Business Insider misleads its readers on birthright citizenship.

[surada]

How about addressing the topic instead of trying to derail the thread?

The US is sovereign. US law has jurisdiction for anyone on US soil except for foreign diplomats.

 

[Foxfyre]

The US is sovereign. US law has jurisdiction for anyone on US soil except for foreign diplomats.

Again show me anything I've posted that disagrees with that and deserved a thumbs down.

 

[johnwk]

There are only two kinds of US citizenship. Natural born and naturalized.
.

That is exactly what our Supreme Court stated:



“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)

What is your point?

 

[johnwk]

How about addressing the topic instead of trying to derail the thread?

Now why would a troll do that?

 

[Foxfyre]

Now why would a troll do that?

LOL. True. Honestly I don't even look in on most threads because the topic isn't interesting to me or it obviously is a flame thread with no intent of discussing a concept or topic.

But I do not understand what kick people get out of attacking other members and calling them names or what satisfaction they get out of starting food fights and derailing thread. I accept that some are just wired that way though and try my best to work around them.

I have already been accused on this thread of saying what I didn't say, having words put in my mouth I didn't and would never say, etc. etc. I still wonder if its in the water they drink or something that causes that kind of reading dysfunction and/or attack mentality?

Anyhow this is a great topic and one I think all critical thinkers and real Americans know it is time to address.

 

[Care4all]

This is stupid misleading. Everyone on US soil is under US jurisdiction. No other country's laws apply in the US.
.

With exceptions, also written in to the amendment.

Two exceptions

1. American Indians because they were not fully under our jurisdiction....only through TREATIES with them that had to be made.

2. Children born on our soil of foreign diplomats who were under diplomatic immunity, jurisdiction of their own foreign country, and not under our jurisdiction when here visiting.

Clearly the law states ALL CHILDREN BORN ON OUR SOIL, Under our jurisdiction, with the exceptions only those two, mentioned.

There was zip, zero, no exceptions for any other child born here....no exception for children of people here illegally...illegal aliens....none!

I don't see how this can be gotten around, without a constitutional amendment???

 

[johnwk]

LOL. True. Honestly I don't even look in on most threads because the topic isn't interesting to me or it obviously is a flame thread with no intent of discussing a concept or topic.

Just for the record, let me point out I specifically posted the thread to open the door for a mature discussion concerning "birthright citizenship", and the qualifying condition, " . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . "

Aside from that, the adolescent comments addressed to you exhibit the nature of those posting them . . .

 

[Foxfyre]

Just for the record, let me point out I specifically posted the thread to open the door for a mature discussion concerning "birthright citizenship", and the qualifying condition, " . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . "

Aside from that, the adolescent comments addressed to you exhibit the nature of those posting them . . .

I joined in your thread because a) it was a topic of interest to me b) it was presented in a non partisan and intelligent way c) because you invited serious discussion of the topic instead of inviting a food fight, childish insults/ad hominem, insert non-sequitur rants.

And yes, I just consider the source of those trying to generate food fights, who engage in schoolyard insults, rants etc. intended to derail a thread.

And I appreciate the grownups who can actually recognize and make a coherent argument even if I don't agree with it.

 

[johnwk]

With exceptions, also written in to the amendment.

Two exceptions

1. American Indians because they were not fully under our jurisdiction....only through TREATIES with them that had to be made.

2. Children born on our soil of foreign diplomats who were under diplomatic immunity, jurisdiction of their own foreign country, and not under our jurisdiction when here visiting.

Clearly the law states ALL CHILDREN BORN ON OUR SOIL, Under our jurisdiction, with the exceptions only those two, mentioned.

There was zip, zero, no exceptions for any other child born here....no exception for children of people here illegally...illegal aliens....none!

I don't see how this can be gotten around, without a constitutional amendment???

Your above opinions are noted. Now, with regard to the qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . ," what has our Supreme Court mentioned with regard to those words, and what were the expressed meaning of those words as understood by those who framed and debated the amendment in question? I ask this because a legitimate and compelling opinion would be in harmony with the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[surada]

Your above opinions are noted. Now, with regard to the qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . ," what has our Supreme Court mentioned with regard to those words, and what were the expressed meaning of those words as understood by those who framed and debated the amendment in question? I ask this because a legitimate and compelling opinion would be in harmony with the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

It's so simple. If you are in the US you are subject to US jurisdiction..foreign diplomats are the exception. It's basic legal theory.

Birthright Citizenship for Everyone Born on U.S. Soil is the Law of the Land

The United States is one of 33 countries, including Canada, that recognize citizenship based on place of birth.

www.scu.edu

 

[surada]

https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1927&context=cwilj#:~:text=%22Jurisdiction%22%20is%20a%20legal%20theory,power%20to%20prescribe%20and%20enforce.

