The nature of "jurisdiction"

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Mar 30, 2013
52,251
15,706
2,260
The Land of Sanctuary
Liberals and proponents of longstanding tenet of the 14th Amendment, or "birthright citizenship," are up in arms after newly minted second-term President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning birthright citizenship for children born of illegal immigrants. The argument goes that since they are born here, they are under the jurisdiction of our laws, and thus citizens under the 14th Amendment. But in this context, what is the nature of 'jurisdiction'?

My opinion is that jurisdiction should only apply to legally born citizens, and those who break the law (including illegal immigrants), but not their children.

Jurisdiction in this case would seem to suggest that illegal aliens and their unborn children were not under such jurisdiction until they came here and gave birth. The nature of the jurisdiction should not and did not change simply because the child was born here. Both the parent(s) and their progeny should still not be under US jurisdiction until or even after the child is born, with exception to being subjected to all the penal consequences of our immigration law therein.

One argument, "Jus Soli" rooted in English common law, is used to make the suggestion we should allow citizenship to anyone born here, regardless of legal status, simply for not wanting to create a class of "stateless individuals." Firstly, Jus Soli was more suited for monarchies, not modern forms of government. Secondly, you can address the issue of "stateless individuals" by not granting them citizenship upon birth, and simply deporting them and their parents back to their nation of origin.

Another argument suggests that the "broad interpretation" of the amendment by the courts allows for birthright citizenship for illegal immigrant children. Sorry. Broad interpretations make for terrible arguments. Broad interpretations are simply a vehicle for those who lack a factual basis for or against something.

Now, Senator Jacob Howard, one of the amendment's drafters, stated during debates that it excluded individuals not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction, such as foreign diplomats and their children, and members of sovereign Native American tribes who maintained allegiance to their tribes. As it stands now, illegals entering this country are not assured of owing their allegiance to the US. It does not grant that the children they produce will be taught to swear that same allegiance. The lack of allegiance should therefore limit the US jurisdiction to crimes they commit and obedience to the laws already in place, notwithstanding the laws they broke getting here.

A cat born of a cat may have different spots, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a cat. That means that a child born of an illegal should remain illegal, human though they may be. The birth in itself isn't illegal. Being human isn't illegal. Their very presence on the other hand IS. That is the crux of MY argument.

Case in point, the jurisdiction of the US should be limited regarding illegals and their children, simply to sending them home and punishing the parents for coming illegally. "Yeah" you'll say, "but these children couldn't help it." Not my problem. Not the US's problem. When the law does not allow for an adult illegal's presence here, it shouldn't allow for the child's either.

That is the nature of "jurisdiction."
 
Last edited:
Liberals and proponents of longstanding tenet of the 14th Amendment, or "birthright citizenship," are up in arms after newly minted second-term President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning birthright citizenship for children born of illegal immigrants. The argument goes that since they are born here, they are under the jurisdiction of our laws, and thus citizens under the 14th Amendment. But in this context, what is the nature of 'jurisdiction'?

My opinion is that jurisdiction should only apply to legally born citizens, and those who break the law (including illegal immigrants), but not their children.

Jurisdiction in this case would seem to suggest that illegal aliens and their unborn children were not under such jurisdiction until they came here and gave birth. The nature of the jurisdiction should not and did not change simply because the child was born here. Both the parent(s) and their progeny should still not be under US jurisdiction until or even after the child is born, with exception to being subjected to all the penal consequences of our immigration law therein.

One argument, "Jus Soli" rooted in English common law, is used to make the suggestion we should allow citizenship to anyone born here, regardless of legal status, simply for not wanting to create a class of "stateless individuals." Firstly, Jus Soli was more suited for monarchies, not modern forms of government. Secondly, you can address the issue of "stateless individuals" by not granting them citizenship upon birth, and simply deporting them and their parents back to their nation of origin.

Another argument suggests that the "broad interpretation" of the amendment by the courts allows for birthright citizenship for illegal immigrant children. Sorry. Broad interpretations make for terrible arguments. Broad interpretations are simply a vehicle for those who lack a factual basis for or against something.

Now, Senator Jacob Howard, one of the amendment's drafters, stated during debates that it excluded individuals not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction, such as foreign diplomats and their children, and members of sovereign Native American tribes who maintained allegiance to their tribes. As it stands now, illegals entering this country are not assured of owing their allegiance to the US. It does not grant that the children they produce will be taught to swear that same allegiance. The lack of allegiance should therefore limit the US jurisdiction to crimes they commit and obedience to the laws already in place, notwithstanding the laws they broke getting here.

A cat born of a cat may have different spots, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a cat. That means that a child born of an illegal should remain illegal, human though they may be. The birth in itself isn't illegal. Being human isn't illegal. Their very presence on the other hand IS. That is the crux of MY argument.

