Business Insider misleads its readers on birthright citizenship.

[surada]

No.

Why are you so resistant to understanding the statutes?

 

[johnwk]

Why are you so resistant to understanding the statutes?

Why do you constantly deflect?

 

[rightwinger]

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof did make it into the Fourteenth Amendment. So, the question is, what is the intended meaning of those words, and under our constitutionally limited system,
the best evidence regarding the question is to be found in the Congressional Record when the 14th Amendment was framed and debated.

John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section remarks on March 9th, 1866, during Congressional debates upon the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the following manner:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

Later, May 30th, during the debates when framing the 14th amendment and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:

The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.

Mr. Trumbull later [same page] emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”

Business Insider needs to clean up its act and end perpetuating a myth.

A child born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction
Always been that way

 

[surada]

Why do you constantly deflect?

You are confused about the Naturalization Oath. Not all foreign nationals, tourists, students or illegals take it. US jurisdiction still prevails regardless of your allegiance. You are making Americans ignorant.

 

[johnwk]

A child born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction

Not within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and the qualifier " ... subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . "

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.” ___ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

 

[johnwk]

You are confused

But what are you?

 

[rightwinger]

Not within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and the qualifier " ... subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . "

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.” ___ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

exactly

A child born in the US is a citizen
Born or naturalized, you are subject to the jurisdiction

 

[johnwk]

exactly

I'm happy to see you finally agree with the S.C. in which the Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .” Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873),

 

[rightwinger]

I'm happy to see you finally agree with the S.C. in which the Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .” Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873),

Those who wrote the 14th amendment understood what words mean. When they say all persons they mean all persons

If they intended to have it apply to all persons born of citizens, they would have written it that way.

In application, Birthright citizenship has been granted since the 14th amendment was written.

 

[johnwk]

Those who wrote the 14th amendment understood what words mean.

Yup. They sure did.

John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section remarks on March 9th, 1866, during Congressional debates upon the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the following manner:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

Later, May 30th, during the debates when framing the 14th amendment and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:

The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.

Mr. Trumbull later [same page] emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”

 

[Unkotare]

Not every foreign national takes the oath to become a Naturalized US citizen. They are still under US jurisdiction. Call a lawyer.

I think he needs to call a shrink.

 

[surada]

But what are you?

Call a lawyer before you get in deeper.

 

[Wapasha]

Birth right citizenship is a fact.

Only SCOTUS can change it, and even this Court seems to have no interest in doing so.

It's not up to SCOTUS to amend the US Constitution, but they should put to rest the misleading, dishonest distorted interpretations the Democrats have made, of the phrase ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . "

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was written two years before the 14th Amendment. Republicans and abolitionists passed the CRA to override the Democrats who sought to deny citizenship to former slaves, even after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery.

This was just one of many ongoing battles between the Republicans and the Democrats. The dems refused to free the slaves, refused them the rights and freedoms that they earned as US citizens. The repubs had to fight the Civil War, pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, passed the 1866 CRA, the 1964 CRA, the Voting Rights Act. It’s been a never-ending battle with the dems, who purposely twist and distort the meanings and the definitions of the words in our laws to further their own political agendas. What is a woman, anyone?

The Civil Rights Act of 1866:
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude...

The 14th amendment was written only two years later, because the CRA failed to force the Democrats to respect the Rights, freedoms and citizenship of blacks. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA, conferred citizenship only to the children born to parents who were not "subject to any foreign power." This excludes foreign diplomats working in the US on behalf of a foreign government, visitors, and yes, even people who resided illegally in the US.

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.

This sentence was written just two years after the 1866 CRA. Obviously, the same people wrote both pieces of legislation, they did not suddenly decide that “not subject to any foreign power” no longer applied and sought to confer US citizenship on every child born to every pregnant women on planet earth, who could manage to enter the US, by hook or by crook, and pop out a child on US soil, before immigration officers could catch and deport them. But this is what the Democrats historically do, they twist, distort, and mutilate the language of our laws, to suit their political agendas. They are still doing it today, over the definition of common words like “woman.”

 

[surada]

I think he needs to call a shrink.

Nobody knows everything, but this has stuck on stupid all over it.

 

[Wapasha]

A child born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction
Always been that way

No, it's not.

Let's say your parents visit a foreign country, like China, Vietnam or Russia. Then let's say for whatever reason, mom gives birth to you inside that country. The CCP views the Chinese citizens as the property of the CCP. Are you now subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese communist party? Can the CCP now treat you as if you were a Chinese citizen?

No.

Your parents do not lose their US citizenship, and you do not lose your birthright to US citizenship either. Just because you were born inside China does not mean you fall under the tyrannical jurisdiction of the Chinese communist party.

It's the same for any foreign visitor to the US, legal or illegal. They do not suddenly lose their Rights as a citizen to their home country, and fall under the jurisdiction of the US government. We do not have the type of legal jurisdiction over their person, that allows our government to draft them into our military, invalidate their marriage, or tax their income, and we cannot toss them in prison for not paying back taxes either.

 

[surada]

No, it's not.

Let's say your parents visit a foreign country, like China, Vietnam or Russia. Then let's say for whatever reason, mom gives birth to you inside that country. The CCP views the Chinese citizens as the property of the CCP. Are you now subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese communist party? Can the CCP now treat you as if you were a Chinese citizen?

No.

Your parents do not lose their US citizenship, and you do not lose your birthright to US citizenship either. Just because you were born inside China does not mean you fall under the tyrannical jurisdiction of the Chinese communist party.

It's the same for any foreign visitor to the US, legal or illegal. They do not suddenly lose their Rights as a citizen to their home country, and fall under the jurisdiction of the US government. We do not have the type of legal jurisdiction over their person, that allows our government to draft them into our military, invalidate their marriage, or tax their income, and we cannot toss them in prison for not paying back taxes either.

The US has no jurisdiction over Chinese soil. The US has no jurisdiction over US citizens abroad... not in China or Afghanistan or Sudan or Paris, France.

A child born to American parents in China would still be a natural born US citizen, but the US wouldn't have jurisdiction. That's where it gets dicey.

 

[surada]

No, it's not.

Let's say your parents visit a foreign country, like China, Vietnam or Russia. Then let's say for whatever reason, mom gives birth to you inside that country. The CCP views the Chinese citizens as the property of the CCP. Are you now subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese communist party? Can the CCP now treat you as if you were a Chinese citizen?

No.

Your parents do not lose their US citizenship, and you do not lose your birthright to US citizenship either. Just because you were born inside China does not mean you fall under the tyrannical jurisdiction of the Chinese communist party.

It's the same for any foreign visitor to the US, legal or illegal. They do not suddenly lose their Rights as a citizen to their home country, and fall under the jurisdiction of the US government. We do not have the type of legal jurisdiction over their person, that allows our government to draft them into our military, invalidate their marriage, or tax their income, and we cannot toss them in prison for not paying back taxes either.

Remember the basketball player Griner? She broke the law in China. She didn't lose her US citizenship, but only China had jurisdiction.

 

[Wapasha]

The US has no jurisdiction over Chinese soil. The US has no jurisdiction over US citizens abroad... not in China or Afghanistan or Sudan or Paris, France.

A child born to American parents in China would still be a natural born US citizen, but the US wouldn't have jurisdiction. That's where it gets dicey.

We remain US citizens when we travel abroad. Foreign nations cannot assume jurisdiction over US citizens simply because we set foot inside their borders. What you are claiming is that we lose all Rights as a US citizen, and any foreign nation we visit can assume jurisdiction over us, and draft us into their military, take our possessions, etc...

All foreign nations have is jurisdiction over their local laws, which govern some aspects of our conduct while inside their borders. For example, to protect their citizens from us committing harm to them. we have treaties with every nation, where both the nation we visit, and our own nation will respect our rights as US citizens. We sign treaties with France, which stipulate that if a US citizen visits France and commits one of a limited, and specific agreed upon list of crimes, than the French authorities have limited and detailed authority to prosecute us for said crimes. That's it. They have a limit legal jurisdiction to enforce only a certain and specific list of their laws.

Foreign nation do not have unlimited jurisdiction over the entire person of a visiting foreigner, its a very limited legal jurisdiction over personal conduct.

It's the same thing here in the US between the 50 states. We are free to drive into Minnesota, and the state does have legal jurisdiction to enforce certain laws which govern our conduct as we visit their state. I can use my WI driver's license to drive a car in their state, but I cannot use my WI fishing license to fish in MN. At the same time, MN cannot arrest me for not paying state income or property taxes to MN.

The point is, US jurisdiction over a foreign citizen who visits the US is very limited. We do not have complete jurisdiction over them, and we definitely do not have jurisdiction over their citizenship.

 

[Wapasha]

Remember the basketball player Griner? She broke the law in China. She didn't lose her US citizenship, but only China had jurisdiction.

If you mean Brittney Griner, it was Russia. But yes, we have treaties with Russia that stipulates a limited number of laws that they can enforce on our citizens, should we violate them. We cannot have people selling drugs, committing rape and murder, and expect the people of Russia to not have the jurisdiction to protect their own people against these vile actions by US citizens. But russia does not have complete jurisdiction over us, like drafting us to fight in a war with Ukraine. We are subject of a foreign power, the United States, we are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Russian government just because we visit their country.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If born in the US, and not the child of a foreign diplomat, automatically confers citizenship on the child.

Any other interp is bad law.

Anybody standing on US soil is subject to its jurisdiction, excepting foreign diplomats.