Feds Raid California ‘Maternity Hotels’ for Birth Tourists

[Skylar]

Again:

The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens

You’ll need some serious context for that statement.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Again:

The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens

You’ll need some serious context for that statement.

I don't. Not my fault you can't read.

 

[Spare_change]

This is because we have the insane policy of "birthright citizenship". Congress never wrote a law creating this idiotic policy - FEDERAL JUDGES DID, even though the constitution says only congress can write laws!!

I don't think you've read the 14th amendment. Here's the first sentence of it:

"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."

That's why people born here are citizens....because the constitution says they are.

The operative words are ".... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ..." -------- foreign nationals are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US. It is an amazing leap of logic to assign birthright citizenship.

They absolutely are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Otherwise we could apply none of our laws to them. They would be immune to the very immigration laws we attempt to apply to them.

If they live under the jurisdiction of our laws, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Sorry ---- you're taking a strict legal interpretation to the word "jurisdiction" .... SCOTUS has made it clear they are NOT under our political jurisdiction, but ARE subject to our legal jurisdiction.

The 14th amendment makes no mention of “political jurisdiction”. It mentions merely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Which both the courts and federal law recognize apply to “persons in the United States”.

Actually, that's not true .... YOU are the one who applying a stove-piped definition of 'jurisdiction'. But, if you choose not to read the SCOTUS ruling, or an interpretation of it, there's probably no reason for you to continue to participate in this discussion.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."
.

Of course that's true. "Jurisdiction" in this case means political jurisdiction not legal jurisdiction. Everyone in america, whether citizen or not, is subject to the legal jurisdiction of america. A foreign invader cannot get away with murder by claiming the laws don't apply to him since he's not an american!!!

The idea that the 14A refers to legal jurisdiction is unthinkable.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The 14th amendment makes no mention of “political jurisdiction”. It mentions merely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Which both the courts and federal law recognize apply to “persons in the United States”.

And the word "person" or "people" means citizen, you fool That is obvious since the first seven words of the constitution are "We the people of the united states". THINK

 

[Skylar]

Again:

The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens

You’ll need some serious context for that statement.

I don't. Not my fault you can't read.

You've provided 6 words, plucked from a sentence. You'll need to at least give us the full sentence. And better yet, the source you're pulling from. Was Howard discussing the 14th amendment's 'jurisdiction' provision? Was he referring to the 'privileges and immunities' clause instead? Was this before the amendment, was this after, was this part of the congressional record, was this off the cuff?

You have no idea. Neither do I. If you want to use it as evidence, you're going to need context. And you don't have it.

 

[Skylar]

The 14th amendment makes no mention of “political jurisdiction”. It mentions merely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Which both the courts and federal law recognize apply to “persons in the United States”.

And the word "person" or "people" means citizen, you fool That is obvious since the first seven words of the constitution are "We the people of the united states". THINK

Says who? Show us federal law or court rulings indicating that when 'person' is used, they mean citizen. When the constitution said 'Three fifths of all other Persons." what they 'really meant' was 'three fifths of all other CITIZENS'?

Laughing......really?

And if 'person' and 'citizen' are interchangeable....why use both in the 14th Amendment? You're *actually* arguing that what the writers of the 14th amendment 'really meant' was;

"All citizens 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."

Laughing.....really? That's your argument?

THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And if 'person' and 'citizen' are interchangeable....why use both in the 14th Amendment? You're *actually* arguing that what the writers of the 14th amendment 'really meant' was;
"All citizens 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."

What i'd like to know is why the 14A says "born or naturalized". Naturalized means you have already have been made a citizen. THINK, hater.

 

[Skylar]

And if 'person' and 'citizen' are interchangeable....why use both in the 14th Amendment? You're *actually* arguing that what the writers of the 14th amendment 'really meant' was;
"All citizens 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."

What i'd like to know is why the 14A says "born or naturalized". Naturalized means you have already have been made a citizen. THINK, hater.

Because there are only two ways of becoming a citizen. Citizen at birth (birthright) or citizenship after birth (naturalized). You are literally killing your own argument.

Laughing.....are you still going with the absurd idea that what framers of the 14th amendment 'really meant' was: "All citizens 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."

And I'm still waiting for you to show me the law or court ruling where 'persons' is determined to mean the same thing as 'citizens'. Or show me any mention of 'political jurisdiction' in the 14th amendment.