The Ultimate "Birther" Test Case

[DGS49]

Yesterday, the President alluded to an article written by a lawyer who REALLY dislikes KH, claiming that KH might not be a legitimate U.S. citizen.

Here is the argument: Despite the fact that "everyone knows" that anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, that is not exactly what the 14th Amendment says. The wording in question is, "All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens..." The common understanding ignores the italicized words. What does it mean to NOT be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? It can't refer to criminal laws and things of that nature because everyone is subject to those laws. The legislative history indicates that the concern of the drafters was with the offspring of foreign diplomats and possibly military personnel in the U.S. on temporary assignments. THOSE people are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries, and not the U.S. Babies born to such people would not be U.S. citizens.

So what about KH? Both of her parents were citizens of foreign countries, and here on student visas when she was conceived and born. This is almost exactly the sort of person that the drafters of the 14th Amendment were trying to EXCLUDE.

I do not believe that there is any USSC case that specifically addresses this question, so the argument for her disqualification is tenable, though probably not winnable. Wouldn't it be priceless if the infamous RBG retired tomorrow, Trump got another Conservative on the Court, and someone sued to have KH removed from office because she is not legitimately a citizen? Not exactly a slam dunk in the USSC under those circumstances.

 

[Moonglow]

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, however, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement

The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United...

www.everycrsreport.com

In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are therefore “natural born”—as opposed to “naturalized”—U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of U.S. citizens born within the United States to be President.


There is no question that Kamala Harris is eligible to run for president or vice president

 

[Toro]

Oh great, more retarded birfer nonsense.

 

[Toro]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Moonglow]

The real question was when Cruz ran for president, he was born in Canada.

 

[Moonglow]

Oh great, more retarded birfer nonsense.

Trump can't help but show his ignorance of such things as knowing the Constitution and understanding it.

 

[konradv]

I doubt that the USSC would hear the case. It's a loser on the face of it, no matter what a cherry-picked lawyer has to say about it.

 

[pyetro]

Yesterday, the President alluded to an article written by a lawyer who REALLY dislikes KH, claiming that KH might not be a legitimate U.S. citizen.

Here is the argument: Despite the fact that "everyone knows" that anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, that is not exactly what the 14th Amendment says. The wording in question is, "All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens..." The common understanding ignores the italicized words. What does it mean to NOT be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? It can't refer to criminal laws and things of that nature because everyone is subject to those laws. The legislative history indicates that the concern of the drafters was with the offspring of foreign diplomats and possibly military personnel in the U.S. on temporary assignments. THOSE people are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries, and not the U.S. Babies born to such people would not be U.S. citizens.

So what about KH? Both of her parents were citizens of foreign countries, and here on student visas when she was conceived and born. This is almost exactly the sort of person that the drafters of the 14th Amendment were trying to EXCLUDE.

I do not believe that there is any USSC case that specifically addresses this question, so the argument for her disqualification is tenable, though probably not winnable. Wouldn't it be priceless if the infamous RBG retired tomorrow, Trump got another Conservative on the Court, and someone sued to have KH removed from office because she is not legitimately a citizen? Not exactly a slam dunk in the USSC under those circumstances.

Welcome to Birtherism 2.0.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Yesterday, the President alluded to an article written by a lawyer who REALLY dislikes KH, claiming that KH might not be a legitimate U.S. citizen.

Here is the argument: Despite the fact that "everyone knows" that anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, that is not exactly what the 14th Amendment says. The wording in question is, "All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens..." The common understanding ignores the italicized words. What does it mean to NOT be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? It can't refer to criminal laws and things of that nature because everyone is subject to those laws. The legislative history indicates that the concern of the drafters was with the offspring of foreign diplomats and possibly military personnel in the U.S. on temporary assignments. THOSE people are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries, and not the U.S. Babies born to such people would not be U.S. citizens.

So what about KH? Both of her parents were citizens of foreign countries, and here on student visas when she was conceived and born. This is almost exactly the sort of person that the drafters of the 14th Amendment were trying to EXCLUDE.

I do not believe that there is any USSC case that specifically addresses this question, so the argument for her disqualification is tenable, though probably not winnable. Wouldn't it be priceless if the infamous RBG retired tomorrow, Trump got another Conservative on the Court, and someone sued to have KH removed from office because she is not legitimately a citizen? Not exactly a slam dunk in the USSC under those circumstances.

That phrase is the whole argument of the issue. Unless the Democrats are successful in destroying the country, it will eventually work its way to the SCOTUS.

 

[Lysistrata]

I doubt that the USSC would hear the case. It's a loser on the face of it, no matter what a cherry-picked lawyer has to say about it.

Such lawyer would have to figure a way out of centuries of precedent.

I'm personally pissed at this dumb argument, as these people are saying that my mother and her sisters and brothers, who all served in WWII, the brothers in North Africa, Anzio, and the Philippines, one sister in the Navy, one sister a teenage black out warden (who grew up to be career USAF medical in Vietnam and other places), and my mother at Grumman Aircraft, were not "natural born citizens" entitled to run for president and vice president because their parents were immigrants from Eastern Europe. Do the people who push this nonsense have any idea how many Americans born to immigrant parents whom they are insulting? I am so tired of this bullshit.

 

[Olde Europe]

Such lawyer would have to figure a way out of centuries of precedent.

