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

[Delldude]

Listen to the AI

OK........

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.

 

[Care4all]

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




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.

Out side of the only 3 exceptions, all persons on our sovereign soil, were subject to our governing bodies and laws of our land.

The immigrant aliens CHOSE to leave their countries to be here, and under our jurisdiction, and were under it the minute they and family touched our sovereign soil....as long as not an enemy, a diplomat, or Native American....all else, were covered under ALL PERSONS....there is no indication in the original text of the 14th amendment of any thing different?

Other State courts earlier, even determined the Birthright citizenship/later the14th covered travelers, visiting family or vacationing temporarily from abroad, that they too while staying here, were under our jurisdiction (if not the 3 exceptions) and their children born here, were citizens.

I simply do not see the founders of this amendment, meaning something other than what they wrote and passed. This us why I believe the court will uphold it, and have no other choice...

And why we need an amendment to amend it.

 

[Delldude]

Being able to tell them what to do.

So we now have sovereign jurisdiction and 'being able to tell them what to do' jurisdiction.

Hmmmmmm....

 

[postman]

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.

The definition of jurisdiction is being able to exercise power over those within its territory. Simply put, being able to tell them what to do.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

Enough of the bullshit. By that definition, my dog is a US citizen. Of course anyone passing through the country for 5 minutes is subject to laws and regulations within that territory (America), that does not make them a citizen.

The founders were referring to someone who owed their allegiance to the US government, that is why for like 70-80 years after signing the 14th, American Indians still were not US citizens despite being born here, because they owed the allodial allegiance to their tribe.

Likewise, if a Honduran couple is passing through the USA on their way to Canada and plunk out a child, their child owes its allegiance to the same territory as from which the parents came, not America.

 

[Delldude]

And why we need an amendment to amend it.

The amendment was interpreted by SCOTUS in 1898...........so if 2025

SCOTUS interprets that opinion, why do we need a new amendment?

The definition of jurisdiction is being able to exercise power over those within its territory.

No, that is sovereign jurisdiction..................which creates legal jurisdiction.

 

[postman]

So we now have sovereign jurisdiction and 'being able to tell them what to do' jurisdiction.

Hmmmmmm....

That's the definition

Sovereign jurisdiction refers to the authority of a state to govern itself and exercise control over persons, property, and events within its territory. It originates from state sovereignty and allows states to enact laws and regulations that apply to individuals and activities within their borders.

 

[postman]

.Enough of the bullshit. By that definition, my dog is a US citizen.
.












.

Of course anyone passing through the country for 5 minutes is subject to laws and regulations within that territory (America), that does not make them a citizen.

The founders were referring to someone who owed their allegiance to the US government, that is why for like 70-80 years after signing the 14th, American Indians still were not US citizens despite being born here, because they owed the allodial allegiance to their tribe.

Likewise, if a Honduran couple is passing through the USA on their way to Canada and plunk out a child, their child owes its allegiance to the same territory as from which the parents came, not America.

Only if your dog is a "person".

Which I doubt.

 

[Foxfyre]

The definition of jurisdiction is being able to exercise power over those within its territory. Simply put, being able to tell them what to do.

We will see. That is not how the historical record explains the original intent. I am hoping SCOTUS goes by original intent and not how the TDS afflicted, woke anti-American pro migrant invasion people want it interpreted.

 

[Rawley]

Out side of the only 3 exceptions, all persons on our sovereign soil, were subject to our governing bodies and laws of our land.

The immigrant aliens CHOSE to leave their countries to be here, and under our jurisdiction,

They had the choice to enter our country legally and be subject to our jurisdiction. But they didn't. They chose to do it illegally and by doing so, told us explicitly, 'FUCK YOU, your laws are meaningless to me, I am not subject to your jurisdiction.' Really no different than you enemy invader.

and were under it the minute they and family touched our sovereign soil....as long as not an enemy, a diplomat, or Native American....all else, were covered under ALL PERSONS....there is no indication in the original text of the 14th amendment of any thing different?

Other courts earlier, even determined the 14th covered travelers, visiting family or vacationing temporarily from abroad, that they too while staying here, were under our jurisdiction (if not the 3 exceptions) and their children born here, were citizens.

