Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I’m not following your question.From what authoritative sources [our S.C. and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment] indicate, ". . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " seems to be about a child born ". . . of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. . . "
This conclusion that no change of meaning was intended was also confirmed by the provision’s prime author, Senator Lyman Trumbull, who explained to the Congress before it voted, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” required being “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” meaning, as he put it, “not owing allegiance to anyone else.”15 As Thomas Jefferson earlier wrote, “aliens are the subjects of a foreign power,”16 and thus owe allegiance to another country; hence, the alien’s children are not U.S. citizens simply by virtue of birth on U.S. soil. Furthermore, Senator Howard’s explanatory words are nearly identical to the Civil Right Act’s words “not [be] subject to any foreign power,” making explicit that the 14th Amendment was intended to put in Constitutional “stone” what Congress had first enacted as legislation. Applying that meaning, the U.S.-born child, returning to the parent’s country, is a citizen of and subject to that foreign country, and thus does not meet this requirement for birthright citizenship.
Native American indians were excluded from the constitution. See the 3/5ths compromise, which excluded indians not taxed."In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are." SEE: Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
Oh. So you’re a lawyer, too? Good for you. You hide it well. You come across as a rather uneducated layman relying more on simple search engines.My training is excellent and so damned difficult but I got to work in medical malpractice both defense and prosecution, contract negotiations for fortune 100 companies. I also develop medical practices.
Briefly I worked with a small firm on divorces and a few adoptions.
I was in the top of my class, but I had to work like a dog.
Trump’s problem is that he's stupid and incapable of learning. He thinks he knows everything already. That's your problem too.
Birthright Citizenship: Two Perspectives | The Federalist Society (emphases added).This conclusion that no change of meaning was intended was also confirmed by the provision’s prime author, Senator Lyman Trumbull, who explained to the Congress before it voted, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” required being “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” meaning, as he put it, “not owing allegiance to anyone else.”
“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” That is as absolute and complete a statement as can be imagined, and it would deny birthright citizenship to a child born in this country to undocumented immigrants or to a transient alien mother.
I really wasn't asking a question. I simply stated:I’m not following your question.
Maybe you can restate it? Are you seeking more case law?
That’s clearer. Cool.I really wasn't asking a question. I simply stated:
"From what authoritative sources [our S.C. and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment] indicate, ". . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " seems to be about a child born ". . . of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. . . "
As I previously pointed out, John A. Bingham, considered the primary architect of the 14th Amendment's first section remarks on March 9th, 1866, during Congressional debates upon the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” says:
"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)
Later, May 30th, during these debates when framing the 14th amendment and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:
The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.
Seems to me from the historical record [when the Fourteenth Amendment was being framed and debated] the qualifier ". . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . ." applies to the parents or parent of a child born on American soil, and also requires a child to be born ". . . of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. . . " for the privilege of birthright citizenship to be granted.
The poster you are responding to has suspiciously avoided references to our founders' thinking, and especially so with reference to those who actually framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment. The poster has offered nothing but insulting commentary and personal attacks.Now. Can you explain why you think your grasp on the topic of alleged “birthright citizenship” is superior to Jefferson’s? Also, is it superior to say old Senator Lyman Trumbull got it wrong?
Except when congress granted Native American Indians citizenship by law, in which the US did not have complete jurisdiction over the parents or the child. Yet the law granted birthright citizenship to both parents and their child. Even if the child was born overseas.Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:
The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.
This intersection of law and history is fascinating. And very instructive. I appreciate your “work” here, sharing it.The poster you are responding to has suspiciously avoided references to our founders' thinking, and especially so with reference to those who actually framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment. The poster has offered nothing but insulting commentary and personal attacks.
In any event, I think the following quote from Representative BURKE, made during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790 is very telling:
Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.
So, as it turns out, allowing the kind of foreigners who are now invading our borders to stay here, which the present Administration is doing, should be considered as a "high misdemeanor" which happens to be an impeachable offense!
Nope. I'm a paraprofessional. Great job if you have lawyers and accountants that trust your work.Oh. So you’re a lawyer, too? Good for you. You hide it well. You come across as a rather uneducated layman relying more on simple search engines.
If you are an actual lawyer, you should be among the first to comprehend that some legal issues are far more three dimensional than you are willing to admit. This is one of those issues.
Now. Can you explain why you think your grasp on the topic of alleged “birthright citizenship” is superior to Jefferson’s? Also, is it superior to say old Senator Lyman Trumbull got it wrong?
Birthright Citizenship: Two Perspectives | The Federalist Society (emphases added).
As noted in that same piece which I shared earlier, albeit in dicta, the Slaughterhouse Cases stated that:
Birthright Citizenship: Two Perspectives | The Federalist Society (author of first piece, Gerald Walpin).
Slaughterhouse Case found at 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873).
It is currently deemed politically correct, perhaps. But it seems to me that those old folks knew what they were talking about.
You know. I think you mentioned it once before. Vague recollection. I hope you enjoy paralegaling. (Not a word? I don’t care. I craft words.)Nope. I'm a paraprofessional. Great job if you have lawyers and accountants that trust your work.
How about the U.S. demand illegal 'immigrant' pregnant women have an abortion if they want to stay? After their abortion, they could work as indentured servants for a period of tiime while they study for their civic test. Democrats should get behind that. Send the sperm donors home.
You also craft new meanings to existing words. Like dicta.I hope you enjoy paralegaling. (Not a word? I don’t care. I craft words.)
The crime is crashing our border, dumbass.Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
That's not a crime, that's a violation (below misdemeanor) deportable offense.The crime is crashing our border, dumbass.
...there’s no question that you are ignorant on the topic of birthright citizenship beyond what you’ve chosen to believe.
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
Gets me a lot closer than you, dope.Working with immigrants doesn’t make you an expert in immigration law, ...
From what authoritative sources [our S.C. and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment] indicate, ". . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " seems to be about a child born ". . . of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. . . "
