Business Insider misleads its readers on birthright citizenship.

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

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

No one discusses when a point is obvious. "Jurisdiction" does not mean what you think it means.

 

[johnwk]

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 . . ." cut for brevity.

You are now projecting and ignoring our Supreme Court's statements in Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) and in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), both rulings occurring after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Additionally, you also ignore John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, with regard to the meaning of "jurisdiction".

"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)

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Johnwk wants to misdefine "jurisdiction", and the courts won't let him.

 

[surada]

You are now projecting and ignoring our Supreme Court's statements in Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) and in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), both rulings occurring after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Additionally, you also ignore John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, with regard to the meaning of "jurisdiction".

"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)

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Simple. Foreign nationals in the US are subject to US jurisdiction. Only US law...not French or English or Moroccan law. They may have allegiance to France or whatever but they are under US jurisdiction if they are in the US.

Doesn't matter if they are tourists, students, businessmen or illegals. They are under US jurisdiction.

 

[surada]

Johnwk wants to misdefine "jurisdiction", and the courts won't let him.

Dumb as shit. Trump doesn't understand it either.

 

[johnwk]

Simple. Foreign nationals in the US are subject to US jurisdiction.

Not within the Fourteenth Amendment and the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . . " as repeatedly confirmed by our Supreme Court.

 

[surada]

Not within the Fourteenth Amendment and the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . . " as repeatedly confirmed by our Supreme Court.

What countries' laws have jurisdiction in the US?

 

[surada]

Not within the Fourteenth Amendment and the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . . " as repeatedly confirmed by our Supreme Court.

If you're a foreign national, you weren't born in the US.

 

[johnwk]

Well, I think it's time to turn the thread over to our adolescent trolls.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

johnwk is troll gas lighting again.

 

[surada]

johnwk is troll gas lighting again.

His education is poor.

Foreign national - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Care4all]

You are now projecting and ignoring our Supreme Court's statements in Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) and in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), both rulings occurring after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Additionally, you also ignore John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, with regard to the meaning of "jurisdiction".

"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)

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

That's an oath for foreign people NOT BORN ON OUR SOIL to become citizens of the USA and not of the country they were born, naturalized citizens, not natural born citizens.... Natural born citizens are just that, Just Solis..birthright citizens.

You seem to be confusing the two....?

 

[pknopp]

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 . . .

And it's went the same way as the other many threads on the exact same topic.

 

[surada]

That's an oath for foreign people NOT BORN ON OUR SOIL to become citizens of the USA and not of the country they were born, naturalized citizens, not natural born citizens.... Natural born citizens are just that, Just Soli...birthright citizens.

You seem to be confusing the two....?

Too many Americans never took Civics or even Law 101. Even Trump. . He's never read the US Constitution. . He said it was too hard like a foreign language.

 

[johnwk]

That's an oath for foreign people NOT BORN ON OUR SOIL to become citizens of the USA and not of the country they were born, naturalized citizens, not natural born citizens.... Natural born citizens are just that, Just Soli...birthright citizens.

You seem to be confusing the two....?

No confusing on this end with regard to the Oath. Keep in mind our Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) 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 .”

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would be granted to a child born to a foreign national while on American soil? By first, and formally, taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance and becoming a citizen of the United States, and not owing allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty.

And John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section was very clear on this requirement who stated 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)

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Our SCOTUS has never ruled in your favor of those words. Birthright citizenship is a fact that will not change in this century. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

Patriotism Overrides SCROTUS

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Johnwk has been appropriately schooled, flunked his exams here, and put in the corner.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

there is a reason no one will appeal this to the Supreme Court.

The Power of White-Replacement Theory

 

[Care4all]

No confusing on this end with regard to the Oath. Keep in mind our Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) 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 .”

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would be granted to a child born to a foreign national while on American soil? By first, and formally, taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance and becoming a citizen of the United States, and not owing allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty.

And John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section was very clear on this requirement who stated 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)

Diplomats...Ambassadors....their allegiance is to their country and we give them and their immediate family, DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY. They are NOT subject to our laws, nor are any children of foreign diplomats visiting here with them or BORN here.

This was common law. And we continued such.

As posted BEFORE....

---------

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

In this post I'll consider the original meaning of the second requirement of the Constitution's citizenship clause: that a person…

reason.com

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No one discusses when a point is obvious. "Jurisdiction" does not mean what you think it means.

Stolen Citizenship Cancels the Votes of Real Americans

It's not about some slippery lawyer-language.. It's the irrefutable logic that someone can't get a legal right through illegal means.