Why are you so resistant to understanding the statutes?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why are you so resistant to understanding the statutes?
Why do you constantly deflect?Why are you so resistant to understanding the statutes?
A child born in the US is subject to the jurisdictionSubject 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.
You are confused about the Naturalization Oath. Not all foreign nationals, tourists, students or illegals take it. US jurisdiction still prevails regardless of your allegiance. You are making Americans ignorant.Why do you constantly deflect?
A child born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction
But what are you?You are confused
exactlyNot within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and the qualifier " ... subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . "
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words 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. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.” ___ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
exactly
I'm happy to see you finally agree with the S.C. 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 .” Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873),
Those who wrote the 14th amendment understood what words mean.
I think he needs to call a shrink.Not every foreign national takes the oath to become a Naturalized US citizen. They are still under US jurisdiction. Call a lawyer.
Call a lawyer before you get in deeper.But what are you?
It's not up to SCOTUS to amend the US Constitution, but they should put to rest the misleading, dishonest distorted interpretations the Democrats have made, of the phrase ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . "Birth right citizenship is a fact.
Only SCOTUS can change it, and even this Court seems to have no interest in doing so.
Nobody knows everything, but this has stuck on stupid all over it.I think he needs to call a shrink.
No, it's not.A child born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction
Always been that way
The US has no jurisdiction over Chinese soil. The US has no jurisdiction over US citizens abroad... not in China or Afghanistan or Sudan or Paris, France.No, it's not.
Let's say your parents visit a foreign country, like China, Vietnam or Russia. Then let's say for whatever reason, mom gives birth to you inside that country. The CCP views the Chinese citizens as the property of the CCP. Are you now subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese communist party? Can the CCP now treat you as if you were a Chinese citizen?
No.
Your parents do not lose their US citizenship, and you do not lose your birthright to US citizenship either. Just because you were born inside China does not mean you fall under the tyrannical jurisdiction of the Chinese communist party.
It's the same for any foreign visitor to the US, legal or illegal. They do not suddenly lose their Rights as a citizen to their home country, and fall under the jurisdiction of the US government. We do not have the type of legal jurisdiction over their person, that allows our government to draft them into our military, invalidate their marriage, or tax their income, and we cannot toss them in prison for not paying back taxes either.
Remember the basketball player Griner? She broke the law in China. She didn't lose her US citizenship, but only China had jurisdiction.No, it's not.
Let's say your parents visit a foreign country, like China, Vietnam or Russia. Then let's say for whatever reason, mom gives birth to you inside that country. The CCP views the Chinese citizens as the property of the CCP. Are you now subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese communist party? Can the CCP now treat you as if you were a Chinese citizen?
No.
Your parents do not lose their US citizenship, and you do not lose your birthright to US citizenship either. Just because you were born inside China does not mean you fall under the tyrannical jurisdiction of the Chinese communist party.
It's the same for any foreign visitor to the US, legal or illegal. They do not suddenly lose their Rights as a citizen to their home country, and fall under the jurisdiction of the US government. We do not have the type of legal jurisdiction over their person, that allows our government to draft them into our military, invalidate their marriage, or tax their income, and we cannot toss them in prison for not paying back taxes either.
We remain US citizens when we travel abroad. Foreign nations cannot assume jurisdiction over US citizens simply because we set foot inside their borders. What you are claiming is that we lose all Rights as a US citizen, and any foreign nation we visit can assume jurisdiction over us, and draft us into their military, take our possessions, etc...The US has no jurisdiction over Chinese soil. The US has no jurisdiction over US citizens abroad... not in China or Afghanistan or Sudan or Paris, France.
A child born to American parents in China would still be a natural born US citizen, but the US wouldn't have jurisdiction. That's where it gets dicey.
If you mean Brittney Griner, it was Russia. But yes, we have treaties with Russia that stipulates a limited number of laws that they can enforce on our citizens, should we violate them. We cannot have people selling drugs, committing rape and murder, and expect the people of Russia to not have the jurisdiction to protect their own people against these vile actions by US citizens. But russia does not have complete jurisdiction over us, like drafting us to fight in a war with Ukraine. We are subject of a foreign power, the United States, we are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Russian government just because we visit their country.Remember the basketball player Griner? She broke the law in China. She didn't lose her US citizenship, but only China had jurisdiction.