Business Insider misleads its readers on birthright citizenship.

[BackAgain]

The part informed by the 14th Amendment. Write your congressman and ask him to explain it.

It isn’t “informed” by the Amendment.

Learn the topic before you bloviate.

 

[johnwk]

According to US IMMIGRATION LAW anyone born in the US IS a US citizen. That is reality. That is fact. Go write a letter to your congressman.

Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion.

I'm still waiting for one of our resident geniuses to quote the alleged wording from the "law" indicating a baby born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, meets the qualifier in the Fourteenth Amendment for citizenship upon birth.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Unkotare]

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a)
a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b)
a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c)
a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d)
a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e)
a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f)
a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g)
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h)
a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

.

 

[surada]

Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion.

I'm still waiting for one of our resident geniuses to quote the alleged wording from the "law" indicating a baby born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, meets the qualifier in the Fourteenth Amendment for citizenship upon birth.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Read the statute. Who the hell do you think has jurisdiction?

 

[BackAgain]

Pretty specific, isn't it?
Allegiance has nothing to do with US jurisdiction. Nothing. If your Allegiance is to Spain or any other country it still has no jurisdiction in the US.

You still refuse to see, read or comprehend. You can’t be helped under such circumstances.

§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth​

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Now subject to the jurisdiction there of DOES involve whether the individual owes an allegiance to this land.

I realize you don’t care for that fact. You folks who seek simplistic formalisms rarely do like to delve into it any deeper than the most shallow of surface levels.

I have already stated that the words are subject to different interpretations. But you are ignorant. So, I’ll help you out.

The Federalist Society

fedsoc.org

Read the discussions. Try to wrap your head around the fact that scholars themselves can and do disagree. And you are far from a scholar. You can’t even fathom how or why the opposing point of view to yours might be the correct one.

 

[BackAgain]

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a)
a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b)
a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c)
a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d)
a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e)
a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f)
a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g)
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h)
a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

I already provided that law. And only the first provision is of concern.

Your post is therefore almost fully pointless.

 

[johnwk]

But the question is whether the Constitution and that law contemplate more than just those two exceptions. OR, in the alternative, does the clause also encompass children of illegal immigrants who don’t seem to owe any allegiance to this land (whose law they broke upon entry, etc.)?

And with regard to what you state above, our Supreme Court, in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), has already noted:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."

So, how does a foreign national become "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus qualifying a baby born to said foreign national for citizenship upon birth?

By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

 

[meaner gene]

That last clause isn’t there for no reason.

You are free to pretend that it means nothing. But it does mean something.

Now some folks say that its sole purpose is to exclude enemy soldiers who may have invaded our land AND, of course, to exclude the children of ambassadors and consular staffs. And those are undeniably some reasons for that clause.

But the question is whether the Constitution and that law contemplate more than just those two exceptions. OR, in the alternative, does the clause also encompass children of illegal immigrants who don’t seem to owe any allegiance to this land (whose law they broke upon entry, etc.)?

The easiest way of explaining who is or isn't subject to the jurisdiction there of, is watch the movie Lethal Weapon. And the classic line where the South African diplomat tells Lt Riggs, "you could not even give me a parking ticket!"

Demonstrating foreign sovereigns ministers and diplomats are not subject to our jurisdiction.

An alien in this country legally or illegally, can be given a parking ticket.

 

[surada]

You still refuse to see, read or comprehend. You can’t be helped under such circumstances.

§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth​

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Now subject to the jurisdiction there of DOES involve whether the individual owes an allegiance to this land.

I realize you don’t care for that fact. You folks who seek simplistic formalisms rarely do like to delve into it any deeper than the most shallow of surface levels.

I have already stated that the words are subject to different interpretations. But you are ignorant. So, I’ll help you out.

The Federalist Society

fedsoc.org

Read the discussions. Try to wrap your head around the fact that scholars themselves can and do disagree. And you are far from a scholar. You can’t even fathom how or why the opposing point of view to yours might be the correct one.

You have the bare minimum of a public school 9th grade education. You aren't alone Trump and his ardent, ignorant followers are in the same boat.

 

[BackAgain]

Which has been explained to you many times, yet you still pretend not to understand it. Go take it up with the SC.

No no. It’s you who fails to understand it or even explore it.

I could teach even a moron like you; but you must be able to first be willing to accept your own error.

 

[surada]

And with regard to what you state above, our Supreme Court, in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), has already noted:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."

So, how does a foreign national become "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus qualifying a baby born to said foreign national for citizenship upon birth?

By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

A foreign national is subject to US jurisdiction by virtue of being in the country

 

[BackAgain]

And with regard to what you state above, our Supreme Court, in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), has already noted:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."

So, how does a foreign national become "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus qualifying a baby born to said foreign national for citizenship upon birth?

By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

edited.

Simple question.

how would a newborn infant take an oath of allegiance to our land?

 

[BackAgain]

A foreign national is subject to US jurisdiction by virtue of being in the country

Not true. It’s your claim. But you can’t support it.

What is true is that our laws can be imposed on them by virtue of their simply being here. But that does not mean that they don’t have a legal connection to the land of their mother.

 

[meaner gene]

And with regard to what you state above, our Supreme Court, in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), has already noted:

That case was of native american citizenship, which they were by treaty not subject to US jurisdiction.

 

[BackAgain]

Pretty specific, isn't it?
Allegiance has nothing to do with US jurisdiction. Nothing. If your Allegiance is to Spain or any other country it still has no jurisdiction in the US.

False. That you are ignorant of the entire line of argument concerning the owing of allegiance to another land does not mean that it has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[surada]

Not true. It’s your claim. But you can’t support it.

What is true is that our laws can be imposed on them by virtue of their simply being here. But that does not mean that they don’t have a legal connection to the land of their mother.

Not if they are born in the US.

False. That you are ignorant of the entire line of argument concerning the owing of allegiance to another land does not mean that it has nothing to do with this topic.

Allegiance to another land doesn't matter. You're stupid like Trump.

 

[meaner gene]

A foreign national is subject to US jurisdiction by virtue of being in the country

Exactly, and foreign sovereigns, diplomats, ministers, and their families are not subject to US jurisdiction. We can't force a diplomat to leave the country, we can only ask nicely, but we have no jurisdiction over deporting them. While it's clear, illegal aliens are subject to deportation, hence jurisdiction.

 

[johnwk]

You are a ponderous plodding puerile putz.

Even if the gibberish you spewed made sense, which it doesn’t, please feel free to explain how a newborn infant can take an oath of allegiance to our land?

John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, seems to provide the explanation, as applied to the meaning of "jurisdiction"

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every 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…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

 

[Unkotare]

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a)
a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b)
a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c)
a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d)
a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e)
a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f)
a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g)
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h)
a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

.

 

[surada]

Exactly, and foreign sovereigns, diplomats, ministers, and their families are not subject to US jurisdiction. We can't force a diplomat to leave the country, we can only ask nicely, but we have no jurisdiction over deporting them. While it's clear, illegal aliens are subject to deportation, hence jurisdiction.

These morons won't this either.

tle-31-money-and-finance-treasury/subtitle-b-regulations-relating-to-money-and-finance/chapter-v-office-of-foreign-assets-control-department-of-the-treasury/part-515-cuban-assets-control-regulations/subpart-c-general-definitions/section-515329-person-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-of-the-united-states-person-subject-to-us-jurisdiction/analysis?sort=relevance&citingPage=1