A Short Primer on the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment

[rightwinger]

Suits whose needs? Nice how you see no needs for the nation as a whole. So typical of the left.

That baby, born here of an illegal alien woman anchors the mother here, we don't deport mommy. That mother then gets to bring in other relatives over the years, including any children she may have left behind to give birth here, and the baby's father, etc.

They all then get multiple benefits, such as food, medical care, schooling, housing help, all on the backs of the American people.

Read the 14th amendment
Been that way for 150 years

 

[BULLDOG]

By others do you mean all the legal rulings since its ratification because isn't it common knowledge that it was passed to attempt to undo the damage done by justice Taney in his Dred Scott v Sandford ruling?

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney read the majority opinion of the Court, which stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. The opinion also stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a federal territory. This decision moved the nation a step closer to the Civil War.​

​

"They [the negro, the "subservient race"] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."​

The decision of Scott v. Sandford, considered by many legal scholars to be the worst ever rendered by the Supreme Court, was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens of the United States.​

https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/no-rights-which-the-white-man-was-bound-to-respect/​

The full decision can be read here which is pretty unconscionable:
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

It might not be common knowledge to the MAGA cult, but anyone else with even the slightest interest is well aware of all that. Don't try to judge everybody by your uneducated cult.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have now seen this argument multiple times, thus the talking points have gone out amongst the left. As in, throw this stupid argument out there. As if an illegal alien here could break the law and claim, hey, I'm not a citizen so you can't arrest me, let alone incarcerate me.

No one considered illegal alien women giving birth to grant their offspring citizenship and thus anchor the mother permanently in the nation.

It isn't just the baby being made permanent, it is also the lawbreaking mother (we don't send the mother back to wherever she came from and put the child into care). And then the mother, now anchored in America, gets to bring other family members in over the years.

People with diplomatic immunity do that every day. They are able to do that because they are not under the jurisdiction of the US. UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS DON'T SHARE THAT ABILITY.

 

[excalibur]

Read the 14th amendment
Been that way for 150 years

Nope, it has not.

 

[BackAgain]

Read the 14th amendment
Been that way for 150 years

No. That’s not what the 14th A. ever sought.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Nope, it has not.

Sure has. Read it.

 

[BackAgain]

People with diplomatic immunity do that every day. They are able to do that because they are not under the jurisdiction of the US. UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS DON'T SHARE THAT ABILITY.

Non sequitur. Obviously a diplomat and staff and family are immune to our criminal justice system. But that isn’t the sole measure of what is intended bfor the 14th A. And history doesn’t support your attempt at spinning what it does mean.

Since an illegal alien holds zero allegiance to our laws (as witnessed by their choice to break our migration laws and rules), the fact that they can be prosecuted for violating a criminal statute doesn’t mean that they somehow are converted to suddenly having any such allegiance.

Are you really interested in understanding this topic with an open mind?

 

[BackAgain]

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

He’s right. And what he cites is spot on.

Like:

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

[Note: I disagree with his inclusion of the children of diplomats, there.]

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nope, it has not.

Yes it has. The supreme Court has occasionally interpreted it to provide additional rights such as the Citizenship clause, the Equal Protection clause, and the Due Process clause that weren't recognized before, but never to limit or reduce rights. The text of the amendment remains as written in 1868.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I'm glad you posted this.

The 14th amendment was allegedly ratified to provide former slaves and their offspring the full protection of the U.S. Constitution that is granted to citizens. Yet EVERYONE, judges, SCOTUS, local municipalities, as well as the very states that are expressly forbidden in the plain language of the amendment from passing any laws that infringe upon the equal rights of it's citizens, did so with impunity and ushered in 96 years of Jim Crow, in spite of the plain language of the 14th Amendment forbidding them from doing so.

To date, no one has anything to say about how THIS part of the 14th amendment has been ignored for close to 100 years in respect to those it was created to benefit - Black people - yet well more than 100 years since it's ratification, the 14th amendment has been cited as the grounds for granting birthright citizenship to those who are NOT only NOT citizens (compared to those MADE citizens by the 14th), but are in the country unlawfully.

Fourteenth Amendment​

Section 1

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

​

This is what was then allowed:

Following the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, which aimed to ensure equal protection under the law for all citizens, numerous state and local governments enacted laws that directly contravened its provisions, particularly targeting African Americans. These laws, commonly known as "Jim Crow" laws, institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination. Below is a list of notable laws and practices that violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause:​

​

1. Black Codes (Late 1860s):​

• Mississippi Black Code (1865): Mandated that African Americans sign yearly labor contracts; those without proof of employment could be arrested and fined.
• South Carolina Black Code (1865): Restricted African Americans from holding certain occupations unless they paid a special tax.

