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

[Sunsettommy]

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

I think he is too dumb to understand what the amendment is talking about and has showed a willingness to ignore what the sponsors of the amendment said about it.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

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

If it had meant only slaves, it would’ve said “only slaves”.
By the way, the children of foreign diplomats were not USA citizens at birth back then

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

Under the jurisdiction doesn’t mean subject to the law. As the debates about this clause by those who wrote it said, “under COMPLETE jurisdiction”, meaning “owing no allegiance to another country”.

Wong Kim Ark was decided because his parents had permanent domicile here, essentially being green card holders.

How would you square the child being a citizen but the parents not? The child then has a right to be in the United States, but the parents deny them that right by taking them back home for 18-20 years, and this child now is a citizen of a country he’s never known.

Also, what about countries that do not allow dual citizenship? If a child is born and is a citizen of the US, but the parents take them home, they now have to grow up in a country that will not allow them to be a citizen. In the United States, parents cannot renounce the citizenship of their child.

 

[Seymour Flops]

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.

We know that slaves were covered because the 14th says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which qualification was met by former slaves.* We also know from history (some of us do) that the 14th was one of the three post-Civil War amendments intended to address the end of slavery, the rights of former slaves, and other consequences to the states and citizens of states who were "in rebellion."

Where did you get this idea that when understanding the Constitution, one must take an 'Exact words, Gregg!" approach?

*To save you the typing, of course we are talking about slaves in the American states which allowed slavery. No it did not include slaves in other nations, or slaves in Greek history, etc. Going by exact words, it should not have included any slaves still living who were imported rather than born in the United States. Nor any children of Thomas Jefferson's slaves if they were born while TJ was visiting France with his human "property."

I'm guessing that no one made that distinction and all slaves were granted citizenship, as the amendment's framers intended.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

We know that slaves were covered because the 14th says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which qualification was met by former slaves.* We also know from history (some of us do) that the 14th was one of the three post-Civil War amendments intended to address the end of slavery, the rights of former slaves, and other consequences to the states and citizens of states who were "in rebellion."

Where did you get this idea that when understanding the Constitution, one must take an 'Exact words, Gregg!" approach?

*To save you the typing, no it did not include slaves in other nations, or slaves in Greek history, etc. Going by exact words, it should not have included any slaves still living who were imported rather than born in the United States. Nor any children of Thomas Jefferson's slaves if they were born while TJ was visiting France with his human "property."

I'm guessing that no one made that distinction and all slaves were granted citizenship, as the amendment's framers intended.

And since the United States had jurisdiction over immigrants born here, they qualified too
Or could Jose Pérez not be prosecuted by the United States?

We know that slaves were covered because the 14th says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which qualification was met by former slaves.* We also know from history (some of us do) that the 14th was one of the three post-Civil War amendments intended to address the end of slavery, the rights of former slaves, and other consequences to the states and citizens of states who were "in rebellion."

Where did you get this idea that when understanding the Constitution, one must take an 'Exact words, Gregg!" approach?

*To save you the typing, of course we are talking about slaves in the American states which allowed slavery. No it did not include slaves in other nations, or slaves in Greek history, etc. Going by exact words, it should not have included any slaves still living who were imported rather than born in the United States. Nor any children of Thomas Jefferson's slaves if they were born while TJ was visiting France with his human "property."

I'm guessing that no one made that distinction and all slaves were granted citizenship, as the amendment's framers intended.

And since the United States had jurisdiction over immigrants born here, they qualified too
Or could Jose Pérez not be prosecuted by the United States?

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Under the jurisdiction doesn’t mean subject to the law. As the debates about this clause by those who wrote it said, “under COMPLETE jurisdiction”, meaning “owing no allegiance to another country”.

Wong Kim Ark was decided because his parents had permanent domicile here, essentially being green card holders.

How would you square the child being a citizen but the parents not? The child then has a right to be in the United States, but the parents deny them that right by taking them back home for 18-20 years, and this child now is a citizen of a country he’s never known.

Also, what about countries that do not allow dual citizenship? If a child is born and is a citizen of the US, but the parents take them home, they now have to grow up in a country that will not allow them to be a citizen. In the United States, parents cannot renounce the citizenship of their child.

You seem to be copy and pasting opinions. No quotes from the constitution. Like when you said ““owing no allegiance to another country”. Trust me. That’s not in the 14th amendment and the sponsors did not describe it that way.

 

[fncceo]

Was there such a thing as "illegal immigrant" back then, Mr. ******* Knowitall?

Yes, but they were all Irish.

 

[excalibur]

The question is about U.S. jurisdiction over two types of individuals before the ratification of the 14th Amendment:

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?

...

Of course. That is a different form of jurisdiction.

Just as an American can be prosecuted in a foreign nation for a crime, citizenship has nothing to do with that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

If they were being so clear about it only applying to freed black slaves, why is that not mentioned in the 14th?

If they intended it for everyone, they could have written it to say “all persons born in the United States, excluding the children of diplomats, are citizens..”

They mentioned jurisdiction and if you read the debates, it’s clear they meant anyone who another country couldn’t claim authority over.

 

[Seymour Flops]

And since the United States had jurisdiction over immigrants born here, they qualified too

What's an "immigrant born here?" Where did the immigrate from?

Or could Jose Pérez not be prosecuted by the United States?

Of course he could be prosecuted. He placed himself under the jurisdiction of the United States when he legally immigrated. Unless you're going to change the question and make him an illegal alien who violated a real or hypothetical law that existed back them.

If there had been restrictions on immigration then, and he had dodged them, then he had dodged jurisdiction. He could be prosecuted if he commited a crime. No one would have had to say, "well wait . . . is he under the jurisdiction of the United States?" If he committed a crime in the U.S., he could be prosecuted in the U.S.

And since the United States had jurisdiction over immigrants born here, they qualified too
Or could Jose Pérez not be prosecuted by the United States?

As I said, in your hypothetical, Jose Perez is a legal immigrant. His children of immigrants, which is what I assume you meant, would be citizens of the United States, and so would Jose if and when he met the requirements. If someone sneaks in, dodging the jurisdiction, they should not be rewarded by having their children get citizenship.

Maybe the USSC will disagree with me. But not if you are arguing the other side, because your hypothetical would be laughed out of courtroom.

Someone who understands the law and won't stand there saying, "exact words, justice Thomas!" might have a chance.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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

and that is why they used the phrase "Under the jurisdiction of" instead of American Citizen.

 

[Rawley]

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.

The US has legal jurisdiction over both. Diplomatic immunity is a defense to a criminal prosecution. If the home country waives the immunity, the US is free to prosecute the diplomat for any crime she commits here.

 

[Winston]

LOL, you have no idea what the SPONSORS of the 14 amendment stated, I am telling the truth and your ignorance is exposed.

Well I got your huckleberry. Let me throw this one out there first,

But why all this talk about Gypsies and Chinese? I have lived in the United States for now many a year, and
really I have heard more about Gypsies within the last two or three months than I have heard before in my life. It cannot be because they have increased so much of late. It cannot be because they have been felt to be particularly oppressive in this or that locality. It must be that the Gypsy element is to be added to our political agitation, so that hereafter the Negro alone shall not claim our entire attention. Here is a simple declaration that a score or a few score of human beings born in the United States shall be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment for crime with other citizens; and that such a provision should be deprecated by any person having or claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension.
That was Conness, on May 30th, responding to Howard. Great day of debate, May 30th. Same day, a little later on.
So much for what has been said in connection with the application of this provision to the State that I in part
represent here. I beg my honorable friend from Pennsylvania to give himself no further trouble on account of the Chinese in California or on the Pacific coast. We are fully aware of the nature of that class of people and their
influence among us, and feel entirely able to take care of them and to provide against any evils that may flow
from their presence among us. We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional
amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.

