Business Insider misleads its readers on birthright citizenship.

[surada]

The disgustingly named Unkotare keeps citing that snippet of US law as though it settles everything. Of course, it doesn’t.
The relevant part remains:


Unko is simply too delusional to acknowledge that the highlighted phrase has meaning and far too dishonest to admit that the meaning of the highlighted phrase absolutely requires further analysis.

You're incredibly stupid. Call a lawyer.

 

[BackAgain]

If that South Korean is in the US he's subject to US jurisdiction.

The Nicaraguan baby born in the US is under US jurisdiction and is a US citizen.

Once you understand sovereignty we'll work on understanding extradition.

You are far too simplistic to function.

I understand sovereignty. It is you who can’t wrap your mind around it.

Let me put it to you a bit differently.
Under your erroneous understanding of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” any human being physically within our borders* already is “subject to” American jurisdiction. (*excepting diplomats, consular staff and their immediate family, here).

So why would it be necessary to add the phrase “subject to [US] jurisdiction?”

Obviously, excluding diplomats and consular staff and their families is already established. So your definition requires us to believe the insertion of that phrase is a redundancy.

I’m sorry the actual meanings of sovereignty elude you.

 

[BackAgain]

You're incredibly stupid. Call a lawyer.

You’re wrong. You’re ignorant. And you are impervious to being properly educated.

 

[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]

Must highlight for some of our liberals. Even then they may not be able to “see” it:

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. ...

That's right. Completely subject to US jurisdiction. Your allegiance has nothing to do with it. It's USA all the way whether you are South Korean or Nicaraguan or Mexican. Your allegiance or lack of allegiance has no impact on jurisdiction. Call a lawyer.

 

[surada]

You’re wrong. You’re ignorant. And you are impervious to being properly educated.

Call a lawyer.

 

[surada]

You are far too simplistic to function.

I understand sovereignty. It is you who can’t wrap your mind around it.

Let me put it to you a bit differently.
Under your erroneous understanding of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” any human being physically within our borders* already is “subject to” American jurisdiction. (*excepting diplomats, consular staff and their immediate family, here).

So why would it be necessary to add the phrase “subject to [US] jurisdiction?”

Obviously, excluding diplomats and consular staff and their families is already established. So your definition requires us to believe the insertion of that phrase is a redundancy.

I’m sorry the actual meanings of sovereignty elude you.

Call a lawyer.

 

[BackAgain]

That's right. Completely subject to US jurisdiction. Your allegiance has nothing to do with it. It's USA all the way whether you are South Korean or Nicaraguan or Mexican. Your allegiance or lack of allegiance has no impact on jurisdiction. Call a lawyer.

Your failure to understand is now highlighted for posterity.

Don’t pretend to be learned in the law. You’re not.

 

[BackAgain]

Call a lawyer.

But a new line. Maybe a good one next time.

 

[surada]

But a new line. Maybe a good one next time.

I'm serious .You're stuck. Call a lawyer and ask. It will make perfect sense to you and you will understand legal theory.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm serious .You're stuck. Call a lawyer and ask. It will make perfect sense to you and you will understand legal theory.

Stupid you. Unlike you, I already know what it means.

You’re too thick to even comprehend why the term requires some analysis. And you’re far too shallow and ignorant to understand the various analyses. Go play, child.

 

[surada]

Your failure to understand is now highlighted for posterity.

Don’t pretend to be learned in the law. You’re not.

I was pretty good. When I got stuck like you, I called a lawyer. Especially about citizenship issues and foreign medical licensensure.

 

[surada]

Stupid you. Unlike you, I already know what it means.

You’re too thick to even comprehend why the term requires some analysis. And you’re far too shallow and ignorant to understand the various analyses. Go play, child.

They analyzed it before they wrote the statute. You don’t have to do a thing.

 

[BackAgain]

.

The simpleton Unko (God help his students) reverts to his moronic form.

 

[BackAgain]

I was pretty good. When I got stuck like you, I called a lawyer. Especially about citizenship issues and foreign medical licensensure.

I’ve handled more cases than you’ve played Secretary on.

Your grasp of legal matters is shallow and simplistic. Sadly, it also means that you’re wrong.

Foreign medical licensure has absolutely nothing to do with this thread topic or anything under discussion.

Have you recently been involved in a serious car accident?

 

[surada]

I’ve handled more cases than you’ve played Secretary on.

Your grasp of legal matters is shallow and simplistic. Sadly, it also means that you’re wrong.

Foreign medical licensure has absolutely nothing to do with this thread topic or anything under discussion.

Have you recently been involved in a serious car accident?

Call a lawyer. You're dead wrong.

 

[johnwk]

That's right. Completely subject to US jurisdiction. Your allegiance has nothing to do with it. It's USA all the way whether you are South Korean or Nicaraguan or Mexican. Your allegiance or lack of allegiance has no impact on jurisdiction. Call a lawyer.

Not with respect to citizenship being granted to a child born to a foreign national while on American soil.

Have you already forgotten what our Supreme Court has stated in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) and in Elk v. Wilkins (1884)?

Are you saying you disagree with what the Supreme Court has already stated with regard to the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as the words appear in the Fourteenth Amendment?

 

[surada]

Not with respect to citizenship being granted to a child born to a foreign national while on American soil.

Have you already forgotten what our Supreme Court has stated in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) and in Elk v. Wilkins (1884)?

Are you saying you disagree with what the Supreme Court has already stated with regard to the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as the words appear in the Fourteenth Amendment?

Are you chickenshit or something? Call a lawyer.

 

[BackAgain]

They analyzed it before they wrote the statute. You don’t have to do a thing.

Wrong. The wording chosen was selected for a reason. Your failed effort to analyze it would makenit meaningless.

You really are shallow.

 

[BackAgain]

Call a lawyer. You're dead wrong.

I’m correct. You remain flatly wrong.

It’s not just because you’re a stupid, petty, arrogant paralegal, either. Although you are. It’s more because you refuse to allow actual facts interfere with your poor thinking skills. You are an educable mental retard.