Supreme Court & Birthright Citizenship

[protectionist]

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

My "understanding" is FACTUAL HISTORY. Back to the 8th grade for you.

 

[Zincwarrior]

My "understanding" is FACTUAL HISTORY. Back to the 8th grade for you.

Factual history is that there has been longstanding court precedent already in place.

 

[protectionist]

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.

FALSE! Howard was the co-author of the 14th Amendment and these were his words >>
"Every 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."

Wanna talk about co-author, Ohio Representitive John Bingham ?
Bingham, would actually appear to endorse a narrower form of citizenship than Trump. As the Justice Department notes, Bingham stated that he would exclude from birthright citizenship children born to parents who owe “allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”

In the same speech, Bingham left no doubt that he believed that citizenship should turn on the immigration or citizenship status of parents. But he goes further than Trump in suggesting that children born to citizens of any other country would be denied U.S. citizenship. “[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen,” he asserts. Because a person owes allegiance to their country of citizenship, anyone who is a citizen of another country owes allegiance “to any foreign sovereignty,” which, according to Bingham, would bar their children from obtaining U.S. citizenship at birth.

 

[protectionist]

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.

No, that is the OPPOSITE of what they said, as clearly delineated in Post # 63.

 

[protectionist]

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..

If their parents were illegal aliens then no, they should not have been declared a citizen.

What makes you think that a person coming here EWI, to be NOT under the foreign country's jurisdiction ? Of course they are. Not only that, they send hundreds of Billions of $$$$ to that foreign country every year in remittances, thereby depriving US businesses of all those sales & $$$$.

 

[Zincwarrior]

to be NOT under the foreign country's jurisdiction ?

Because if they are on US soil or airspace, they are under US jurisdiction and law.

 

[protectionist]

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.

But persons born of parents coming from a foreign country ARE subject to that foreign power. Just because someone sets foot in another country, that doesn't mean they are no longer a national of that home country.

The quote you posted, was clarified by both Rep John Bingham and Sen Jacob Howard as not including persons born in the United States , who belong to the families of foreigners, aliens, & born to parents who owe “allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”

 

[protectionist]

Everyone in the US physically is subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Except those who Howard & Bingham specified.

 

[protectionist]

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.

FALSE!. Howard & Bingham were clear about it.

 

[protectionist]

Factual history is that there has been longstanding court precedent already in place.

Falsely. And subject to being fixed.

 

[Zincwarrior]

FALSE!. Howard & Bingham were clear about it.

They are not controlling authorities.

Amendments to exclude other groups were overruled and not passed as part of the 14th.
Court cases since have affirmed.

 

[Hafar1014]

But persons born of parents coming from a foreign country ARE subject to that foreign power. Just because someone sets foot in another country, that doesn't mean they are no longer a national of that home country.

The quote you posted, was clarified by both Rep John Bingham and Sen Jacob Howard as not including persons born in the United States , who belong to the families of foreigners, aliens, & born to parents who owe “allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”

It means only a citizen of America can give birth to a citizen

 

[Zincwarrior]

It means only a citizen of America can give birth to a citizen

Thats not the 14th Amendment, thanks.

 

[Hafar1014]

Thats not the 14th Amendment, thanks.

Thats the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and its very likely the SC will rule that way

 

[Winco]

China has 500 travel companies set up just for sending prego women over from China just to drop a kid, then fly all home back to China with yet another "American citizen" in the bag for future use.

You could be correct, but how about a link to this claim.

 

[jacksonlamb]

My "understanding" is FACTUAL HISTORY. Back to the 8th grade for you.

It is misinterpreted history, bub.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Except those who Howard & Bingham specified.

... which did not include non-citizen children born in the US.

You might lose this 8-1 at SCOTUS.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Thats the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and its very likely the SC will rule that way

Amendments trump mere laws and the Amendment came after. I don't think Trump's DOJ plead this at all.

 

[BackAgain]

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

No. It’s not clear. You’re far too simplistic. .

As usual from you.

How do you figure that the offspring of two illegal alien Iranian terror cell members would owe any allegiance to America?

You are assuming that the kind of “jurisdiction” over a defendant (now) in a criminal case is the same as “jurisdiction” within the meaning understood by the framers of that amendment.

The historical record proves that the two meanings and the two uses of the term “jurisdiction” are not referencing the same thing.

 

[Zincwarrior]

How do you figure that the offspring of two illegal alien Iranian terror cell members would owe any allegiance to America?

They are subject to its laws.