AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

[Winston]

A quick reminder, if they are not subject to US jurisdiction, that means they aren't subject to US law. The Trump Admin is essentially arguing that noncitizens here ARE NOT SUBJECT TO US CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LAW.

You are exactly right. It makes no damn sense. The judges saw it, I don't see how it is not a unanimous decision although I am sure Thomas will find a way to side with the government. But almost every justice tried to give the Trump attorney an off ramp, he refused to take it.

I know everyone got tore up over Jackson, the tourist, and the wallet. But it was a legit point. But I believe it was Barrett that provided the best opportunity for the Trump attorney. I don't think he understood her. The government's position here is that illegal immigrants have the same status as foreign diplomats. Barrett offered the government a chance to elucidate a difference between the two, the guy couldn't.

 

[jacksonlamb]

You are exactly right. It makes no damn sense. The judges saw it, I don't see how it is not a unanimous decision although I am sure Thomas will find a way to side with the government. But almost every justice tried to give the Trump attorney an off ramp, he refused to take it.

I know everyone got tore up over Jackson, the tourist, and the wallet. But it was a legit point. But I believe it was Barrett that provided the best opportunity for the Trump attorney. I don't think he understood her. The government's position here is that illegal immigrants have the same status as foreign diplomats. Barrett offered the government a chance to elucidate a difference between the two, the guy couldn't.

2 to 7 is the best hope for trump.

 

[Stryder50]

Link to a reliable source please.

So, you prefer them to look at the Constitution like liberals do, rather than what the text actually says?

The text of that amendment is ambiguous and using term/language of @ 160 years ago, which 'translates' differently today.
Look at what and how those words were used back then and it's more clear.
Note also back then there was no photo ID of passports with photo and visa, etc.
Also, almost no other nation grants "birthright citizenship".

 

[Winston]

Also, almost no other nation grants "birthright citizenship".

1. Antigua and Barbuda
2. Argentina
3. Barbados
4. Belize
5. Bolivia
6. Brazil
7. Canada
8. Chad
9. Chile
10. Costa Rica
11. Cuba
12. Dominica
13. Ecuador
14. El Salvador
15. Fiji
16. Grenada
17. Guatemala
18. Guyana
19. Honduras
20. Jamaica
21. Lesotho
22. Mexico
23. Nicaragua
24. Panama
25. Paraguay
26. Peru
27. St. Kitts and Nevis
28. St. Lucia
29. St. Vincent and the Grenadines
30. Tanzania
31. Trinidad and Tobago
32. Tuvalu
33. United States
34. Uruguay
35. Venezuela

75 Countries With Birthright Citizenship

Being born in the territory of some countries automatically entitles you to citizenship. What countries have birthright citizenships? Read on to find out.

citizensinternational.com

 

[Unkotare]

...
Also, almost no other nation grants "birthright citizenship".

36

 

[Unkotare]

Countries with Birthright Citizenship 2026

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[Stryder50]

A quick reminder, if they are not subject to US jurisdiction, that means they aren't subject to US law. The Trump Admin is essentially arguing that noncitizens here ARE NOT SUBJECT TO US CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LAW.

The way the term "jurisdiction" was used, applied back then, @160 years ago, meant the same thing as allegiance/citizenship.
The Amendment was intended to apply to former slaves, now freed, but being denied citizenship rights by the sore-loser Southern states.

There was not the amount of tourist travel, or immigration into the USA back then as now, so the extrapolation of the term wasn't considered.

However, the ambiguity lends to the continuing debate, differences of interpretation.

 

[Stryder50]

1. Antigua and Barbuda
2. Argentina
3. Barbados
4. Belize
5. Bolivia
6. Brazil
7. Canada
8. Chad
9. Chile
10. Costa Rica
11. Cuba
12. Dominica
13. Ecuador
14. El Salvador
15. Fiji
16. Grenada
17. Guatemala
18. Guyana
19. Honduras
20. Jamaica
21. Lesotho
22. Mexico
23. Nicaragua
24. Panama
25. Paraguay
26. Peru
27. St. Kitts and Nevis
28. St. Lucia
29. St. Vincent and the Grenadines
30. Tanzania
31. Trinidad and Tobago
32. Tuvalu
33. United States
34. Uruguay
35. Venezuela

75 Countries With Birthright Citizenship

Being born in the territory of some countries automatically entitles you to citizenship. What countries have birthright citizenships? Read on to find out.

citizensinternational.com

OK
I'm tentatively corrected at this time.
I'd have to see the actual wording of those other 35 nations to see if it is as vague as the USA, also when those other nations established that policy.
I'm seeing where most of them aren't as appealing as the USA, nor likely to offer the easy welfare.

 

[Care4all]

The wording of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship requires a two part test. First, a person must be born or naturalized in the US. Second, that person must be subject to US jurisdiction. This wording means that merely being born in the US does not, by itself, confer citizenship.

Thus, the meaning of the second requirement for citizenship needs to be determined in the context of when and why it was written. Immediately after the Civil War, there were pressing issues regarding the legal status of former slaves and their children. The 14th Amendment was intended to annul the pernicious 2/3 Congressional representation provision in Article 2 of the Constitution and ensure that the aforementioned were granted the full rights of US citizenship.

Since no other purpose for the 14th Amendment existed at the time of its ratification, there is no basis for presuming that it intended to confer citizenship on other persons born in the US under temporary or illegal circumstances.

If you wish to comment, please do not bother to cite a century-old case whose basic facts are fundamentally different from the current case to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Under common law used in the USA prior to the 14th Amendment, we practiced Jus Soli.

Prior to the 14th Amendment

ALL PERSONS born on US Soil were born citizens of the USA, with an exception of only foreign diplomats and foreign ambassadors, who were under the jurisdiction of their OWN country while here on work, and were granted DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY while here in the USA under our and international law... Their children born here on our soil, were exempt from citizenship. And SLAVE CHILDREN. (And native American tribesmen born who at the time were under the jurisdiction of their own tribe through treaties we signed were exempt for a bit.)


After the 14th amendment

After the 14th we were still Jus Soli. ALL PERSONS born on US soil were born citizens, only now, it included the once exempted slave children in the ALL PERSONS....along with all other persons born on our soil (w/ two exemptions left).

 

[Winston]

OK
I'm tentatively corrected at this time.
I'd have to see the actual wording of those other 35 nations to see if it is as vague as the USA, also when those other nations established that policy.
I'm seeing where most of them aren't as appealing as the USA, nor likely to offer the easy welfare.

That list is only those countries with unrestricted birthright citizenship. And historically, the United States was one of the first countries to adopt jus Solis and almost all countries offering unrestricted birthright citizenship are located in the America's.

 

[Cassandro]

A quick reminder, if they are not subject to US jurisdiction, that means they aren't subject to US law. The Trump Admin is essentially arguing that noncitizens here ARE NOT SUBJECT TO US CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LAW.

A quick reminder, circular arguments are logical fallacies. Is a Chinese citizen living in China subject to US jurisdiction because he was born in the US?

 

[Zincwarrior]

36

Primarily Americas and Caribbean. We are in line with such. That includes both our neighbors.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The way the term "jurisdiction" was used, applied back then, @160 years ago, meant the same thing as allegiance/citizenship.
The Amendment was intended to apply to former slaves, now freed, but being denied citizenship rights by the sore-loser Southern states.

There was not the amount of tourist travel, or immigration into the USA back then as now, so the extrapolation of the term wasn't considered.

However, the ambiguity lends to the continuing debate, differences of interpretation.

Your exclusions prove my argument.
And there wasn't the amount of immigration? Irish and Swearthy German types were swarming from ships. Chinese were coming in on the West Coast.

 

[Zincwarrior]

A quick reminder, circular arguments are logical fallacies. Is a Chinese citizen living in China subject to US jurisdiction because he was born in the US?

Everyone in the territories of the US was AND IS subject to our jurisdiction, except by treaty.

A Chinese citizen is not subject to Chinese jurisdiction in the US, unless on by treaty - again meaning embassies and other facilities as agreed to by treaty.

This is seriously simple shit, and should never have been taken up by SCOTUS. I bet dissenters will be Thomas and Alito.

 

[progressive hunter]

A quick reminder, if they are not subject to US jurisdiction, that means they aren't subject to US law. The Trump Admin is essentially arguing that noncitizens here ARE NOT SUBJECT TO US CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LAW.

they are arguing that children born to illegal aliens and those that intend to fraud the USA are not US citizens,,
their first act was to break our laws,,
your ignorance is showing again,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Everyone in the territories of the US was AND IS subject to our jurisdiction, except by treaty.

A Chinese citizen is not subject to Chinese jurisdiction in the US, unless on by treaty - again meaning embassies and other facilities as agreed to by treaty.

This is seriously simple shit, and should never have been taken up by SCOTUS. I bet dissenters will be Thomas and Alito.

why do we have chinese embassy's if chinese visitors are under US jurisdiction??

everyone, citizen and visitor are subject to our laws but only citizens are under US jurisdiction,,
thats why if an american is kidnapped in a foreign country we go get them,,

 

[Zincwarrior]

they are arguing that children born to illegal aliens and those that intend to fraud the USA are not US citizens,,
their first act was to break our laws,,
your ignorance is showing again,,

Your statement has less than nothing to do with mine, except that:

If illegal aliens aren't subject to our jurisdiction, they are literally not illegal, as our laws and legal system do not apply to them.
Every court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter (in this case persons) to hear and adjudicate a case.

Dost thou seeith thine error?

 

[progressive hunter]

Your statement has less than nothing to do with mine, except that:

If illegal aliens aren't subject to our jurisdiction, they are literally not illegal, as our laws and legal system do not apply to them.
Every court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter (in this case persons) to hear and adjudicate a case.

Dost thou seeith thine error?

laws apply to everyone,, their first act was to break our laws,,

youre confusing "jurisdiction over" and "subject to our laws"

youre the one in error not me,,

why do foreign countrys have embassys and consulates in the USA??

 

[Winston]

youre confusing "jurisdiction over" and "subject to our laws"

WTF?

 

[progressive hunter]

WTF?

you not understanding that isnt a surprise,,

why do foreign countrys have embassys and consulates in the USA??