Supreme Court & Birthright Citizenship

[jacksonlamb]

protectionist would be so much better off if he listened to and accepted that care4all is right and he is wrong.

 

[BackAgain]

Happy Easter!

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

Already answered. So why do you repeat that pointless question?

Kinda ridiculous of you.

In any event, Happy Easter to you, too.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

But they wont. Thats my point.

You are Correct!
And neither will the American People. Too inconvenient. Netflix new releases are out.

 

[Care4all]

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."

Your last quote is specifically speaking about alien diplomats here on our soil working and representing the foreign government....they are immune from our jurisdiction and can not be charged and held by us, for their US crimes because they are under the foreign country's jurisdiction.

And foreign enemy on our soil during a conflict who bear a child....

Or an alien on a foreign enemy ship in US waters that bears a child.

Indians on reservations under treaty Tribal Rule, tribal jurisdiction.

None of the above people will bear a U.S. citizen on our soil.

Everyone else is under our jurisdiction, under our laws and we have the power as a nation to arrest and charge them with U.S. crimes when they commit them. They are NOT in any way, under the jurisdiction of their home country, but they are, under ours.

This is what the14th says about it.....and ALL PERSONS is in it, just like it is in the 1866 civil rights act that had just passed....they felt an amendment to the Constitution was needed to make the civil rights act of 1866 permanent, without the ability to change it through legislation down the road.

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If we don't want an illegal entrant's children to be citizens if born here, we need to amend the constitution to do it.

 

[Care4all]

Already answered. So why do you repeat that pointless question?

Kinda ridiculous of you.

In any event, Happy Easter to you, too.

What was your answer?

Who is covered by ALL PERSONS? I don't want to know who you think is not covered by it, but who is?

Obviously citizens will always bear citizens so it isn't talking at all about citizens, then who? Other than slaves?

AND there was no such thing as a documented or undocumented person, at the time....anyone could emigrate here without visas or papers....

And if this were ONLY about the children of black slaves instead of ALL PERSONS bearing children on our soil, then why in the heck didn't the 14th simply say, the children born by slaves are citizens of the U.S., why use the very broad term of ALL PERSONS?

 

[protectionist]

If we don't want an illegal entrant's children to be citizens if born here, we need to amend the constitution to do it.

Not at all. We all know what the author said, and by that, it is in the Constitution right now. Always has been, despite decades of distortion.

We need to conform to the author, not his distortioners.

 

[protectionist]

protectionist would be so much better off if he listened to and accepted that care4all is right and he is wrong.

care4all would be so much better off if he listened to and accepted that protectionist (and Sen Jacob Howrd) are right, and he is wrong.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Not at all. We all know what the author said, and by that, it is in the Constitution right now. Always has been, despite decades of distortion.

We need to conform to the author, not his distortioners.

Your feelings don't count. SCOTUS has seven votes at least to keep it as it is. Amendment is the only way.

 

[protectionist]

Your feelings don't count. SCOTUS has seven votes at least to keep it as it is. Amendment is the only way.

Has noting to do with feeling. Has only to do with the 14th Amendment, and what its author meant it to be (posted repeatedly in this thread).

 

[jacksonlamb]

Has noting to do with feeling. Has only to do with the 14th Amendment, and what its author meant it to be (posted repeatedly in this thread).

And your understanding is wrong, period, as SCOTUS will show you in June.

 

[Montrovant]

Has noting to do with feeling. Has only to do with the 14th Amendment, and what its author meant it to be (posted repeatedly in this thread).

You keep describing Howard as the author. Howard is not the single author of the 14th amendment, nor even the primary author of the first section of the amendment that we are discussing.

 

[Care4all]

Not at all. We all know what the author said, and by that, it is in the Constitution right now. Always has been, despite decades of distortion.

We need to conform to the author, not his distortioners.

Yes, we all do know what the author said.....many times in many different ways....!

And the author and co author both supported ALL FOREIGNER Children born on our soil were born citizens, as they bore citizen births prior to the 14th amendment with the addition of slaves to all persons, with alien foreign diplomats and royalty etc the exception on alien foreigners.

You need to read EVERYTHING the co authors said instead of cherry picking and twisting.

 

[Care4all]

care4all would be so much better off if he listened to and accepted that protectionist (and Sen Jacob Howrd) are right, and he is wrong.

She, not he.

 

[BackAgain]

What was your answer?

Who is covered by ALL PERSONS? I don't want to know who you think is not covered by it, but who is?

Obviously citizens will always bear citizens so it isn't talking at all about citizens, then who? Other than slaves?

AND there was no such thing as a documented or undocumented person, at the time....anyone could emigrate here without visas or papers....

And if this were ONLY about the children of black slaves instead of ALL PERSONS bearing children on our soil, then why in the heck didn't the 14th simply say, the children born by slaves are citizens of the U.S., why use the very broad term of ALL PERSONS?

Once again, the phrase “all persons” is also modified by the very same article, paragraph and sentence!

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ….”

That’s still the answer.

 

[Hafar1014]

Once again, the phrase “all persons” is also modified by the very same article, paragraph and sentence!

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ….”

That’s still the answer.

It says and not subject to any other jurisdiction

 

[BackAgain]

It says and not subject to any other jurisdiction

No. Alas, it doesn’t say that.

 

[Care4all]

Once again, the phrase “all persons” is also modified by the very same article, paragraph and sentence!

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ….”

That’s still the answer.

Ok, then. Were the children of foreign immigrants like the IRISH that began flooding our cities in the 1850s during their great potato famine in Ireland, citizens at birth?

Did your first ancestor that arrived here, and bore a child, was their child born a citizen or did they have to wait 5 years to be naturalized?

How about the children of the great Italian immigrants that came here between 1880 and 1924, were their children born here citizens at birth?

the answer is yes, all their children born here, were born citizens.

You have to accept they were not under the jurisdiction of their foreign country's laws, and under ours....as every day Joe Immigrants.... There was no diplomatic immunity given to them because they were NOT under the foreign country's jurisdiction and they were under the jurisdiction of the USA..

 

[Hafar1014]

Ok, then. Were the children of foreign immigrants like the IRISH that began flooding our cities in the 1850s during their great potato famine in Ireland, citizens at birth?

Did your first ancestor that arrived here, and bore a child, was their child born a citizen or did they have to wait 5 years to be naturalized?

How about the children of the great Italian immigrants that came here between 1880 and 1924, were their children born here citizens at birth?

the answer is yes, all their children born here, were born citizens.

You have to accept they were not under the jurisdiction of their foreign country's laws, and under ours....as every day Joe Immigrants.... There was no diplomatic immunity given to them because they were NOT under the foreign country's jurisdiction and they were under the jurisdiction of the USA..

Civil Rights Act 1866
Be it enacted . . . , That 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; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Once again, the phrase “all persons” is also modified by the very same article, paragraph and sentence!

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ….”

That’s still the answer.

Everyone in the US physically is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It is clear.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Everyone in the US physically is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It is clear.

Exactly, the only time this is not true is by a specific treaty - again embassies, and foreign embassy personnel per legally executed treaties that the US has agreed to. This is straight forward stuff.