 

[johnwk]

It's so simple. If you are in the US you are subject to US jurisdiction..foreign diplomats are the exception. It's basic legal theory.

We are not talking about theory.

With regard to the qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . ," what has our Supreme Court mentioned with regard to those words, and what were the expressed meaning of those words as understood by those who framed and debated the amendment in question? I ask this because a legitimate and compelling opinion would be in harmony with the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[surada]

We are not talking about theory.

With regard to the qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . ," what has our Supreme Court mentioned with regard to those words, and what were the expressed meaning of those words as understood by those who framed and debated the amendment in question? I ask this because a legitimate and compelling opinion would be in harmony with the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

No other country has jurisdiction in the United States. You have a mental block.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You love to disagree with posts for which you have no argument don't you. Point to ANYTHING in my post that says your link isn't the law now. My argument is what the law should be. I swear you leftists would disagree if I said sometimes the sky is blue.

The US code is correct rebuttal for the far right who want to return us to the 1950s.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

We are not talking about theory.

With regard to the qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . ," what has our Supreme Court mentioned with regard to those words, and what were the expressed meaning of those words as understood by those who framed and debated the amendment in question? I ask this because a legitimate and compelling opinion would be in harmony with the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

You are completely wrong. "Jurisdiction" has a meaning you do not think it means.

 

[Foxfyre]

The US code is correct rebuttal for the far right who want to return us to the 1950s.

If you actually wish to discuss the topic go for it. Otherwise have a nice day.

 

[surada]

We are not talking about theory.

With regard to the qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . ," what has our Supreme Court mentioned with regard to those words, and what were the expressed meaning of those words as understood by those who framed and debated the amendment in question? I ask this because a legitimate and compelling opinion would be in harmony with the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

When you understand jurisdiction you will also understand extradition. This is so ridiculously stupid.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If you actually wish to discuss the topic go for it. Otherwise have a nice day.

Do have a nice day. Yes, the US Code explains it well.

 

[Care4all]

Your above opinions are noted. Now, with regard to the qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . ," what has our Supreme Court mentioned with regard to those words, and what were the expressed meaning of those words as understood by those who framed and debated the amendment in question? I ask this because a legitimate and compelling opinion would be in harmony with the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Also consistent with the idea of jurisdiction, the U.S.-born children of aliens (other than diplomats and armies) were considered U.S. citizens. In McCreery's Lessee v. Somerville (1824), for example, the Supreme Court (per Justice Story) treated as uncontroversial the U.S. citizenship of the U.S.-born child of Irish alien parents. In Lynch v. Clarke (1844), a New York court directly held that U.S.-born children of alien temporary visitors were U.S. citizens.

Thus when the Fourteenth Amendment's drafters picked the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction," it had an established meaning that was already closely connected to citizenship. The first part of the citizenship clause ("born in the United States") adopted the territorial principle of jus soli. The second part embraced the longstanding exclusions from the jus soli principle: people in U.S. territory but nonetheless not under U.S. sovereign authority, namely diplomats, foreign armies and tribal Native Americans, who had not traditionally been born citizens.

The Senate debates, where the citizenship clause was developed, bear this out. Initially, the proposed Amendment guaranteed rights to citizens without defining citizens. Senator Wade pointed this out and suggested guaranteeing rights to all persons born in the United States. Senator Fessenden objected that some U.S.-born people were not citizens under existing law (which Wade acknowledged, mentioning ambassadors). Senator Howard then proposed the language that became the citizenship clause, describing the "subject to the jurisdiction" language as excluding children of ambassadors.

Senators next debated whether Howard's language continued the exclusion of tribal Native Americans from citizenship (which they favored). Howard said that it did, adopting the prior explanation that U.S. laws didn't extend to the tribes' internal affairs. A revision to expressly exclude tribal members was defeated as unnecessary.

Finally, the Senators considered the citizenship of U.S.-born children of aliens. Senator Cowan objected (in overtly racial terms) that the proposal would make citizens of U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants on the West Coast. California Senator Conness (himself an Irish immigrant) agreed it would have this effect, but enthusiastically endorsed it. No Senator disagreed with the Cowan/Conness interpretation, including Howard (who wrote the clause) and Senator Trumbull (who originally introduced the proposed Amendment). Indeed, in an earlier exchange with Cowan, Trumbull said that U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants (like all U.S.-born children of immigrants) should be considered citizens. And the Senate then adopted Howard's language without further revision...

Read more about this here below.

It seems to me, they knew when the amendment was introduced that it included children born on our soil by immigrants other than diplomats and foreign armies and Native Americans during that time period.

The Original Meaning of "Subject to the Jurisdiction" of the United States

 

[johnwk]

No other country has jurisdiction in the United States. You have a mental block.

Well, I can see you are not interested in the subject of the thread.