Trump's ban on birtright citizenship my question

[Mortimer]

Does this mean america switched now to ius sanguinis fully? And what counts as American sanguinis how many generations one or two American parents grandparents etc?

 

[g5000]

Does this mean america switched now to ius sanguinis fully? And what counts as American sanguinis how many generations one or two American parents grandparents etc?

I think you meant jus sanguinis. With a j.

The 14th amendment squarely enshrined jus soli, no matter how Trump or his cult feel about it.

 

[Mortimer]

I think you meant jus sanguinis. With a j.

The 14th amendment squarely enshrined jus soli, no matter how Trump or his cult feel about it.

Thanks yes jus

 

[Stryder50]

FYI:
Jus sanguinis (English: /dʒʌs ˈsæŋɡwɪnɪs/ juss SANG-gwin-iss[1] or /juːs -/ yooss -⁠,[2] Latin: [juːs ˈsaŋɡwɪnɪs]), meaning 'right of blood', is a principle of nationality law by which nationality is determined or acquired by the nationality of one or both parents.[3][4] Children at birth may be nationals of a particular state if either or both of their parents have nationality of that state. It may also apply to national identities of ethnic, cultural, or other origins.[5] Citizenship can also apply to children whose parents belong to a diaspora and were not themselves citizens of the state conferring citizenship.[citation needed] This principle contrasts with jus soli ('right of soil'), which is solely based on the place of birth.[6]
....

Jus sanguinis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

I think you meant jus sanguinis. With a j.

The 14th amendment squarely enshrined jus soli, no matter how Trump or his cult feel about it.

NO!
The 14th does not squarely enshrine jus soli .
The 14th is imprecisely written with regard to modern language and word usage, and it is a court arbitrary decision to interpret it as "jus soli".

This is due to the difference in meaning for "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in application back in 1868 versus today. If one is here from another country without legal documentation(permission) - visa & passport, then they remain under the jurisdiction of their nation of origin. Same will apply with any children of their's born here.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I think you meant jus sanguinis. With a j.

The 14th amendment squarely enshrined jus soli, no matter how Trump or his cult feel about it.

if a pregnant woman is at a border check point should she be allowed in or should she be told come back after your kid is born?...just wondering...

 

[WorldWatcher]

NO!
The 14th does not squarely enshrine jus soli .
The 14th is imprecisely written with regard to modern language and word usage, and it is a court arbitrary decision to interpret it as "jus soli".

This is due to the difference in meaning for "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in application back in 1868 versus today. If one is here from another country without legal documentation(permission) - visa & passport, then they remain under the jurisdiction of their nation of origin. Same will apply with any children of their's born here.

Under the jurisdiction at the time the Amendment was adopted was language to recognize that those on diplomatic missions (ambassadors and foreign ministers and their families as part of the mission) were not subject to United States laws. People on diplomatic passports cannot be tried and imprisoned for crimes committed here unless the origin country pulls their diplomatic status.

Those who enter illegally ARE under the jurisdiction of the United States. Unless you are trying to claim that illegals cannot be charged with robbing banks, rape, murder, etc. - tried for their crimes and sent to prison. Either illegals are under the jurisdiction of the US, or you are going to have to open up a lot of prison doors and let criminals out because we didn't have jurisdiction to lock them up.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

if a pregnant woman is at a border check point should she be allowed in or should she be told come back after your kid is born?...just wondering...

Not a black and white scenerio.

Pregnant women can already be denied at check points if it appears the intent is to enter to have the child. So someone who is 8.5 months pregnant can be denied.

On the other hand if someone is 2 months pregnant and is on a two week business trip, they wouldn't be denied.

WW

 

[Harry Dresden]

Not a black and white scenerio.

Pregnant women can already be denied at check points if it appears the intent is to enter to have the child. So someone who is 8.5 months pregnant can be denied.

On the other hand if someone is 2 months pregnant and is on a two week business trip, they wouldn't be denied.

WW

are they already denied?....you sure?....

 

[WorldWatcher]

Does this mean america switched now to ius sanguinis fully? And what counts as American sanguinis how many generations one or two American parents grandparents etc?

To answer your question. The US has always had jus sanquinis (birth by blood) and jus soli (birth by soil) with specific exceptions for jus soli. Those exceptions being diplomatic missions, Native American soverign tribes (corrected in 1924 with a Native American Citizenship Act), and invading armies occupying US territory.

Jus soli of course being born in the bounds of the US and jus sanquinis applying to children born of American citizens overseas.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

are they already denied?....you sure?....

I didn't say "aready denied", I said "can already be denied". It's up to the admitting official based on the situation at hand.

WW
.
.
.
.

CBP Customer Service

 

[Mortimer]

Very little seperates a legal from a illegal immigrant just a piece of paper i heard a mexican has to wait 14 years if he wants a green card in the USA maybe poles do not need to wait such a long time for poor people who have to feed their families with hard work thats a long time i think the problem is easily solved with a immigration law reform but i think its indeed because those immigrants are brown poles or hungarians are white

 

[Harry Dresden]

Very little seperates a legal from a illegal immigrant just a piece of paper i heard a mexican has to wait 14 years if he wants a green card in the USA maybe poles do not need to wait such a long time for poor people who have to feed their families with hard work thats a long time i think the problem is easily solved with a immigration law reform but i think its indeed because those immigrants are brown poles or hungarians are white

it depends on your situation.....the 14 years you cited is for married adult children of US Citizens...

What is the fastest way to get a green card?

• Immigration through Family Reunification: 9 months to 5 years.
• Immigration through Marriage to a U.S. Citizen: around 10 months.
• Immigration of a Political Asylum to the USA: within 1 year.
• Immigration of Extraordinary Ability Individuals: 1 to 2 years.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Under the jurisdiction at the time the Amendment was adopted was language to recognize that those on diplomatic missions (ambassadors and foreign ministers and their families as part of the mission) were not subject to United States laws. People on diplomatic passports cannot be tried and imprisoned for crimes committed here unless the origin country pulls their diplomatic status.

Those who enter illegally ARE under the jurisdiction of the United States. Unless you are trying to claim that illegals cannot be charged with robbing banks, rape, murder, etc. - tried for their crimes and sent to prison. Either illegals are under the jurisdiction of the US, or you are going to have to open up a lot of prison doors and let criminals out because we didn't have jurisdiction to lock them up.

WW

/---/ "Those who enter illegally ARE under the jurisdiction of the United States"
Let's see what the Heritage Foundation has to say.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

 

[Godboy]

I think you meant jus sanguinis. With a j.

The 14th amendment squarely enshrined jus soli, no matter how Trump or his cult feel about it.

The dude who wrote the thing specifically said in a debate on the floor about it at that time that it would not apply to non-citizens. He was SUPER specific about it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The dude who wrote the thing specifically said in a debate on the floor about it at that time that it would not apply to non-citizens. He was SUPER specific about it.

Then you should be able to cite your reference so we can look at it in context of the Congressional Globe which has the full debate.

So show us the quote from Senator John Bingham considered the father (primary author) of the 14th Amendment.

Thank you in advance.

WW

 

[d0gbreath]

Some people think that eventually SCOTUS will perform a reinterpretation of the 14th.

They are wrong.

 

[BackAgain]

The 14th amendment squarely enshrined jus soli, no matter how Trump or his cult feel about it.

False. In reality of course, that’s not what the 14th Amendment did. Nor is it what was intended.

 

[BackAgain]

To answer your question. The US has always had jus sanquinis (birth by blood) and jus soli (birth by soil) with specific exceptions for jus soli. Those exceptions being diplomatic missions, Native American soverign tribes (corrected in 1924 with a Native American Citizenship Act), and invading armies occupying US territory.

Jus soli of course being born in the bounds of the US and jus sanquinis applying to children born of American citizens overseas.

WW

We can certainly quibble with the general accuracy of your claims.

But, even if what you posted happened to be accurate, that’s not really the issue.

The real issue — the reason the interpretation of the 14th Amendment is the linchpin — is to figure out WHETHER it is Constitutionally required that we utilize jus soli.

Since that’s NOT what the amendment says NOR is it the way it should be interpreted, it follows that we (probably by a Congressional Act) can limit citizenship on the mere happenstance of where one is born.

 

[Scoutster]

I would prefer a requirement that any birthright citizenship, requires at least one of the parents to already be citizen that simple. Not illegals that run across the border gets knocked up and pops out a baby. Then uses it as an anchor baby argument for why they should get to stay.