I'm personally pissed at this dumb argument, as these people are saying that my mother and her sisters and brothers, who all served in WWII, the brothers in North Africa, Anzio, and the Philippines, one sister in the Navy, one sister a teenage black out warden (who grew up to be career USAF medical in Vietnam and other places), and my mother at Grumman Aircraft, were not "natural born citizens" entitled to run for president and vice president because their parents were immigrants from Eastern Europe. Do the people who push this nonsense have any idea how many Americans born to immigrant parents whom they are insulting? I am so tired of this bullshit.

The benighted crap they are peddling gives you the precise measure of their desperation. Their insults to a plethora of groups, and to humanity itself, shine a light on them - on no one else.

 

[Lysistrata]

Such lawyer would have to figure a way out of centuries of precedent.

I'm personally pissed at this dumb argument, as these people are saying that my mother and her sisters and brothers, who all served in WWII, the brothers in North Africa, Anzio, and the Philippines, one sister in the Navy, one sister a teenage black out warden (who grew up to be career USAF medical in Vietnam and other places), and my mother at Grumman Aircraft, were not "natural born citizens" entitled to run for president and vice president because their parents were immigrants from Eastern Europe. Do the people who push this nonsense have any idea how many Americans born to immigrant parents whom they are insulting? I am so tired of this bullshit.

The benighted crap they are peddling gives you the precise measure of their desperation. Their insults to a plethora of groups, and to humanity itself, shine a light on them - on no one else.

Absolutely! The irony is that they usually take potshots at every group that somehow doesn't fit the entire criteria of being white, male, straight, and Christian. This is one of the few times that they managed to net this group as well. I wish that my uncles Jack, Skip, and Vic were still here. I think that they would have something to say.

 

[DGS49]

It is truly priceless how Leftists with no personal expertise whatsoever manage to make definitive pronouncements on esoteric questions, on which the experts themselves disagree.

When the Lefties start getting serious about "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," and try to naturalize thirty million border jumpers, issues like this may well be raised, not so much w/r/t KH, but with the other millions whose citizenship rests on this odious, nearly unique American bit of stupidity - no other civilized country in the world grants citizenship to the offspring of criminals who happen to squat within their borders.

 

[surada]

Yesterday, the President alluded to an article written by a lawyer who REALLY dislikes KH, claiming that KH might not be a legitimate U.S. citizen.

Here is the argument: Despite the fact that "everyone knows" that anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, that is not exactly what the 14th Amendment says. The wording in question is, "All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens..." The common understanding ignores the italicized words. What does it mean to NOT be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? It can't refer to criminal laws and things of that nature because everyone is subject to those laws. The legislative history indicates that the concern of the drafters was with the offspring of foreign diplomats and possibly military personnel in the U.S. on temporary assignments. THOSE people are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries, and not the U.S. Babies born to such people would not be U.S. citizens.

So what about KH? Both of her parents were citizens of foreign countries, and here on student visas when she was conceived and born. This is almost exactly the sort of person that the drafters of the 14th Amendment were trying to EXCLUDE.

I do not believe that there is any USSC case that specifically addresses this question, so the argument for her disqualification is tenable, though probably not winnable. Wouldn't it be priceless if the infamous RBG retired tomorrow, Trump got another Conservative on the Court, and someone sued to have KH removed from office because she is not legitimately a citizen? Not exactly a slam dunk in the USSC under those circumstances.

If you are on US soil you are subject to US jurisdiction.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Some goof wrote, "So what about KH? Both of her parents were citizens of foreign countries, and here on student visas when she was conceived and born. This is almost exactly the sort of person that the drafters of the 14th Amendment were trying to EXCLUDE."

That is the goof's opinion with no standing in law.

KH is an American citizen, period.

 

[surada]

Some goof wrote, "So what about KH? Both of her parents were citizens of foreign countries, and here on student visas when she was conceived and born. This is almost exactly the sort of person that the drafters of the 14th Amendment were trying to EXCLUDE."

That is the goof's opinion with no standing in law.

KH is an American citizen, period.

If you are in the US as a foreign student, tourist, businessmen or illegal, you are under US jurisdiction.

This idiocy goes to a pitiful education

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If you are in the US as a foreign student, tourist, businessmen or illegal, you are under US jurisdiction.

This idiocy goes to a pitiful education

It is their wacky 'natural born citizen' nonsense that is silly.

 

[surada]

It is their wacky 'natural born citizen' nonsense that is silly.

Like Trump they can't read and never listen.

 

[surada]

Remember the song, This is my country?

 

[Pellinore]

The legal definition of "jurisdiction" is an area in which a nation's laws can reach and apply to the person in question. Our laws can definitely reach and apply to a foreigner here on a student visa; if they punched someone, they could definitely be arrested for it. Therefore, they are under our jurisdiction. That is what the word means.

There are exceptions, but there are very few. A foreign diplomat or royal, for example, holds diplomatic immunity and so is therefore not under our jurisdiction. Same goes with people born on foreign ships in American waters due to maritime law. Also, if the country is being invaded, someone behind enemy lines cannot be reached. It used to be that people born on some Native American reservations were also outside of our jurisdiction, but that was made obsolete by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

The idea that people who are just visiting, or are non-citizens, are not under our jurisdiction has been used since the 14th Amendment was passed, usually with the term "subject to a foreign power." This argument has been repeatedly shut down because a) it was derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was referring to citizens rather than people under our jurisdiction, and b) it doesn't matter where your allegiances lie, you can still be arrested here if you commit a crime, meaning you're still under our jurisdiction.

Any of you who want to learn more about this can read up on US v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | Constitution Center

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: United States v. Wong Kim Ark

constitutioncenter.org