Case in point, the jurisdiction of the US should be limited regarding illegals and their children, simply to sending them home and punishing the parents for coming illegally. "Yeah" you'll say, "but these children couldn't help it." Not my problem. Not the US's problem. When the law does not allow for an adult illegal's presence here, it shouldn't allow for the child's either.

That is the nature of "jurisdiction."
The challenge is that there is precedence going back more than a century surrounding this issue. And according to our laws our Constitution does not apply to only U.S. citizens:

The application of the 14th Amendment to individuals in the U.S. unlawfully, and particularly its granting of birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents' immigration status, is rooted in key landmark cases and interpretations of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Here are the primary cases and principles:​

1. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

  • Issue: Whether a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrants, who were barred from naturalization due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.
  • Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the child was a U.S. citizen. The Citizenship Clause ("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") applies broadly to anyone born on U.S. soil, except children of foreign diplomats or enemy forces in hostile occupation.
  • Significance: This decision established the precedent that birthright citizenship applies to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of the parents' immigration status.

2. Plyler v. Doe (1982)

  • Issue: Whether the denial of public education to children who were unlawfully present in the U.S. violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
  • Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that withheld funding for education to children of undocumented immigrants and allowed schools to deny them admission. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause applies to all persons within the United States, not just citizens.
  • Significance: Reinforced that the 14th Amendment's protections extend to individuals regardless of immigration status, emphasizing "person" rather than "citizen."

Principles from These Cases

  1. Birthright Citizenship:
    • Derived from the Wong Kim Ark decision, the U.S. follows the principle of jus soli (right of the soil), meaning nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, regardless of their parents' legal status.
  2. Equal Protection:
    • Cases like Plyler v. Doe clarify that all individuals in the U.S. are entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of their immigration status.

Historical and Legal Context

  • The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War to ensure that formerly enslaved people were granted citizenship and equal protection under the law.
  • The Citizenship Clause was interpreted broadly to include nearly everyone born in the U.S. except for specific exclusions (e.g., children of diplomats).

These landmark cases solidified the application of the 14th Amendment to individuals in the country unlawfully and their children born in the U.S.​



 
The challenge is that there is precedence going back more than a century surrounding this issue. And according to our laws our Constitution does not apply to only U.S. citizens:

The application of the 14th Amendment to individuals in the U.S. unlawfully, and particularly its granting of birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents' immigration status, is rooted in key landmark cases and interpretations of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Here are the primary cases and principles:​

1. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

  • Issue: Whether a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrants, who were barred from naturalization due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.
  • Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the child was a U.S. citizen. The Citizenship Clause ("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") applies broadly to anyone born on U.S. soil, except children of foreign diplomats or enemy forces in hostile occupation.
  • Significance: This decision established the precedent that birthright citizenship applies to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of the parents' immigration status.

2. Plyler v. Doe (1982)

  • Issue: Whether the denial of public education to children who were unlawfully present in the U.S. violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
  • Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that withheld funding for education to children of undocumented immigrants and allowed schools to deny them admission. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause applies to all persons within the United States, not just citizens.
  • Significance: Reinforced that the 14th Amendment's protections extend to individuals regardless of immigration status, emphasizing "person" rather than "citizen."

Principles from These Cases

  1. Birthright Citizenship:
    • Derived from the Wong Kim Ark decision, the U.S. follows the principle of jus soli (right of the soil), meaning nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, regardless of their parents' legal status.
  2. Equal Protection:
    • Cases like Plyler v. Doe clarify that all individuals in the U.S. are entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of their immigration status.

Historical and Legal Context

  • The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War to ensure that formerly enslaved people were granted citizenship and equal protection under the law.
  • The Citizenship Clause was interpreted broadly to include nearly everyone born in the U.S. except for specific exclusions (e.g., children of diplomats).

These landmark cases solidified the application of the 14th Amendment to individuals in the country unlawfully and their children born in the U.S.​



Sorry, Chat GPT, er Mariyam.

"Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment, in 1866, documented his objection in writing "[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."
 
The challenge is that there is precedence going back more than a century surrounding this issue. And according to our laws our Constitution does not apply to only U.S. citizens:

The application of the 14th Amendment to individuals in the U.S. unlawfully, and particularly its granting of birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents' immigration status, is rooted in key landmark cases and interpretations of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Here are the primary cases and principles:​

1. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

  • Issue: Whether a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrants, who were barred from naturalization due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.
  • Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the child was a U.S. citizen. The Citizenship Clause ("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") applies broadly to anyone born on U.S. soil, except children of foreign diplomats or enemy forces in hostile occupation.
  • Significance: This decision established the precedent that birthright citizenship applies to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of the parents' immigration status.

2. Plyler v. Doe (1982)

  • Issue: Whether the denial of public education to children who were unlawfully present in the U.S. violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
  • Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that withheld funding for education to children of undocumented immigrants and allowed schools to deny them admission. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause applies to all persons within the United States, not just citizens.
  • Significance: Reinforced that the 14th Amendment's protections extend to individuals regardless of immigration status, emphasizing "person" rather than "citizen."

Principles from These Cases

  1. Birthright Citizenship:
    • Derived from the Wong Kim Ark decision, the U.S. follows the principle of jus soli (right of the soil), meaning nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, regardless of their parents' legal status.
  2. Equal Protection:
    • Cases like Plyler v. Doe clarify that all individuals in the U.S. are entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of their immigration status.

Historical and Legal Context

  • The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War to ensure that formerly enslaved people were granted citizenship and equal protection under the law.
  • The Citizenship Clause was interpreted broadly to include nearly everyone born in the U.S. except for specific exclusions (e.g., children of diplomats).

These landmark cases solidified the application of the 14th Amendment to individuals in the country unlawfully and their children born in the U.S.​



The Constitution was written by the people for the people….Every single word was INTENDED to benefit Americans…There’s not a snowballs chance in hell that the Founders intended for 14 Section 1 to screw Americans over and benefit Mexico’s people. If SCOTUS rules on intent the 14th is done and I wouldn’t be surprised if they render a retroactive ruling…Libs should tread real lightly on this one with this 6/3 common sense court.
 
Sorry, Chat GPT, er Mariyam.

"Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment, in 1866, documented his objection in writing "[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."
He should have written that in the amendment.
 
Sorry, Chat GPT, er Mariyam.

"Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment, in 1866, documented his objection in writing "[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."
:cool:

You're preaching to the choir, this has been argued endlessly online but the only place it really matters is in court.

If I still had access to my previous postings on another board you probably wouldn't see much difference in what's already been posted. I'm just pointing out what you're up against, precedence and the fact that a LOT of people don't want this, the status quo, to change.

Oh, and consider anyone not onboard with this as "racist".
 
Last edited:
The Constitution was written by the people for the people….Every single word was INTENDED to benefit Americans…There’s not a snowballs chance in hell that the Founders intended for 14 Section 1 to screw Americans over and benefit Mexico’s people. If SCOTUS rules on intent the 14th is done and I wouldn’t be surprised if they render a retroactive ruling…Libs should tread real lightly on this one with this 6/3 common sense court.
I don't disagree with you as far as the intent, we know why they ratified the 14th amendment.

The 14th Amendment was passed largely in response to the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Here's the context:​

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857):​

  • Issue: Whether Dred Scott, an enslaved man who had lived in free states and territories, was a citizen of the United States and could sue for his freedom in federal court.
  • Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled:
    1. African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in federal court.
    2. Congress lacked the authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories, effectively nullifying the Missouri Compromise.
  • Significance: This decision not only denied citizenship to African Americans but also deeply entrenched slavery and heightened sectional tensions leading to the Civil War.

14th Amendment as a Response:​

  • Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendmentwas designed to:
    1. Overturn Dred Scott by guaranteeing citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, regardless of race, and ensuring equal protection under the law.
    2. Secure the rights of formerly enslaved people in the aftermath of the Civil War.
  • Citizenship Clause: Explicitly grants citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, removing any ambiguity about the citizenship of African Americans or anyone else born on U.S. soil.
  • Equal Protection Clause: Mandates that states must provide equal protection of the laws to all persons within their jurisdiction, further counteracting the racial discrimination entrenched by Dred Scott.

Historical Impact:​

The 14th Amendment not only repudiated Dred Scott but also laid the foundation for future civil rights advancements, including:​
  1. The end of segregation through Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
  2. The application of constitutional rights to state actions via incorporation doctrine.
  3. Modern rulings on immigration, voting rights, and equality.

In summary, the 14th Amendment was a direct repudiation of Dred Scott v. Sandford, ensuring that citizenship and basic rights could no longer be denied on the basis of race.​
 
Correct, however that's where all the damage has been done.
When other facets of our system--the legislature, and the constitutional convention, fail to produce results in this venture, this is the only other place. So an EO of this drastic nature is the best way to get it addressed.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution was written by the people for the people….Every single word was INTENDED to benefit Americans…There’s not a snowballs chance in hell that the Founders intended for 14 Section 1 to screw Americans over and benefit Mexico’s people. If SCOTUS rules on intent the 14th is done and I wouldn’t be surprised if they render a retroactive ruling…Libs should tread real lightly on this one with this 6/3 common sense court.
The Founders didn't write the 14th Amendment. Get your history correct please.
 
The challenge is that there is precedence going back more than a century surrounding this issue. And according to our laws our Constitution does not apply to only U.S. citizens:

The application of the 14th Amendment to individuals in the U.S. unlawfully, and particularly its granting of birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents' immigration status, is rooted in key landmark cases and interpretations of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Here are the primary cases and principles:​

1. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

  • Issue: Whether a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrants, who were barred from naturalization due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.
  • Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the child was a U.S. citizen. The Citizenship Clause ("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") applies broadly to anyone born on U.S. soil, except children of foreign diplomats or enemy forces in hostile occupation.
  • Significance: This decision established the precedent that birthright citizenship applies to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of the parents' immigration status.

2. Plyler v. Doe (1982)

  • Issue: Whether the denial of public education to children who were unlawfully present in the U.S. violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
  • Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that withheld funding for education to children of undocumented immigrants and allowed schools to deny them admission. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause applies to all persons within the United States, not just citizens.
  • Significance: Reinforced that the 14th Amendment's protections extend to individuals regardless of immigration status, emphasizing "person" rather than "citizen."

Principles from These Cases

  1. Birthright Citizenship:
    • Derived from the Wong Kim Ark decision, the U.S. follows the principle of jus soli (right of the soil), meaning nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, regardless of their parents' legal status.
  2. Equal Protection:
    • Cases like Plyler v. Doe clarify that all individuals in the U.S. are entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of their immigration status.

Historical and Legal Context

  • The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War to ensure that formerly enslaved people were granted citizenship and equal protection under the law.
  • The Citizenship Clause was interpreted broadly to include nearly everyone born in the U.S. except for specific exclusions (e.g., children of diplomats).

These landmark cases solidified the application of the 14th Amendment to individuals in the country unlawfully and their children born in the U.S.​



Interpretation is a bad argument. Dredd Scott comes to mind
 
Liberals and proponents of longstanding tenet of the 14th Amendment, or "birthright citizenship," are up in arms after newly minted second-term President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning birthright citizenship for children born of illegal immigrants. The argument goes that since they are born here, they are under the jurisdiction of our laws, and thus citizens under the 14th Amendment. But in this context, what is the nature of 'jurisdiction'?

My opinion is that jurisdiction should only apply to legally born citizens, and those who break the law (including illegal immigrants), but not their children.

Jurisdiction in this case would seem to suggest that illegal aliens and their unborn children were not under such jurisdiction until they came here and gave birth. The nature of the jurisdiction should not and did not change simply because the child was born here. Both the parent(s) and their progeny should still not be under US jurisdiction until or even after the child is born, with exception to being subjected to all the penal consequences of our immigration law therein.

One argument, "Jus Soli" rooted in English common law, is used to make the suggestion we should allow citizenship to anyone born here, regardless of legal status, simply for not wanting to create a class of "stateless individuals." Firstly, Jus Soli was more suited for monarchies, not modern forms of government. Secondly, you can address the issue of "stateless individuals" by not granting them citizenship upon birth, and simply deporting them and their parents back to their nation of origin.

Another argument suggests that the "broad interpretation" of the amendment by the courts allows for birthright citizenship for illegal immigrant children. Sorry. Broad interpretations make for terrible arguments. Broad interpretations are simply a vehicle for those who lack a factual basis for or against something.

Now, Senator Jacob Howard, one of the amendment's drafters, stated during debates that it excluded individuals not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction, such as foreign diplomats and their children, and members of sovereign Native American tribes who maintained allegiance to their tribes. As it stands now, illegals entering this country are not assured of owing their allegiance to the US. It does not grant that the children they produce will be taught to swear that same allegiance. The lack of allegiance should therefore limit the US jurisdiction to crimes they commit and obedience to the laws already in place, notwithstanding the laws they broke getting here.

A cat born of a cat may have different spots, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a cat. That means that a child born of an illegal should remain illegal, human though they may be. The birth in itself isn't illegal. Being human isn't illegal. Their very presence on the other hand IS. That is the crux of MY argument.

Case in point, the jurisdiction of the US should be limited regarding illegals and their children, simply to sending them home and punishing the parents for coming illegally. "Yeah" you'll say, "but these children couldn't help it." Not my problem. Not the US's problem. When the law does not allow for an adult illegal's presence here, it shouldn't allow for the child's either.

That is the nature of "jurisdiction."

Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia

the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
 
Every word, every clause, every section and every Amendment derives from the core of the U.S. Constitution and our Founders intent. I know you know that.
LOL no it doesn't, and the founders would also disagree with you. There would be no reason for the amendment process if the founders thought their words were perfect or that the Constitution wouldn't necessarily need to change. The 18th Amendment anyone?
 
When other facets of our system--the legislature, and the constitutional convention, fail to produce results in this venture, this is the only other place. So an EO of this drastic nature is the best way to get it addressed.
If we are going off of the intent of the authors of any amendment in the US Constitution, intent--written or stated--should mean everything, should it not? I'm fairly certain most unbiased courts consider the intent behind a law as well as its constitutionality.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top