Supreme Court & Birthright Citizenship

[protectionist]

Montrovant, not to worry in the slightest. Protectionist's minority view has no chance of succeeding.

What Protectionist has, isn't a "view"
It's a report (of history)

 

[Care4all]

He mentioned ambassadors & diplomats simply because at the time, (1866), those were the only people who were related to this subject. There were no caravans, and massive waves of people coming in.

His words were "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens" That is enough - the diplomat is just an example.

We know what Howard meant by ALL PERSONS, and we know who he exempted from birthright citizenship....because he wrote and debated it, on the senate floor.

What you're claiming of every day foreign aliens not being included and exempt from birthright citizenship, is simply a flat out fabricated lie.


We had just gone through the massive influx of Irish immigrants escaping the Irish potato famine by migrating here, who we did NOT welcome....and their children born on this soil were still citizens at birth....much to the dismay of many. All persons, was ALL PERSONS.

 

[BackAgain]

He was specifically speaking about diplomats and ambassadors, which was current Common Law, and he wanted to make certain the foreign diplomat aliens were an exclusion in the all persons.

If you are IMPLYING that ALL foreign aliens were EXCLUDED from birthright citizenship by what Howard said, then WHY OH WHY would Howard had needed to even mention foreign ambassadors and diplomats?? They would have already been an exemption by being a foreigner.....

Not a terrible question.

I do wonder, all the same, why the Amendment also says, “ … and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ….”

 

[Care4all]

Not a terrible question.

I do wonder, all the same, why the Amendment also says, “ … and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ….”

It says such, because that term 'Subject to the jurisdiction there of' alone ...excluded those foreigners with Diplomatic Immunity working here under the jurisdiction of their foreign King or Government,

and it excluded Native Americans who through treaties were under the jurisdiction of their tribal govt on their reservations.

 

[BackAgain]

It says such, because that term 'under the jurisdiction there of' alone excluded those foreigners with Diplomatic Immunity working here under the jurisdiction of their foreign King or Government,

and it excluded Native Americans who through treaties were under the jurisdiction of their tribal govt on their reservations.

Partial credit. Yeah, Diplomatic Immunity requires that one of their offspring being born on what is, to them, foreign soil not be allowed to determine that child’s nationality.

But the terminology “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” also ought to be recognized as meaning what it does mean: the owing of allegiance to America.

Those words are not fictional.

 

[Care4all]

Partial credit. Yeah, Diplomatic Immunity requires that one of their offspring being born on what is, to them, foreign soil not be allowed to determine that child’s nationality.

But the terminology “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” also ought to be recognized as meaning what it does mean: the owing of allegiance to America.

Those words are not fictional.

That ambiguous argument of allegiance was used in Wong Kim Ark suit by the dissenting justices and they had the losing opinion, 6 to 2....

Subject to the jurisdiction there of, meant being bound to obey U.S. laws.

 

[BackAgain]

That ambiguous argument of allegiance was used in Wong Kim Ark suit by the dissenting justices and they had the losing opinion, 6 to 2....

Subject to the jurisdiction there of, meant being bound to obey U.S. laws.

So what? They made a mistake. Sometimes the SCOTUS gets a chance to correct its mistakes. Like Dobbs corrected Roe v. Wade. Or like the overturning is “separate but equal.” You likely realize that Plessy v. Ferguson isn’t “good law,” anymore.

Also, reliance on that particular case is misplaced for a couple of other reasons. For one thing (the major thing, actually) it didn’t address the children of illegal aliens.

So, while I’m not optimistic about how the SCOTUS will come down on this case, I do know how they should come down.

 

[Care4all]

It d

So what? They made a mistake. Sometimes the SCOTUS gets a chance to correct its mistakes. Like Dobbs corrected Roe v. Wade. Or like the overturning is “separate but equal.” You likely realize that Plessy v. Ferguson isn’t “good law,” anymore.

Also, reliance on that particular case is misplaced for a couple of other reasons. For one thing (the major thing, actually) it didn’t address the children of illegal aliens.

So, while I’m not optimistic about how the SCOTUS will come down on this case, I do know how they should come down.

It did address children born here by unlawful entrants, by not excluding them from ALL PERSONS, and by the fact that on our soil they were bound by our jurisdiction/laws.

How do you get the definition of jurisdiction as meaning the word allegiance???

And there is no required allegiance to their country of origin for these immigrants migrating here by their choice today.

 

[BackAgain]

It d

It did address children born here by unlawful entrants, by not excluding them from ALL PERSONS, and by the fact that on our soil they were bound by our jurisdiction/laws.

How do you get the definition of jurisdiction as meaning the word allegiance???

And there is no required allegiance to their country of origin for these immigrants migrating here by their choice today.

I gather you didn’t bother to ever actually read the decision.

And if you knew about the meaning of
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” you wouldn’t have to ask that question.

 

[Care4all]

I gather you didn’t bother to ever actually read the decision.

And if you knew about the meaning of
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” you wouldn’t have to ask that question.

I didn't understand how the two dissenting opinion justices got it either....


EDIT


"Political" jurisdiction just seems like a made up phrase...the 14th makes no mention of Political Jurisdiction, but simply jurisdiction which i took as the legal definition of the word.

And please explain how illegal immigrants owe any allegiance to the country or government, they permanently left???

 

[Care4all]

Only Four Concrete Exceptions​

The Court concluded that the authors of the 14th Amendment only intended to exclude a very specific, limited group of people from birthright citizenship. They identified only four exceptions to the rule under common law:

1. Children of foreign diplomats and ambassadors.
2. Children born on foreign public vessels (like warships) in U.S. waters.
3. Children born to alien enemies in hostile occupation of U.S. territory.
4. Children born to sovereign Native American tribes.

Since Wong Kim Ark did not fit any of those exceptions, the Court declared that his birth on U.S. soil made him a citizen.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Not a terrible question.

I do wonder, all the same, why the Amendment also says, “ … and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ….”

Everyone, except foreign diplomats, who are subject to US jurisdiction. Diplomats were not subject to that Jurisdiction then.

 

[BackAgain]

I didn't understand how the two dissenting opinion justices got it either....

Why would you need to?

Are you as concerned about the opinions of the judges who made the majority rulings in Plessy?

 

[BackAgain]

Everyone, except foreign diplomats, who are subject to US jurisdiction. Diplomats were not subject to that Jurisdiction then.

As usual, you missed the point.

 

[BackAgain]

I didn't understand how the two dissenting opinion justices got it either....


EDIT


"Political" jurisdiction just seems like a made up phrase...the 14th makes no mention of Political Jurisdiction, but simply jurisdiction which i took as the legal definition of the word.

And please explain how illegal immigrants owe any allegiance to the country or government, they permanently left???

You aren’t likely to ever understand what you refuse to even look at.

 

[jacksonlamb]

As usual, you missed the point.

It is the point. The point you attempt to make, which will be dismissed at least 7 to 2, is not point in logic whatsover.

 

[jacksonlamb]

You aren’t likely to ever understand what you refuse to even look at.

We all have looked at many times, including, and you are always wrong on this.

 

[Hafar1014]

Only Four Concrete Exceptions​

The Court concluded that the authors of the 14th Amendment only intended to exclude a very specific, limited group of people from birthright citizenship. They identified only four exceptions to the rule under common law:

1. Children of foreign diplomats and ambassadors.
2. Children born on foreign public vessels (like warships) in U.S. waters.
3. Children born to alien enemies in hostile occupation of U.S. territory.
4. Children born to sovereign Native American tribes.

Since Wong Kim Ark did not fit any of those exceptions, the Court declared that his birth on U.S. soil made him a citizen.

3 applies to illegal aliens

 

[Care4all]

You aren’t likely to ever understand what you refuse to even look at.

Happy Easter!

Who did ALL PERSONS born our soil include in the 14th?

 

[protectionist]

We know what Howard meant by ALL PERSONS, and we know who he exempted from birthright citizenship....because he wrote and debated it, on the senate floor.

What you're claiming of every day foreign aliens not being included and exempt from birthright citizenship, is simply a flat out fabricated lie.


We had just gone through the massive influx of Irish immigrants escaping the Irish potato famine by migrating here, who we did NOT welcome....and their children born on this soil were still citizens at birth....much to the dismay of many. All persons, was ALL PERSONS.

The words "All persons" are not from the Jacob Howard quote that I referred to. The "all persons" is from the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, which reads: “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”.

Howard said of the exclusion of Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties: "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me."
According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University, "A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause." Senator Reverdy Johnson said in the debate:
"the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."

And this is Howard's quote >>
.[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."