calvin’s Case of the “Post Nati.”
G. IT IS THE “ALLEGIANCE” OF PERSONS “SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION” OF THE UNITED STATES” THAT DISTINGUISHES THEM FROM PERSONS “WITHIN THE JURISDICTION” OF A STATE OR THE UNITED STATES, OR PERSONS “SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER”
01. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”:
02. The phrase “within its jurisdiction”:
03. The phrase “subject to any foreign power”:
04. The phrase “and not subject to any foreign power” should NOT be regarded as synonymous with the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
05. The “ascriptive” as distinguished from the “consensual” view of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
H. THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE IN THE FOURTEENTH IS WORDED TO APPLY TO “ANY PLACE” AND TO “ALL PERSONS” “SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES”
I. HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE 13TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS IN RELATION TO TERRITORIES.
J. WHO WERE THOSE “PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES” UNDER THE SECOND CATEGORY UPON THE ENACTMENT BY THE 39TH CONGRESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE IN 1866?
01. District of Columbia
02. The 12 territories awaiting statehood,
03. The 11 States that seceded to form the Confederate States of America,
K. THE FIRST U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE SUGGESTS THAT THE PHRASE “IN THE UNITED STATES” INCLUDES “THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA” AND “THE TERRITORIES” BUT DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE REASON WHY
L. UNDER THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE, ABORIGINAL INDIANS QUALIFY TO BE U.S. CITIZENS ONLY UNDER A TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES THAT COLLECTIVELY RENDERS THEM “SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF”
01. Senator Doolittle’s Amendment, “excluding Indians not taxed,” was proposed to qualify the Second category.
M. UNDER THE SECOND CATEGORY, CHILDREN OF U.S. CITIZENS BORN ABROAD ACQUIRE THE STATUS OF NATURAL BORN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSISTENT WITH THE “NATIONAL LAW” IN FORCE IN 1866
01. Would Senator John McCain qualify as “natural-born” under the official and judicial reading?
02. The Second Category as Jus Sanguinis.
N. THE TERRITORIAL CLAUSE IS INVOKED TO JUSTIFY THE INSULAR CASES AND THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATED TERRITORY
01. The Insular Cases.
02. Dissent in the Insular Cases.
03. Court Decisions after the Insular Cases.
04. The “occult meaning” of the Doctrine of Incorporated Territory the Insular Cases enunciated.
O. UPON THE RATIFICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE TERRITORIAL CLAUSE APPLIES ONLY TO “TERRITORY” NOT TO “PERSONS” RESIDING OR BORN IN TERRITORY WHO ARE “SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES”
01. The Territorial Clause speaks of “PROPERTY” NOT of “PERSONS”.
02. The Second category in the Citizenship Clause does NOT speak of “TERRITORY” but of “PERSONS.”
03. Territorial Clause is relied on to justify Citizenship by “federal statute.”
P. THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE NATURALIZATION CLAUSE TO TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS
Q. ARTICLE IX OF THE 1898 TREATY OF PARIS AUTHORIZING CONGRESS TO DETERMINE THE “POLITICAL STATUS” OF TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS IS VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL BIRTHRIGHT ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP OF “PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES”
01. A treaty provision cannot annul a constitutional command.
02. Unlike treaties with the Indian aboriginals, the Treaty of Paris was entered into by and between the United States and the Spanish Crown with no representation from Territorial Filipinos.
R. PROVISIONS OF THE 1934 PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE ACT UNILATERALLY DENATIONALIZE TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS WHO WERE BORN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE SECOND CATEGORY OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE, AND RENDER THEM STATELESS AT BIRTH
S. SUMMARY OF THE CONFUSION AND CONTRADICTIONS THE MISREADING OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE ENGENDERED
01. The Second category, which is consistent with what Senator Howard said that his draft of the Clause “will include every other class of persons,” resolves the various Immigration and naturalization controversies in the past concerning the status of the following:
02. The inapplicability of the Territorial Clause and the Naturalization Clause to Territorial Filipinos, natural-born citizens of the United States under the Second category in the Citizenship Clause, grammatically read as intended
03. The unconstitutionality of the provisions of the 1898 Treaty of Paris and the 1934 Philippine Independence Act downgrading the political status Territorial Filipinos acquired under the Citizenship Clause, grammatically read as intended
04. The Schemes concocted to deny Fourteenth Amendment Birthright to Territorial Filipinos.
05. Territorial Filipinos were rendered STATELESS AT BIRTH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART FOUR
TERRITORIAL FILIPINOS
PERSONS MANDATED TO OWE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES
(Under construction)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment