Birthright Citizenship…Arguments to begin this week at the Supreme Court.

[BrokeLoser]

So, as a Canadian citizen, I owe allegiance to Canada. By your logic, while in the US, I'm not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Therefore, I can commit crimes and not be arrested or prosecuted.

Humberto, you’re trying to confuse yourself. You speak of legal jurisdiction. Legal jurisdiction is not mentioned in the 14th

 

[postman]

No, it was a SCOTUS interpretation of the existing amendment. So if that opinion were to be overturned now, there is no need for another amendment.

Read

The ruling on Wong FOLLOWED THE CONSTITUTION, silly one! Turns out his parents were subject to our laws with their business and by living here, there was no diplomatic immunity with the United States and China for every day Chinese citizens living here...even if they always would be under the Chinese emperor and renunciation of the Emperor was not allowed at the time under Chinese rules.

Likely, his parents would have been prevented from becoming citizens here, but that did not matter regarding them being persons, and Kim Ark being born here on our soil, and subject to our jurisdiction. Kim Ark was born a citizen, under the 14th.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you contending that visitors are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Think it through because if a visitor is not subject to the jurisdiction, that visitor cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed in the US.

The history of the Amendment makes it clear that the intention was that Visitors are subject to our laws and policies but not under our jurisdiction as to allegiance.

A very good argument is made here:

". . .The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” . . ."

I hope hope hope those arguing against birthright for aliens know this history and use it in their arguments.

 

[postman]

Humberto, you’re trying to confuse yourself. You speak of legal jurisdiction. Legal jurisdiction is not mentioned in the 14th

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.

 

[Delldude]

Read

AI Overview

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the US Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause to establish birthright citizenship for individuals born in the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. The Court's 6-2 decision affirmed that anyone born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction becomes a citizen, resolving a dispute over Wong Kim Ark's re-entry to the US after traveling to China.

 

[Rawley]

The issue with the Wong case did not have argument with being here legally or illegally...

Sure it does. The status of the parents is the entire issue.

The argument was that his parents were subjects of the Chinese Emperor under Chinese Law for LIFE, so the govt claimed Kim Ark could not be a citizen, when his parents were Subject to the Chinese Emperor for LIFE, even when living here....and not subject to our jurisdiction and laws.

It was proven in court that his parents were under our jurisdiction of laws when Kim Ark was born, and his parents had no diplomatic immunity agreement coverage for our laws with China for their every day, Chinese citizen.

His parents, though subjects of their Emperor for life, while on our soil were subject to our jurisdiction, our laws. Thus, he met the 14th requirements for citizen at birth....under the SC decision.

No The fact you step on our soil does not make you "subject to our jurisdiction".

Look at your own exceptions.
Diplomats - they have not subjected themselves to our jurisdiction so their kids are not subject to our jurisdiction.
Foreign invaders - they have not subjected themselves to our jurisdiction so their kids are not subject to our jurisdiction.
Indians - they have not subjected themselves to our jurisdiction so their kids are not subject to our jurisdiction.

Wong's parents, however, established a permanent, legal domicile in our country - they subjected themselves to our jurisdiction therefore their kids are subject to our jurisdiction.

Illegals are just the opposite. By their actions they, with clear intent, state that they are not subject to our jurisdiction - the laws our our country do not apply to them.

 

[Rawley]

And it has been proven, with absolutely no doubt, you are wrong....it was not just for citizens, and it was not just for slaves, it was for ALL PERSONS on our soil when giving birth, with the 3 exceptions....all persons is all persons, less the 3 exceptions.

You should take a critical look at your exceptions and see what they have in common.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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.

“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.

As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

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

 

[Delldude]

You should take a critical look at your exceptions and see what they have in common.

These people can't comprehend that the specific wording and its definition is what is being challenged.

 

[postman]

.








.
The history of the Amendment makes it clear that the intention was that Visitors are subject to our laws and policies but not under our jurisdiction as to allegiance.

A very good argument is made here:

". . .The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” . . ."

I hope hope hope those arguing against birthright for aliens know this history and use it in their arguments.

A very good argument is made here:

". . .The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.

---------------------------------------------------------------

You realize this means that children born of people with dual citizenship, aren't American citizens, even though their parents are American citizens.

That's where that argument leads.

 

[Rawley]

These people can't comprehend that the specific wording and its definition is what is being challenged.

Care is smart, she just needs to go the next step and do some critical thinking on her own. postman (aka Ratty) is a fucking moron, don't waste too much time.

 

[postman]

AI Overview

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the US Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause to establish birthright citizenship for individuals born in the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. The Court's 6-2 decision affirmed that anyone born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction becomes a citizen, resolving a dispute over Wong Kim Ark's re-entry to the US after traveling to China.

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Why doesn't that sink in?

 

[Rawley]

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Why doesn't that sink in?

Stamp your feet while you say it, it makes your argument stronger.

 

[postman]

These people can't comprehend that the specific wording and its definition is what is being challenged.

Jurisdiction means we can tell them what to do.

And with the exception of diplomats, and Indians not taxed, are all subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Delldude]

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

You're kidding.

Jurisdiction means we can tell them what to do.

What type of jurisdiction?

 

[postman]

AI Overview

"Subjection to the jurisdiction thereof" means being under the authority and control of a governing entity, such as a court or government, within a specific territory or legal system. It signifies that individuals, property, or activities within that jurisdiction are subject to the laws and regulations of that entity.

It means if you can charge an illegal alien with a crime ir infraction, they are subject to that jurisdiction.

 

[Foxfyre]

And it has been proven, with absolutely no doubt, you are wrong....it was not just for citizens, and it was not just for slaves, it was for ALL PERSONS on our soil when giving birth, with the 3 exceptions....all persons is all persons, less the 3 exceptions.

The history and informed legal opinions do not agree with you.

"The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” . . .

What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means - The Federalist Blog

Because the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all United States citizens by

www.federalistblog.us

Yes 'woke' attorneys, especially those representing illegals, interpret it differently. But the history, arguments, debates that went into the Constitution and later in the 14th Amendment are quite clear that children of those just visiting here are subject to the country where the parents are citizens and not of the USA.

I hope and pray those arguing the issue before SCOTUS are using the actual history and intent.

 

[postman]

Stamp your feet while you say it, it makes your argument stronger.

Even Google AI says that.

Listen to the AI

 

[postman]

What type of jurisdiction?

Being able to tell them what to do.

Example: If a diplomat litters, or breaks the speed limit, or even robs a bank. We can't arrest or detain them. We have no jurisdiction over them.

As MC Hammer would put it: You can't touch this.....

 

[Rawley]

Even Google AI says that.

Listen to the AI

Ratty - you already have enough masters, don't make a frigging piece of software another one.