Birthright Citizenship? Yes/No

[White 6]

" Subject To Jurisdiction Versus Subject Of Jurisdiction "

* Colloquial Meaning For Thereof "

The term thereof in the clause " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " includes meaning , as the phrase does not state simply " and subject to the jurisdiction " or " and subject to its jurisdiction " , though it could have been stated less colloquially as " and a subject of its jurisdiction " .

The us citizen is a subject of us jurisdiction .

A citizenship is a positive liberty of endowment , it is not a negative liberty of protection .

. Zone1 - Civis Etas Unis Sum And Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof Clause From Us 14th Amendment .

Do you support "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. "
It pretty well spells out, if your are born here or are naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you are a citizen. It does not ask where your parents lived when they had sex, only specifying all persons born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. About the only ones that lets out are kids born of diplomats of foreign governments, that might not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, even while here, as subject to diplomatic immunity.

 

[Chuz Life]

I support all of the US Constitution, including 14th Amendment, Section 1.
Do you?

I call.

Is a person who is only in the zygote, embryo, or fetal stage of their life, growth, and development a 'person' while they are in the zygote, embryo, or fetal stages of their life, growth, or development?

Yes or no?

Legal Definition of NATURAL PERSON

a human being as distinguished from a person (as a corporation) created by operation of law… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Stryder50]

I thought you considered yourself conservative. How can you be conservative, if you do not believe in the Constitution. One assumes, you were never military, and took and oath to it.

A Conservative will not support a distortion of the wording of an Amendment to the Constitution, which is initially vague, as allowing the theft of wealth and rights from actual citizens by granting stolen citizenship to persons here illegally and still subject to the jurisdiction of other nation(s) which they came here (unauthorized) from.

Such a position borders upon treason.

 

[Stryder50]

Do you support "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. "
It pretty well spells out, if your are born here or are naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you are a citizen. It does not ask where your parents lived when they had sex, only specifying all persons born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. About the only ones that lets out are kids born of diplomats of foreign governments, that might not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, even while here, as subject to diplomatic immunity.

Sorry Komrade but you are WRONG!
Everyone in this nation may be subject to our Laws, but they're Subject of Jurisdiction is the nation of their origin, equals nation of their citizenship. Persons born here are only citizens if their parent(s) are also citizens.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Us Citizens Are Subjects Of Us Jurisdiction "

* Pandering To Simpletons Without Mentioning The Term Thereof *

.. subject to the jurisdiction ..

In all those words you neglected to address the term thereof .

A subject of us jurisdiction is a subject by title , which includes legal migrants whom become subjects by title in us legal immigration system by diplomatic agreement - on a visa ; a diplomat enters the us through diplomatic agreement that includes an exclusion from prosecution as part of the agreement .

A subject by title in us legal immigration system , by agreement of invitation , means us government assumes an onus of accountability for their well being while in the country ; legal migrants are entitled to positive liberties such as social subsistence , albeit with a risk of deportation .

There is an agreement in us legal immigration system that the travel is not for the purpose of having a child and us can enforce a travel policy against those expecting .

The us government is obligated to secure the well being of its citizens , as subjects of its jurisdiction , whether within the jurisdiction for its domain of law or not .

 

[Concerned American]

You appear to be the one that disagrees with the Constitution.
14th Amendment, US Constitution, Section 1:
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.

I support all of the US Constitution, including 14th Amendment, Section 1.
Do you?

Yeah, I've seen your cut and paste numerous times. Too bad you don't know what it means nor the context and time line that it applied to. That's why you're bandying your treason around on the internet or did you forget that you said you wouldn't support a SCOTUS decision after taking the oath to do the same. I'll wait for the decision of the SCOTUS and YES you WILL abide by it.

 

[OKTexas]

I have seen SCOTUS decisions overturned, simply changing their minds on political whim of whether conservatives, or liberals are packed on the court. Mostly they are simply too conservative to strike down actual Amendments to the constitution, layed out in plain language, as they took this oath, when they came onto the Supreme Court: “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Therefore, there are limits to what the Supremes will try to palm off, as an interpretation. Actually making plain text of the US Constitution, itself, has not been on them, that I am aware of, and doubt a rogue court, would go as far as ruling unconstitutional, the US Constitution.

