Business Insider misleads its readers on birthright citizenship.

[johnwk]

."The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes so-called “birthright citizenship”. It provides that all people born in the territory of the U.S. are citizens.

According to you. But not according to our Supreme Court and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[surada]

According to you. But not according to our Supreme Court and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment.

You are still promoting ignorance. Call a lawyer.

 

[rightwinger]

A birth certificate does not confirm United States Citizenship.

It sure as hell does
Just read the 14th amendment

 

[Unkotare]

According to you. But not according to our Supreme Court and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment.

100% according to law.

 

[rightwinger]

It sure as hell does
Just read the 14th amendment

The 14th Amendment says nothing about the status of the parents, only the birth status of the child

The moment that child is born, it becomes a legal citizen

 

[johnwk]

The moment that child is born, it becomes a legal citizen

According to you but not according to what our Supreme Court, and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment say.

 

[surada]

According to you but not according to what our Supreme Court, and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment say.

The Supreme Court has never disputed the statute.

 

[johnwk]

It sure as hell does
Just read the 14th amendment

The qualifier is "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ...".

John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, indicated with regard to the meaning of "jurisdiction" and stated the following:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

And, Trumbull echos the same thinking during the Fourteenth Amendment debates:

"[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." LINK

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply to a babe born on American soil to said foreign national? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

 

[johnwk]

The Supreme Court has never disputed the statute.

There is no "statute" granting citizenship to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national. Stop making shit up.

 

[surada]

The qualifier is "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ...".

John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, indicated with regard to the meaning of "jurisdiction" and stated the following:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

And, Trumbull echos the same thinking during the Fourteenth Amendment debates:

"[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." LINK

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply to a babe born on American soil to said foreign national? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Not every foreign national takes the oath to become a Naturalized US citizen. They are still under US jurisdiction. Call a lawyer.

 

[surada]

There is no "statute" granting citizenship to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national. Stop making shit up.

Call a lawyer. You're getting in deeper.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no "statute" granting citizenship to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national. Stop making shit up.

14th. Amendment makes quite a statute

 

[surada]

" . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . "

Why are you so resistant to calling a lawyer?

 

[johnwk]

14th. Amendment makes quite a statute

And has a qualifier ". . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " which is expounded upon HERE

.

 

[rightwinger]

T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Unfortunately, that is the opinion of one man. Those words did not make it into the 14th amendment so have no legal bearing

 

[johnwk]

Unfortunately, that is the opinion of one man. Those words did not make it into the 14th amendment so have no legal bearing

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof did make it into the Fourteenth Amendment. So, the question is, what is the intended meaning of those words, and under our constitutionally limited system,
the best evidence regarding the question is to be found in the Congressional Record when the 14th Amendment was framed and debated.

John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section remarks on March 9th, 1866, during Congressional debates upon the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the following manner:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

Later, May 30th, during the debates when framing the 14th amendment and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:

The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.

Mr. Trumbull later [same page] emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”

Business Insider needs to clean up its act and end perpetuating a myth.

 

[surada]

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof did make it into the Fourteenth Amendment. So, the question is, what is the intended meaning of those words, and under our constitutionally limited system,
the best evidence regarding the question is to be found in the Congressional Record when the 14th Amendment was framed and debated.

John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section remarks on March 9th, 1866, during Congressional debates upon the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the following manner:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

Later, May 30th, during the debates when framing the 14th amendment and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:

The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.

Mr. Trumbull later [same page] emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”

Business Insider needs to clean up its act and end perpetuating a myth.

Your allegiance doesn't change US jurisdiction.

 

[johnwk]

Your allegiance doesn't change US jurisdiction.

Within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it makes a difference. Our Supreme Court disagrees with you!

See the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873), in which the Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”

And in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) our S.C. points out:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."

 

[surada]

Within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it does. Our Supreme Court disagrees with you!

See the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873), in which the Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”

And in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) our S.C. points out:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."

Read the case law again.

 

[johnwk]

Read the case law again.

No. I already have read pertinent case law. The simple truth is our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.