I know those are just a few quotes, you got hundreds of pages of debate there. But I found it entertaining. But that last one, it makes it perfectly clear what they meant about "jurisdiction" Children born to foreigners here, outside of foreign ambassadors, which was a long-standing common law principle, are subject to our jurisdiction. And, under just solis, which is what the United States always was, those children are citizens.

I mean it is comical. You nuts on the right actually believe the founders had no clue as to some hordes of invading immigrants. That they never considered the ramifications of birth right citizenship for "undesirables". And yes, perhaps the founders didn't, those debating the 14th sure as hell did. Chinese immigrants on the West Coast, gypsies on the East, and reading Howards complaints about the gypsies always makes me laugh. Probably spot on, still a problem, ever hear of the "Travelers"?

But no, those debating the 14th knew exactly what the amendment meant. And more importantly, they knew exactly what the results would be. And damn, birthright citizenship was not a new damn ******* concept. Calvin's Case, the case of Postnati, whatever you want to call it. That was like 250 years before the debate on the 14th amendment and it solidified just solis into British common law.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Rawley you just admitted USA does not have jurisdiction.
It is up to the diplomats country to waive their jurisdiction. USA would have to beg the country to please let them prosecute the guy before they can do it.
If the non-diplomat kills someone in USA, we prosecute him. No waiver asked.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You seem to be copy and pasting opinions. No quotes from the constitution. Like when you said ““owing no allegiance to another country”. Trust me. That’s not in the 14th amendment and the sponsors did not describe it that way.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20150429/103384/HHRG-114-JU01-Wstate-GragliaL-20150429.pdf#:~:text=Senators%20Lyman%20Trumbull%20of%20Illinois%20and%20Jacob,else.%22%20This%20would%20seem%20clearly%20to%20exclude

Framers like Senators Jacob Howard (MI) and Lyman Trumbull (IL), key figures in drafting the 14th Amendment, stated that "subject to the jurisdiction" meant owing allegiance solely to the U.S

• Senator Lyman Trumbull (IL): Agreed "subject to the jurisdiction" meant complete jurisdiction, excluding allegiance to foreign powers, thus excluding children of all foreigners.

 

[excalibur]

That is patently wrong. American citizens can indeed be prosecuted for crimes in foreign countries. Those under diplomatic immunity cannot.

There's an old movie called "Midnight Express" based on a true story. Watch it.

Uh, what was wrong? I said an American can be prosecuted in a foreign country, citizenship has nothing to do with being subject to foreign criminal law, as the OP attempted a gotcha.

Just as an American can be prosecuted in a foreign nation for a crime ...

Heck, an American can be returned, extradited, from the USA to a foreign nation for prosecution in a foreign nation, under various treaties.

I was NOT referring to diplomats, as I ignored part 2 of his OP.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

If they were being so clear about it only applying to freed black slaves, why is that not mentioned in the 14th?

How can they mention something that didn’t exist?

 

[Meathead]

Uh, what was wrong? I said an American can be prosecuted in a foreign country, citizenship has nothing to do with being subject to foreign criminal law, as the OP attempted a gotcha.



Heck, an American can be returned, extradited, from the USA to a foreign nation for prosecution in a foreign nation, under various treaties.

I was NOT referring to diplomats, as I ignored part 2 of his OP.

I realized my mistake and deleted my post. The OP is an idiot btw.

 

[Winston]

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.

What the hell are you talking about? Look, I know it is vague, but just what the **** is a "natural born citizen"? Cant be president unless you are natural born. Damn Constitution doesn't say State citizen now does it? Oh wait, maybe they mean no one born via a C-section can be president.

Yes, under the Articles of the Confederation, well I might accept your position, no national citizen. But the Constitution changed that. And the 14th, well it codified what had already been understood. Prior to the Constitution, well things often times got ugly. Like the Granville territory, pretty much an independent country until the state of North Carolina confiscated the land in 1779. No worries, land grants prior to 1776 were still honored. The state of Franklin? The Constitution reeled all that stuff in.

 

[Winston]

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.

To answer the questions, yes and yes. And that has been a part of English Common Law for more than 400 years.