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

[Rawley]

Rawley you just admitted USA does not have jurisdiction.

Nope. Which words did you not understand? "The US has legal jurisdiction over both?

It is up to the diplomats country to waive their jurisdiction.

Nope. Again, which words did you not understand? "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."

Immunity is waived, not jurisdiction. It's like if you waive your 5th amendment right, you can be called to testify against yourself.

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.

Nope. Diplomatic immunity is certainly broad, but it is not absolute.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Prima Facie
Obviously they do not accept American Jurisdiction because the first thing that they did was violate our border crossing laws

 

[Meathead]

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.

Bizarre bordering on absolutely bonkers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

And they still aren't USA citizens today.

Just because an illegal alien, or pregnant tourist, steps onto US soil doesn't make them "subject to our jurisdiction".

 

[Oddball]

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.

Lots of bloviating, but still no citations, legal or otherwise.

Which Article and Section spells out the feds' creation of the US citizen?

Please show your math for a change.

 

[Winston]

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

No it doesn't, not even close. There was a great deal of discussion around this jurisdiction clause, most of it revolved around Native Americans. They eventually agreed that Native Americans, living on reservations, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That is why they needed their own legislation to gain citizenship.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

people who illegally enter our country are not citizens
therefore they are "Under the jurisdiction of" (citizen) of their home country

 

[Concerned American]

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

With one caveat. A person born abroad to parents who are US citizens is a 'natural born citizen.' I fall into that category as does John McCain.

 

[Concerned American]

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?

Your irrelevant, off topic comment aside, hide and watch tin hat.

 

[Concerned American]

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

He is too stupid to realize that he's stupid. LOL, and he's a liar--definitely not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Winston]

Lots of bloviating, but still no citations, legal or otherwise.

Which Article and Section spells out the feds' creation of the US citizen?

Please show your math for a change.

Now, what have we already to "secure future peace and safety?" In the first place, we have
the civil rights act, under which any citizen who is denied justice by local or State courts is empowered to appeal to the United States court, which is commanded, with all its machinery, to interfere in his behalf; and if necessary, to use the military power of the United States to secure him justice.
So, the military power of the United States is going to be used to secure justice for a state citizen? What?

It will be remembered that the Chinese came to our State, as others did from all parts of the world, to gather gold in large quantities, it being found there. The interference with our own people in the mines by them was deprecated by and generally objectionable to the miners in California. The Chinese are re-garded, also, not with favor as an addition to the population in a social point of view; not that there is any intercourse between the two classes of persons there, but they are not regarded as pleasant neighbors; their habits are not of a character that make them at all an inviting class to have near you, and the people so generally regard them. But in their habits otherwise, they are a docile, industrious people, and they are now passing from mining into other branches of industry and labor. They are found employed as servants in a great many families and in the kitchens of hotels; they are found as farm hands in the fields; and latterly they are employed by thousands — indeed, I suppose there are from six to seven thousand of them now employed in building the Pacific railroad. They are there found to be very valuable laborers, patient and effective; and, I suppose, before the present year closes, ten or fifteen thousand of them, at least, will be employed on that great work.

I like Conness. He tells it straight. And yes, it cost him his seat. But, he fulfilled his job as a senator. But come on, play along, read the debates. Your position is voiced, make no mistake about it. And if you spend the necessary time, honestly, probably a long weekend, you might come to understand just how amazing these men were.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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

I tried to tell that man from georgia this very thing in the link I gave him he calls me a liar you are dealing with a lazy ass simpleton who will never allow what the actual men said about the amemdment they drew up and debated on.

 

[Sunsettommy]

people who illegally enter our country are not citizens
therefore they are "Under the jurisdiction of" (citizen) of their home country

This easy to understand point that even a cave woman would figure out, but these are leftist democrats who has no love for the constitution will fight against what the authors of the 14th amendment said about it.

 

[BackAgain]

I sometimes check AI. I don’t necessarily trust it. But, sometimes it gets shit right.

Since I was already familiar with the debates, I see this AI answer as being pretty accurate:

Here’s how the key framers described it:

1. Sen. Lyman Trumbull (chair of the Judiciary Committee)

Trumbull said the phrase meant being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” He clarified that this meant not owing allegiance to any other sovereign.

He explicitly excluded:

• Foreign diplomats
• Foreign soldiers occupying U.S. territory
• Members of Indian tribes who owed allegiance to their tribes rather than the U.S.

In his words, it meant persons “not subject to any foreign power.”


2. Sen. Jacob Howard (who introduced the Citizenship Clause)

Howard said the clause would make citizens of those:

“who are born here and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

He then explained that this did not include:

• Foreign ministers and their families
• Foreign citizens who retain allegiance to another country
• Tribal Indians

Howard emphasized that jurisdiction meant “full and complete jurisdiction”, the same jurisdiction that applies to U.S. citizens.

3. Connection to the Civil Rights Act of 1866

The 14th Amendment’s language was intentionally aligned with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which defined citizens as persons born in the U.S. “and not subject to any foreign power.”

During debates, lawmakers repeatedly treated that wording as equivalent to “under the jurisdiction thereof.”

4. What they were trying to do

The framers’ central goal was to:

• Guarantee citizenship to freed slaves, who clearly owed allegiance to the U.S.
• Exclude people whose legal allegiance lay elsewhere

This was about political jurisdiction, not day-to-day criminal jurisdiction.

5. Key takeaway

To the framers, “under the jurisdiction thereof” meant:

Full political allegiance to the United States, with no divided loyalty to a foreign sovereign.

It did not mean:

• Anyone physically present
• Anyone merely subject to U.S. laws temporarily

from ChatGPT (my bolding).

 

[Rogue AI]

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.

You are mistaken, as usual. If an illegal from Mexico commits a capital offense and is facing the death penalty, if they flee to Mexico, they won't be extradited because Mexico opposes the death penalty. Yet Mexico will extradict an American for the same reason. Illegal aliens are not entitled to birthright citizenship.

 

[Dekster]

Yes, there were absolutely U.S. citizens before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. In fact, the Constitution mentioned "citizens" several times before the amendment was ever written (for example, stating that the President must be a "natural born Citizen"

But wasn't citizenship largely a state issue not a federal one?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I think what people are not realizing is that changing the citizenship clause doesn’t mean we are denying foreign people citizenship. I say, have a robust immigration policy and help those who want to come here do so but do so according to our laws.

We can change things to make it not take so long for people to become citizens.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It seems this is the time for Conservative from Georgia to demonstrate his character, be the bigger person, act like a grown up or however you would put it.

Connie, you have been proven wrong in your implied assertion by several posters here who showed a greater grasp of logic, and much more knowledge of history and the law than yourself. Can you simply admit your error and be done with it?

 

[BrokeLoser]

If the immigrant has to follow USA laws, then it means this immigrant is under USA jurisdiction. Correct?
You can’t prosecute a person without jurisdiction over him.

hahaha…poor purple hair people don’t know that legal jurisdiction and jurisdiction as it relates to nation of origin and political allegiance are two totally different things…They want so hard to believe that everyone standing on US soil has citizenship rights. hahahaha.
BUT…they’ll be the first to tell you that white people in Mexico and South Africa should go home.

 

[Winston]

I sometimes check AI. I don’t necessarily trust it. But, sometimes it gets shit right.

Since I was already familiar with the debates, I see this AI answer as being pretty accurate:



from ChatGPT (my bolding).

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

Quoting Howard, from the Congressional Record, his actual words.

And how did they antecedently become citizens of the several States? By birth or by
naturalization. They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons bom within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

--snip--

The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen
of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. It prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime for which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the blackman in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man. Is it not time, Mr. President, that we extend to the black man, I had almost called it the poor privilege of the equal protection of
the law? Ought not the time to be now passed when one measure of justice is to be meted out to a member of one caste while another and a different measure is meted out to the member of another caste, both castes being alike citizens of the United States, both bound to obey the same laws, to sustain the burdens of the same Government, and both equally responsible to justice and to God for the deeds done in the body?

--snip--


It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those
fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may
happen to be within their jurisdiction. It establishes equality before the law, and it gives to the humblest, the
poorest, the most despised of the race the same rights and the same protection before the law as it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the most haughty. That, sir, is republican government, as I understand it, and the only one which can claim the praise of a just Government. Without this principle of equal justice to all men and equal protection under the shield of the law, there is no republican government and none that is really worth maintaining.