They came here legally, subjecting themselves to our jurisdiction.

I simply do not see the founders of this amendment, meaning something other than what they wrote and passed. This us why I believe the court will uphold it, and have no other choice...

And why we need an amendment to amend it.

Well, you're wrong. Think about and address my argument about the parents subjecting themselves to our jurisdiction.

 

[postman]

.




















.
Enough of the bullshit. By that definition, my dog is a US citizen. Of course anyone passing through the country for 5 minutes is subject to laws and regulations within that territory (America), that does not make them a citizen.

The founders were referring to someone who owed their allegiance to the US government, that is why for like 70-80 years after signing the 14th, American Indians still were not US citizens despite being born here, because they owed the allodial allegiance to their tribe.

Likewise, if a Honduran couple is passing through the USA on their way to Canada and plunk out a child, their child owes its allegiance to the same territory as from which the parents came, not America.

Re: The founders were referring to someone who owed their allegiance to the US government, that is why for like 70-80 years after signing the 14th, American Indians still were not US citizens despite being born here, because they owed the allodial allegiance to their tribe.

It had nothing to do with allegiance. It had to do with Indians being of sovereign land, which is why we delt with the Indians via treaty. Because they were considered a foreign entity (like a foreign country)
So we had no jurisdiction over them. We could not even impose taxes on them.

BTW, this was highlighted in the 3/5ths compromise under the term "Indians not taxed"

 

[Delldude]

That's the definition

Sovereign jurisdiction refers to the authority of a state to govern itself and exercise control over persons, property, and events within its territory. It originates from state sovereignty and allows states to enact laws and regulations that apply to individuals and activities within their borders.

Enact legislatively and then use legal jurisdiction to enforce them.

They're not the same thing.

 

[toobfreak]

It had to do with Indians being of sovereign land,

It had to do with the Indians owing their allegiance to another sovereign territory separate from the US government's jurisdiction, just like any foreigner passing through our gates, and any child they are carrying with them or might pop out here.

Please stop debasing yourself as dumber than hammered shit suggesting our founders were the biggest dummasses on the planet so to hamstring this country as being responsible for each and every body which passes within our territorial waters.

This isn't about some foreigner dog's "rights," it is about my rights as a US citizen.

 

[SweetTea]

I just don't understand why Democrats fight so hard for the rights of illegals. It makes no sense.

 

[Rawley]

I just don't understand why Democrats fight so hard for the rights of illegals. It makes no sense.

They view them as the future of their party, plain and simple. They are hemorrhaging virtually every other demographic.

 

[postman]

We will see. That is not how the historical record explains the original intent. I am hoping SCOTUS goes by original intent and not how the TDS afflicted, woke anti-American pro migrant invasion people want it interpreted.

You have to throw out intent, if the clear text says differently.

As the person who has to obey, is only privy to the clear text.

Only in cases where the text is not clear (subject to different interpretations)
such as using words like big, multiple, some etc. would they have to refer to the intent of what they meant.

 

[Delldude]

I can't see Scotus hearing limited arguments on this May 15th or whenever......then rendering a decision the end of June. I'd think an issue as this would require a deep dive into specifics. They use recess for doing just that for their next session.

I bet they punt.

 

[postman]

I just don't understand why Democrats fight so hard for the rights of illegals. It makes no sense.

We're fighting for the CONSTITUTION.
And the rights the amendments grant to the people.

All people.

 

[toobfreak]

I just don't understand why Democrats fight so hard for the rights of illegals. It makes no sense.

They would tell you our democracy depends on it! That immigration and an open door and welcoming arms is what made America great.

Too bad they are never 1/10th as interested in fighting for us actual Americans already here and citizens of this country to have secure borders, freedom from competition from foreign labor, low crime, and laws fairly adjudicated.

 

[Foxfyre]

You have to throw out intent, if the clear text says differently.

As the person who has to obey, is only privy to the clear text.

Only in cases where the text is not clear (subject to different interpretations)
such as using words like big, multiple, some etc. would they have to refer to the intent of what they meant.

And there you are dead wrong. If the letter and INTENT of a law is not considered in its interpretation, then malicious people will reinterpret it to be anything they want it to be.

As you are other leftists are doing here and elsewhere.