All they have to do is decide that illegals are not "subject to the jurisdiction there of". Meaning political jurisdiction, not legal jurisdiction. That's why when immigrants take the oath of citizenship, they have to reject the political jurisdiction of their home country and submit themselves to the political jurisdiction of the US.

SCOTUS ruling it that way would not be much of a stretch.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

Sorry Komrade but you are WRONG!
Everyone in this nation may be subject to our Laws, but they're Subject of Jurisdiction is the nation of their origin, equals nation of their citizenship. Persons born here are only citizens if their parent(s) are also citizens.

Your post reminded me. . . suppose an illegal comes to the U.S. . drops an anchor baby, and then, sometime later, they move the family back to their original country.

Is the kid now a ******* dual citizen?

The retardation (and lack of foresight) in these leftards is exhausting.

 

[toobfreak]

So what do you think?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So, because the Framers understood that birthright didn't or shouldn't include those who are here illegally, but they neglected to put it into writing, we should reward the criminals who birth their kids here with U.S. Citizenship, anyway?

I'm on team no for that, and I can't wait for the SCOTUS to apply the Constitution and the 14th Amendment accordingly.

They already are applying it accordingly. If you want change, then change the Constitution.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And no SCOTUS decision is infallible or irreversible.

.

You cannot reverse the plain text of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Your post reminded me. . . suppose an illegal comes to the U.S. . drops an anchor baby, and then, sometime later, they move the family back to their original country.

Is the kid now a ******* dual citizen?

The retardation (and lack of foresight) in these leftards is exhausting.

Yes. The leftists have nothing to do with it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

For sure, when the Constitution itself was being drafted, the framers were not thinking about, nor worried about illegals stealing their way in by dropping anchor babies.

EDIT: Same goes for when the 14th Amendment was authored, some 80 years after the Constitution was drafted.

View attachment 1168687

Microsoft Copilot: Your AI companion

Microsoft Copilot is your companion to inform, entertain and inspire. Get advice, feedback and straightforward answers. Try Copilot now.

copilot.microsoft.com

So amend the Constitution.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yeah....I'm going to agree with you.

I can't imagine a young couple trying to prove their citizenship so that their child will gain citizenship.

Currently they don't have to prove their citizenship, in fact they can even be in the country unlawfully and their offspring are still granted U.S. citizenship because the mother gave birth on U.S. soil.

 

[OKTexas]

You cannot reverse the plain text of the 14th Amendment.

They don't have to, see post 47.

.

 

[Meathead]

Since it's coming up again



Let's discuss it.

On one hand you have pregnant women coming to the USA just to have a baby be an American citizen by being born here....then as the baby's mother she gets a way into the country .....

The downside?
Nobody, even naturally born to American Citizens, is free from proving their parents were Americans when they were born...

Creating room for all sorts of deportation scams and corruption by powerful people wanting to exert authority over average people.

So what do you think?

NO!

 

[Meathead]

No. Simply posting the Amendment
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.

What part do you interpret differently? Do you usually need interpretations to understand the English language?

I understand that shit happens.

 

[Chuz Life]

They don't have to, see post 47.

.

Exactly.

There is no reason or need to amend the 14th, if the SCOTUS simply interprets it the way they should. As you already explained.

 

[22lcidw]

The framers? You mean post civil war America of 1866? Ratified by the states to become LAW by July 9, 1868. I am from Tennessee, the 3rd state to ratify, on July 19, 1866.

At the time, the people who passed this law did not know we would become a Progressive Socialist Communist nation. So over time legislation was passed that moved us into that position. Taxation is very high and much of it goes to this. In that era taxation was low, and people were not afforded social checks and benefits.

 

[OKTexas]

Exactly.

There is no reason or need to amend the 14th, if the SCOTUS simply interprets it the way they should. As you already explained.

Since the passage of the 14th and the original SCOTUS decision, a lot of treaties and international laws have been put in place governing political jurisdiction of immigrants.

https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Universal-MigrationHRlaw-PG-no-6-Publications-PractitionersGuide-2021-eng.pdf

.