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

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.
1775086671671.gif
 
Once again demonstrating that you are pitiably ignorant.

Your always shallow understandings get in the way. For example, you have confused what “jurisdiction” means since you weren’t even alive in the days in which that Amendment was approved by Congress. And in your always feeble mind, you imagine (wrongly) that a state having a claim over you for its own criminal jurisdiction concerns isn’t even remotely what the framers of the Amendment understood it to mean in its own context.

It dealt with another concept about which you are ignorant. “Allegiance.”

What makes a simpleton shitlib like you imagine that a baby born here — to a couple who have entered this country illegally — would consider himself as owing allegiance to this country?

You’re a goober, Lib.


Thank you. Also, the framers were very cognizant of the very real threat of the Manchurian candidate, if you will, hence their specific requirement that candidates for the presidency be 'natural born CITIZENS'
 
Once again demonstrating that you are pitiably ignorant.

Your always shallow understandings get in the way. For example, you have confused what “jurisdiction” means since you weren’t even alive in the days in which that Amendment was approved by Congress. And in your always feeble mind, you imagine (wrongly) that a state having a claim over you for its own criminal jurisdiction concerns isn’t even remotely what the framers of the Amendment understood it to mean in its own context.

It dealt with another concept about which you are ignorant. “Allegiance.”

What makes a simpleton shitlib like you imagine that a baby born here — to a couple who have entered this country illegally — would consider himself as owing allegiance to this country?

You’re a goober, Lib.



I notice he ran away from your post as you destroyed his irrational claims.

He likely didn't read it either, this is what he missed,

"Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country."
 
Exactly. That’s an exception in the law.
It’s always been. But you cannot point to an exception regarding people who are not children of diplomats. You just can’t win this one.
It doesn’t address the question (at least not in the manner in which the Amendment itself is phrased) at all.

Thus, it does invite different interpretations.

I don’t know how SCOTUS will decide this issue. But I do know what “allegiance” means. Evidently, Lib, you don’t.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom