Question about “under the jurisdiction thereof” in the birthright citizenship debate

[Concerned American]

You didn’t quote the 14th amendment.

LOL, so in addition to lying about being a Conservative, now you are trying to put your knowledge above an encyclopedia. LMAO, typical moronic democrat.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If a horse became rabid and started trampling people, it could be legally put down. If an extraterrestrial came out of his spaceship and started killing people (or animals) with its raygun, it could be legally captured and killed. If a Somoli Pirate, an invading soldier, or a Venezualan drug smuggler made it into U.S. territory, they could be shot, or captured - even traded in a prisoner swap.

None of that means that if they managed to drop a baby between landing on U.S. soil and being killed, that baby becomes an American citizen.

Because horses, extraterrestrials, and invading hostiles are not covered by the 14th.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

"Under the jurisdiction of" just means American Citizen.
It does not mean illegal alien.

Wait. Oddball said American citizens didn’t exist back then. Lol. You guys need to get on the same page.

 

[Oddball]

https://archive.org/stream/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment/Debates%20that%20led%20to%20the%20creation%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment_djvu.txt

There you go. Every single word spoken by every single Senator and Congressman during the debate over the 14th amendment. I can point you to where your claim, that there were no US citizens, is completely refuted. While the sentiment you expressed may have been the norm under the Articles of Confederation, after the Constitution that idea fell out of favor.

Every word of every Senator and Congressman, none of which you cited.

There was no federal "US Citizen" prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment, and that is a fact.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You didn’t quote the 14th amendment.

It is in the LINK you lazy ass!

Have you ever read Brittanica before they are quite good at explaining things and they also QUOTED the sponsors of the amendment too showing it is designed to help the blacks who were so recently freed.

 

[Meathead]

There’s nothing to say. You told us that an immigrant back then was under the jurisdiction of the United States, because he could be prosecuted, but a foreign diplomat or his children were not. That’s all.
You are in agreement with me

Obviously, but go back and read your asinine post.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

If a horse became rabid and started trampling people, it could be legally put down. If an extraterrestrial came out of his spaceship and started killing people (or animals) with its raygun, it could be legally captured and killed. If a Somoli Pirate, an invading soldier, or a Venezualan drug smuggler made it into U.S. territory, they could be shot, or captured.

None of that means that if they managed to drop a baby between landing on U.S. soil and being killed, that baby becomes an American citizen.

Because horses, extraterrestrials, and invading hostiles are not covered by the 14th.

By your logic, Slaves are not covered either. Because the part about birthright citizenship does not mention aliens or slaves. You swung and missed.

 

[Concerned American]

Wait. Why didn’t you quote the sponsors or the amendment itself? You’re in shaky grounds.

Run around in your head until you're worn out. The SCOTUS will put the question to rest and you'll still be wearing your tin hat and howling at the moon. LOL, will YOU be deported? Hmmmm.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Obviously, but go back and read your asinine post.

You just like to type the word ansinine to seem smart. But you’re making a dumb case.

 

[GMCGeneral]

The constitution said that a person could only be president if he was a USA citizen. Are you stupid? This wasn’t just a state thing. You continue to state false and dumb things.

By the way, you have not answered the question about the diplomat.

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, DUMBASS. That excludes foreign born people that gained their citizenship.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Run around in your head until you're worn out. The SCOTUS will put the question to rest and you'll still be wearing your tin hat and howling at the moon. LOL, will YOU be deported? Hmmmm.

Bookmarked.
How confident were you that your Supreme Court would let Trump send the national guard to states? Just as confident as you are on this one?

 

[Seymour Flops]

By your logic, Slaves are not covered either. Because the part about birthright citizenship does not mention aliens or slaves. You swung and missed.

I didn't say it didn't mention slaves. They were under the jurisdiction of the United States, so it did mention them.

Horses, extraterrestrials, and invading hostiles are not under the jurisdiction of the United States or of the state in which the enter. Even if the horse was born in Texas, its child is not a U.S. citizen.

 

[Sunsettommy]

LOL, so in addition to lying about being a Conservative, now you are trying to put your knowledge above an encyclopedia. LMAO, typical moronic democrat.

Notice that so far he is ignoring it the very first paragraph shows it was primarily for the newly freed blacks.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

I didn't say it didn't mention slaves. They were under the jurisdiction of the United States, so it did mention them.

Horses, extraterrestrials, and invading hostiles are not under the jurisdiction of the United States or of the state in which the enter. Even if the horse was born in Texas, its child is not a U.S. citizen.

You’re lying because the birthright citizenship portion did not mention slaves. Prove that it mentioned slaves. We all know slaves were covered, but the fact that slaves were not mentioned doesn’t mean slaves weren’t covered.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Notice that so far he is ignoring it the very first paragraph shows it was primarily for the newly freed blacks.

The 14th amendment said nothing whatsoever about newly freed blacks in the birthright citizen portion.

That’s why you have not quoted that part of the amendment at all. It’s just not convenient for you guys.

 

[Meathead]

You just like to type the word ansinine to seem smart. But you’re making a dumb case.

Sorry, we're done. Life's too short to deal with idiots. BTW, I have never typed the word "ansinine" in my life.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Sorry, we're done. Life's too short to deal with idiots.

If I were you, I would be done too.

 

[Sunsettommy]

People to come here LEGALLY has to either become a naturalized citizen or become a full citizen then the children can be citizens here in america because the immigrants became a part of America and no longer part of the nation they left.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The 14th amendment said nothing whatsoever about newly freed blacks in the birthright citizen portion.

That’s why you have not quoted that part of the amendment at all. It’s just not convenient for you guys.

Now YOU are simply LYING as I have showed it was designed for blacks as Brittanica clearly stated and further down in the link you are obviously avoiding has the sponsors of the amendment explain what is was designed for.

You are another lazy ass reader who is wilfully ignorant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The question is about U.S. jurisdiction over two types of individuals before the ratification of the 14th Amendment: 1) a Mexican national present in the U.S. illegally, and 2) a foreign diplomat.

First, if a Mexican citizen, lets call him Jose Perez, had committed a violent murder in USA soil in say, 1853, would the United States have had the legal jurisdiction to prosecute and imprison him?

Second, if Perez had been a foreign diplomat of any foreign country at the time, would diplomatic immunity have shielded him from U.S. prosecution?

These two answers will tell us what kind of persons were under US jurisdiction at the time the 14th amendment was passed.
Now, please answer and thank you.

If they meant all but foreign diplomats, they didn't need to include "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".