That's how to describe, without intending disrespect, the over-a-century-old grammatically incorrect view laid down in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) of the phrase enclosed between a pair of commas, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and it is this erroneous reading of the phrase that conveniently justified the racism, the birthplace prejudice of denying the recognition--as citizens of the United States--of persons born or residing in the Philippine Islands, a territory over which the United States exercised all rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction during the American territorial period (1898-1946), following its acquisition by purchase from the Spanish Crown for $20 million under Article III of the 1898 Treaty of Paris (with Puerto Rico and Guam ceded as "spoils of war").
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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."
--Citizenship Clause in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment

“The real object in qualifying the words ‘All persons born in the United States’ by the addition ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ would appear to have been to exclude … the two classes of cases--children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state.”
--Justice Horace Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

"Enclose parenthetic expressions between commas."
“If a parenthetic expression is preceded by a conjunction, place the first comma before the conjunction, not after it.”
--William Strunk, Jr. in The Elements of Style (1918)

“In the grammar of a sentence, an ellipsis or elliptical construction is a construction that lacks an element that is, nevertheless, recoverable or inferable from the context. The elliptical construction is a sequence of words in which some words have been omitted. Because of the logic or pattern of the entire sentence, it is easy to infer what the missing words are.”
--See Wikipedia, Ellipsis (Linguistics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_(linguistics)

"But, sir, the Senator has drawn me off from the immediate question before the Senate. The immediate question is whether the language, which he [Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, author of the Citizenship Clause] uses, 'all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' includes these Indians. I maintain that it does."
--Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin, Citizenship Clause debate (1866)

FIRST QUESTION PRESENTED

Rather than act as a "qualifying" phrase of the element preceding it, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States," as viewed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), was the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment--that Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin quoted during the debate to read "all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"--intended grammatically to act instead as the SECOND of a COMPOUND subject of the clause that the author, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, structured as an ELLIPTICAL, by enclosing the phrase between a PAIR OF COMMAS and inserting the crucial FIRST comma before the conjunction "and" (the second before the linking verb "are"), thereby allowing the main noun phrase, "all persons," common to both subjects, to be omitted rather than to be stated or repeated for brevity or style?

------------------------------------------------------------------"
It is neither the climate nor the soil but allegiance and obedience that make the subject born."
--Sir Edward Coke in Calvin's Case (1608)

"... 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."
--Justice Samuel Sewall (Massachusetts) in Gardner v. Ward (1805)

"All persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens."
--Justice Hoah Haynes Swayne in U.S. v. Rhodes (1866)

“Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship) reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance."
--Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1874)

"... though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of England."
--A. V. Dicey in Conflict of Laws (1896)

"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance."
--Justice Horace Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)


Cartoon of Aguinaldo asking U.S. anti-imperialists to sign the Oath of Allegiance.
Harper's Weekly, April 13, 1901, reprinted Literary Digest, April 20, 1901.
(http://historicaltextarchive.com/images/aguioath.gif)

"What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
--Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, Citizenship Clause debate (1866)

SECOND QUESTION PRESENTED

Other than the category of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States," is the "language which he [Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, the author of the Citizenship Clause] uses"--"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," that Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin quoted to read "all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois clarified to mean "Not owing allegiance to anybody else"--intended, grammatically, to define a still-unrecognized, sadly overlooked SECOND category of citizens of the United States: "All persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"--or all persons owing allegiance to the United States--AT BIRTH or AFTER BIRTH, rather than to act as a "qualifying" phrase of the element preceding it, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States" as claimed in Wong Kim Ark?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (Note: The words "or naturalized" are not included.")
--Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, Author, Citizenship Clause (1866))

"I move, therefore, to amend the amendment--I presume he will have no objection to it--by inserting after the word "thereof" the words "excluding Indians not taxed." The amendment would then read:

"All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
--Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin, Citizenship Clause Debate (1866)

"Suppose we adopt the amendment as suggested by [Senator Doolittle] … all that would remain to be done on the part of any State would be to impose a tax upon the Indians … in order to make them citizens of the United States … That would be the direct effect of his amendment if it should be adopted. It would, in short, be a naturalization, whenever the State saw it fit to impose a tax upon the Indians."

“The great objection, therefore, to the amendment is, that it is an actual naturalization, whenever the State sees fit to enact a naturalization law in reference to the Indians in the shape of the imposition of a tax of the whole Indian population within their limits."

"But the great objection to the amendment to the amendment is that it is an unconscious attempt on the part of my friend from Wisconsin to naturalize all the Indians within the limits of the United States. I do not agree to that … I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relationship, are to become my fellow-citizens.”
--Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, Author, Citizenship Clause (1866)

"I desire to insert in the first section, by general consent, after the word "born," the words "or naturalized"; so that the clause will read:

"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." ("The amendment was agreed to.")
--Senator William Pitt Fessenden of Maine, Amendment to Citizenship Clause (1866)

THIRD QUESTION PRESENTED

Since the words "or naturalized" were not included in the original draft of the Citizenship Clause that was debated and "agreed to" during the same day the author, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, submitted it on May 30, 1866, and were inserted only a week later on June 8, 1866, upon motion of Senator William Pitt Fessenden of Maine, why would the author contradict himself by mentioning the term "naturalization" several times over during the debate in objecting to Wisconsin Senator James Doolittle's proposal to insert the words "excluding Indians not taxed" in his draft of the Clause, arguing that the “direct effect” of Senator Doolittle’s proposal “would, in short, be a naturalization” or “an unconscious attempt … to naturalize all the Indians,” tantamount to “a sweeping act of naturalization,” which, as defined, is the process of acquiring citizenship only AFTER BIRTH, if, as claimed under Wong Kim Ark, the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the clause acts merely as a "qualifying" phrase of the element preceding it, "All persons born," or AT BIRTH? Is it because the author was actually referring instead to those who belong to the SECOND category of the clause he crafted, particularly--"all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" AFTER BIRTH--who would automatically be "naturalized" by virtue of Senator Doolittle's proposed amendment, "excluding Indians not taxed," the moment a State imposes a tax upon the Indians (already "born") residing there?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The Philippines thereby ceased, in the language of the treaty [of Paris] to be foreign country ... The result was the same although there was no stipulation that the native inhabitants should be incorporated into the body politic, and none securing to them the right to choose their nationality. Their allegiance became due to the United States, and they became entitled to its protection."
-- Chief Justice Melville Fuller in Fourteen Diamond Rings v. U.S. (1901)

"... the government of the Philippines owes its existence wholly to the United States, and its judicial tribunals exert all their powers by authority of the United States. The jurisdiction and authority of the United States over that territory and its inhabitants, for all legitimate purposes of government, is paramount."
--Justice John Marshall Harlan in Grafton v. U.S. (1907)

“NOW, THEREFORE, I, HARRY S. TRUMAN, President of the United States of America … do proclaim that … The United States of America hereby withdraws and surrenders all rights of possession, supervision, jurisdiction, control, or sovereignty now existing and exercised by the United States of America in and over the territory and people of the Philippines.”
--U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Proclamation 2695 (1946), Independence of the Philippines

FOURTH QUESTION PRESENTED

Does this now-forgotten SECOND category of citizens of the United States the Citizenship Clause confers--"All persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"--apply to the "native inhabitants" of the Philippine Islands whose "allegiance became due to the United States" (Fourteen Diamond Rings v. U.S.) upon the exchange of ratifications of the Treaty of Paris and to their children as well born subsequent thereto throughout the entire American territorial period (1898-1946), during which "the jurisdiction and authority of the United States over that territory and its inhabitants, for all legitimate purposes of government [was] paramount" (Grafton v. U.S.), having exercised during that period "all rights of possession, supervision, jurisdiction, control, or sovereignty ... in and over the territory and people of the Philippines" (President Truman, Independence of the Philippines Proclamation)?

------------------------------------------------------------------
"All citizens of the Philippine Islands shall owe allegiance to the United States ...

"For the purposes of … all other laws of the United States relating to the immigration, exclusion, or expulsion of aliens, citizens of the Philippine Islands … shall be considered as if they were aliens. For such purposes the Philippine Islands shall be considered as a separate country ...

"Upon the final and complete withdrawal of American sovereignty over the Philippine Islands the immigration laws of the United States (including all the provisions thereof relating to persons ineligible to citizenship) shall apply to persons who were born in the Philippine Islands to the same extent as in the case of other foreign countries."
--Philippine Independence Act or the Tydings-Mcduffie Law (1934)

“(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
”(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality …”
--Section 15, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN General Assembly (1948)

“The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality.”
--Principle 3, Declaration of the Rights of the Child, UN General Assembly (1959)

"People may also be stateless if they are members of a group which is denied citizen status in the country on whose territory they are born."
--See Wikipedia, Statelessness, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness

“In this great struggle of the Pacific, the loyal Americans of the Philippine Islands are called upon to play a crucial role ... It is not for me or for the people of this country to tell you where your duty lies. We are engaged in a great and common cause. I count on every Philippine man, woman, and child to do their duty. We will do ours.”
--President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message of Support to the Philippines, December 28, 1941 (two weeks after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor)

FIFTH QUESTION PRESENTED

Since the Philippine Islands under the Tydings-McDuffie Law "shall be considered as a separate country" (although still an "insular possession" of the United States and not yet independent at the time the law was enacted in 1934) and the "citizens of the Philippine Islands ... shall be considered as if they were aliens" (subject to harsh U.S. immigration laws and worded strangely enough in the subjunctive mood, "as if ... were," contrary to fact), yet, unbelievably, mandated under this same law to continue to "owe allegiance to the United States," such that, under this law, "persons who were born in the Philippine Islands are to be considered to the same extent as in the case of [birth occurring in] other foreign countries" (again, contrary to fact, for the Philippine Islands was not yet recognized as a "foreign" country at the time they "were born"); so, disowned and despised, designated with the unique oxymoron "identity" of "aliens owing allegiance to the United States," in what country were "citizens of the Philippine Islands" born (as differentiated, of course, from citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, an independent country, separate from the United States, recognized only in 1946 after all of them "were born") or, simply put, even if it be conceded that the law had declared them all as having been "born stateless"--legally, that is, but enacted ex post facto, after they "were born"--what was their historical "country of birth," a "country" they could actually call as their own at the moment of birth, a "country" whose President called upon "every Philippine man, woman, and child" during the Second World War "to do their duty" of sacrificing their lives, their fortunes, willingly, to defend the U.S. territory and "insular possession" of the Philippine Islands against the onslaught of an invading army, unquestionably a higher Call to Duty they were all bound to obey as "the loyal Americans of the Philippine Islands"?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Domingo T. Arong
Fermin T. Rotea
Vicente F. Gambito
Joseph M. Baduel
Jose M. Caminade
Augustus L. Momongan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alumni Members
The U.P. Brotherhood of the Filipinos’55
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Robert B. Arong
Editor/Researcher