2. Segregation Laws:​

• Louisiana Separate Car Act (1890): Required separate railway cars for white and Black passengers. This law led to the landmark Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine.
  
  National Archives​
• Florida Education Law (1885): Mandated separate schools for white and Black children.

3. Voting Restrictions:​

• Alabama Constitution (1901): Implemented literacy tests and poll taxes specifically designed to disenfranchise Black voters.
• Mississippi Constitution (1890): Established complex voter registration requirements, including literacy tests and poll taxes, to suppress Black voter participation.

4. Anti-Miscegenation Laws:​

• Virginia Racial Integrity Act (1924): Prohibited marriage between white and non-white individuals.
• Alabama Anti-Miscegenation Law (1927): Made interracial marriage illegal, with severe penalties for those who violated the law.

5. Public Accommodation Segregation:​

• Georgia Public Accommodations Law (1905): Required segregation in hotels, restaurants, and other public facilities.
• Texas Railcar Segregation Law (1889): Mandated separate railroad cars for Black passengers.

6. Employment Discrimination:​

• South Carolina Labor Law (1915): Prohibited Black individuals from holding certain jobs in factories and mines.
• Louisiana Sugar Plantation Law (1907): Allowed only white laborers to work in specific industries.

These laws systematically undermined the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, leading to widespread discrimination and inequality [specifically against Black people]. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Movement, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that many of these discriminatory laws were challenged and overturned.​

The DEI of its time.

 

[BULLDOG]

Non sequitur. Obviously a diplomat and staff and family are immune to our criminal justice system. But that isn’t the sole measure of what is intended bfor the 14th A. And history doesn’t support your attempt at spinning what it does mean.

Since an illegal alien holds zero allegiance to our laws (as witnessed by their choice to break our migration laws and rules), the fact that they can be prosecuted for violating a criminal statute doesn’t mean that they somehow are converted to suddenly having any such allegiance.

Are you really interested in understanding this topic with an open mind?

Allegiance isn't mentioned in the 14th. Under the jurisdiction is. You are implying there is some sort of loyalty pledge required

 

[BackAgain]

Allegiance isn't mentioned in the 14th. Under the jurisdiction is. You are implying there is some sort of loyalty pledge required

I quoted it. I don’t say “allegiance” was mentioned. So enough of your typical deflection.

And I said and implied nothing about a loyalty oath.

Try reading.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

birth right citizenship was never meant for the offspring of illegal aliens

There was no such thing as an illegal alien.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I have now seen this argument multiple times, thus the talking points have gone out amongst the left. As in, throw this stupid argument out there. As if an illegal alien here could break the law and claim, hey, I'm not a citizen so you can't arrest me, let alone incarcerate me.

No one considered illegal alien women giving birth to grant their offspring citizenship and thus anchor the mother permanently in the nation.

It isn't just the baby being made permanent, it is also the lawbreaking mother (we don't send the mother back to wherever she came from and put the child into care). And then the mother, now anchored in America, gets to bring other family members in over the years.

Just because we currently do not, it does not mean we cannot.

The statement in red is not true either.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Suits whose needs? Nice how you see no needs for the nation as a whole. So typical of the left.

That baby, born here of an illegal alien woman anchors the mother here, we don't deport mommy. That mother then gets to bring in other relatives over the years, including any children she may have left behind to give birth here, and the baby's father, etc.

They all then get multiple benefits, such as food, medical care, schooling, housing help, all on the backs of the American people.

Another error on your part. Education is a right extended even to illegal immigrants by a ruling of SCOTUS.

Your "primer" has far too many holes in it to be one.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nope, it has not.

What changed?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

What changed?

So fun to watch the Admiral school Seaman Excalibur.

 

[BULLDOG]

I quoted it. I don’t say “allegiance” was mentioned. So enough of your typical deflection.

And I said and implied nothing about a loyalty oath.

Try reading.

S what's your problem? The amendment only requires being under the jurisdiction. Since undocumented immigrants can be charged for breaking our laws, they are under the jurisdiction. Are you really too dumb to get that?

 

[BackAgain]

S what's your problem? The amendment only requires being under the jurisdiction. Since undocumented immigrants can be charged for breaking our laws, they are under the jurisdiction. Are you really too dumb to get that?

I decline to reiterate what I previously posted, bullfrog.

To know what the Amendment means, you need to know a bit of what led to it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Let's try this again.

If the alien immigrants can be arrested or detained for breaking the law by being here, they are under US jurisdiction, morons.