On the road to TYRANNY...

[toobfreak]

As written, the language of the Fourteenth does seem to grant citizenship to anyone born under American jurisdiction.

It sure does. Another bit of excellent work by our lawmakers, but then, maybe the people of 1860 never envisioned the situation today. If I'm not mistaken though, it does also seem to bar the repayment of reparations to any former slaves as well!

 

[odanny]

If neither of your parents are American citizens, why should their newborn be granted citizenship just because of geography? And if Trump ends this policy, we will be only the second country in the entire Western Hemisphere to abolish such a policy (Colombia is currently the only country on this side of the world that does not allow this)

And on the other side of the world, only two African countries have this policy, while no other countries allow unrestricted citizenship.

Countries with Birthright Citizenship 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If I'm not mistaken though, it does also seem to bar the repayment of reparations to any former slaves as well!

That seems very clear, on at least two different fronts.

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.​

To deprive some people of property, in order to pay for these reparations, would be a violation of the clause against doing so without due process of law.

To take property from some, to be given to others, would violate the equal protection clause.

 

[Dadoalex]

Actually, being born in the US meaning automatic citizenship isn't in the Constitution ... anywhere. It's fine to support that, the Constitution doesn't ban it either, but you can't say it's a Constitutional right people have who break in. Nice try but fail. It's like saying someone who broke into your house gets to vote where you're going for dinner, it's pretty stupid to do that

obviously not a Constitutional scholar

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.

Explains why you finf a right to keep arms for self defense. You just make it up just like the current SCOTUS

 

[toobfreak]

That seems very clear, on at least two different fronts.

I would only add:

Section 4.​

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Seems to me that rebellious acts of national riot such as was the Floyd riots of 2020 could be deemed insurrection or rebellion, and claims of reparations for past slavery which may or may not have occurred for any given individual are null and void as per the above.

 

[Winston]

Among the debate leading up to the Fourteenth Amendment, was an expression that those who wrote it very specifically did not intend to grant citizenship to children of foreign nationals, merely for being born on American soil. It was meant to prevent former slaves and their immediate posterity, from being denied citizenship.

I suppose there is some room, should the right case be brought before the Supreme Court, for the court to rule based on the documents that record this intent. But that's a stretch.

As written, the language of the Fourteenth does seem to grant citizenship to anyone born under American jurisdiction. I think it would take a Constitutional Amendment to correct this.

I beg to disagree, the argument surrounding the 14th amendment's citizenship clause revolved around a state, or the opposing party attaining power (Democrats in this case) stripping away citizenship from the blacks. Now, like then, the whole argument against the citizenship clause is based on racism. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed when Johnson's veto was overturned. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause was passed to cement, and protect, the citizenship rights of blacks that had been provided by the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Winston]

If neither of your parents are American citizens, why should their newborn be granted citizenship just because of geography?

Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem

 

[Rigby5]

Actually, being born in the US meaning automatic citizenship isn't in the Constitution ... anywhere. It's fine to support that, the Constitution doesn't ban it either, but you can't say it's a Constitutional right people have who break in. Nice try but fail. It's like saying someone who broke into your house gets to vote where you're going for dinner, it's pretty stupid to do that

But you could also say all Europeans "broke in" and really should not be here.
Those south of the border came across the Bearing Straits, so then ancestors had to have lived in North American at some point.

 

[Thinker101]

 

[Rigby5]

The section I highlighted can mean that foreign citizens and their children would be exempt from birthright citizenship, since they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries.

Then all immigrants, including the original colonists would not be citizens either.
The problem is you want to exclude natives but still accept European immigrant, and then deny those who come later.
Can't win that.
Contradicting principles.

 

[Rigby5]

That seems very clear, on at least two different fronts.

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.​

To deprive some people of property, in order to pay for these reparations, would be a violation of the clause against doing so without due process of law.

To take property from some, to be given to others, would violate the equal protection clause.

Not at all.
While not a fan of reparations, the process would NOT be to take from some to be given to others.
The point would be to RESTORE what was originally take from them as they produced as slaves.
The money stolen from the labor of slaves, created dynasties of wealth and privilege that still exist.

 

[BackAgain]

Why would we assume that the child born of an illegal immigrant is subject to the laws of the United States?

One answer appears to be that aliens are still obliged to comply with our laws in our land. But, that’s nonsensical.
For if that was indeed the test, then there would be no need to insert the clause, itself.
No. The actual answer obviously cannot be founded upon a simpleminded tautology.
The infant child of an illegal alien is likely to be subject to the laws of his mother’s land.

But the curious phrase has been interpreted by our SCOTUS as including the children born here of illegals aliens. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

Therefore, I believe that a new Amendment is probably required to properly assert that children of illegal aliens should not get automatic US citizenship.

 

[Rumpole]

Among the debate leading up to the Fourteenth Amendment, was an expression that those who wrote it very specifically did not intend to grant citizenship to children of foreign nationals, merely for being born on American soil. It was meant to prevent former slaves and their immediate posterity, from being denied citizenship.

I suppose there is some room, should the right case be brought before the Supreme Court, for the court to rule based on the documents that record this intent. But that's a stretch.

As written, the language of the Fourteenth does seem to grant citizenship to anyone born under American jurisdiction. I think it would take a Constitutional Amendment to correct this.

Your point is debunked here:

On the road to TYRANNY...

Their Spirit Never Ended In the year 2024, a haunting sight, Trump won the race, his power alight. With a stroke of his pen, he aimed to decree, An end to birthright citizenship, for all to see. The Constitution trembled, its principles shaken, As the path to creeping fascism was taken. He...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Rumpole]

The section I highlighted can mean that foreign citizens and their children would be exempt from birthright citizenship, since they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries.

Your position is not the prevailing legal view

The 14th amendment can only make sense from the standpoint of birthright citizenship for anyone 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof", it is further emboldened by the 9th, if there is any question about the constitutionality of the right of every citizen, regardless of who the parents were, to be granted citizenship. HIs move will be unconstitutional.
ANd as for the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof' a clause in the 14th, that was only meant to exclude a child born from the parents of diplomats, who are 'not subject to the jurisdiction' thereof, everyone else is included.

Unless you are talking about a baby born from foreign diplomats, I believe everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The prevailing legal consensus, supported by historical practice and court rulings, is that foreign nationals who are in the United States on temporary visas and give birth to a child within its jurisdiction are generally considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This means that their children are typically granted birthright citizenship under
the principle of jus soli (citizenship by place of birth).

The rationale behind this interpretation is that individuals on temporary visas, while not permanent residents or citizens, are still subject to various U.S. laws and regulations during their stay. They are required to comply with immigration laws, pay taxes, follow local laws, and are entitled to certain legal protections afforded by the U.S. legal system. As such, they are considered to be within the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of birthright citizenship.

If you are going to argue that the only reason the 14th amendment exists is to give former slaves the right of citizenship, while that might be one of the reasons it was implemented, it isn't the only reason, which explains why people of African American descent weren't mentioned, thus it was meant for everyone, equally, which is consistent with the egalitarian principles which are ubiquitous in the constitution.

Not to mention the fact that under United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401), a person is a United States national and citizen if:

• the person is born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
• the person is born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Inuit, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924)
• the person is of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of 21 years, not to have been born in the United States
• the person is born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person.

If it were only for former slaves, writ large, it would be in the Constitution and legislation.

Simply put, you are incorrect.

 

[Rumpole]

If neither of your parents are American citizens, why should their newborn be granted citizenship just because of geography?

And if Trump ends this policy, we will be only the second country in the entire Western Hemisphere to abolish such a policy (Colombia is currently the only country on this side of the world that does not allow this)

And on the other side of the world, only two African countries have this policy, while no other countries allow unrestricted citizenship.

Countries with Birthright Citizenship 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

First of all, you would be rendering a child stateless, which, in my view, is child abuse. Not all countries grant the children of their citizens, if they go abroad and give birth to a child in a foreign country that they automatically grant citizenship to the child should they return.

But, be that as it may, it's a moot point given the following:

Your position is not the prevailing legal view

The 14th amendment can only make sense from the standpoint of birthright citizenship for anyone 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof", it is further emboldened by the 9th, if there is any question about the constitutionality of the right of every citizen, regardless of who the parents were, to be granted citizenship. HIs move will be unconstitutional.
ANd as for the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof' a clause in the 14th, that was only meant to exclude a child born from the parents of diplomats, who are 'not subject to the jurisdiction' thereof, everyone else is included.

Unless you are talking about a baby born from foreign diplomats, I believe everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The prevailing legal consensus, supported by historical practice and court rulings, is that foreign nationals who are in the United States on temporary visas and give birth to a child within its jurisdiction are generally considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This means that their children are typically granted birthright citizenship under
the principle of jus soli (citizenship by place of birth).

The rationale behind this interpretation is that individuals on temporary visas, while not permanent residents or citizens, are still subject to various U.S. laws and regulations during their stay. They are required to comply with immigration laws, pay taxes, follow local laws, and are entitled to certain legal protections afforded by the U.S. legal system. As such, they are considered to be within the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of birthright citizenship.

If you are going to argue that the only reason the 14th amendment exists is to give former slaves the right of citizenship, while that might be one of the reasons it was implemented, it isn't the only reason, which explains why people of African American descent weren't mentioned, thus it was meant for everyone, equally, which is consistent with the egalitarian principles which are ubiquitous in the constitution.

Not to mention the fact that under United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401), a person is a United States national and citizen if:

• the person is born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
• the person is born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Inuit, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924)
• the person is of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of 21 years, not to have been born in the United States
• the person is born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person.

If it were only for former slaves, writ large, it would be in the Constitution and legislation.

Simply put, you are incorrect.

 

[Rumpole]

You have to be here legally. I mean duh. People not here legally aren't legally recognized, it's just stupid.

No mention of that as a requirement in the constitution or in law. In fact, the only people not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' are diplomats. So, anyone born from anyone else, is, including illegal immigrants. You might not like it, but that is the status quo.

Your pool has lap swimming from 4-5, Steve breaks in to the workout facility and starts swimming laps. They call the cops. Steve says, but it says the pool is open for lap swimming!!!!

What is wrong with Steve's argument?

I'm not making an argument for or against, I'm just stating with the status quo on subject is.

But, I will, I personally don't mind the status quo on this because I am a D.E.I. kind of person.

 

[Rumpole]

The section I highlighted can mean that foreign citizens and their children would be exempt from birthright citizenship, since they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries.

No, it refers to children born of Diplomats, because, in law, they are the only people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United states. See, everyone else is, including illegal immigrants.

 

[BackAgain]

No, it refers to children born of Diplomats, because, in law, they are the only people not subject to the laws of the United states.

Incorrect. Children born of any enemy invaders also don’t get included as citizens.

 

[Hossfly]

And then your fat lady is going to do what?

Clean out the swamp. With extreme prejudice.

 

[Winston]

The actual answer obviously cannot be founded upon a simpleminded tautology.

Yes it can, and it has been in English Law since 1604

Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem.