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.
Of course it did, and does. Being subject to the jurisdiction means what it has always meant — being subject to the laws and courts. The only ones who are not are foreigners who are diplomatic ministers.Allegiance doesn’t matter to jurisdiction.
If the United States doesn’t have jurisdiction over an individual, then that individual can commit a crime in the US with immunity.
No reasonable person would seriously argue that simply because someone has allegiance to a foreign country, they could murder an American citizen and get away with it.
No, I never said that. Subject to the Jurisdiction Therein meant that they have no allegiance with another country period.
So in my scenario, let's say China wanted to sneak in a dirty bomb using this Chinese citizen of theirs who is (by our standards) an American citizen. Much easier to do being an American citizen than being a visitor of some kind. Or you can even use any country from the middle-east for that matter.
Allegiance has nothing to do with jurisdiction.
If any person of any citizenship commits a crime in the US, unless they have sovereign immunity, the US has the power to prosecute that person. That’s what jurisdiction means. Allegiance is irrelevant.
Birthright Citizenship | Federation for American Immigration Reform
Again, that link does not refute that a person in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of citizenship.
All it does is say that “some scholars argue” allegiance of a child of illegal aliens without postulating why. It does not argue that a foreign national who commits a crime in the US isn’t under the jurisdiction of US law.
It has nothing to do with law and breaking the law. So do tell: what do you think the clause meant? If they wanted for anybody to drift over and have American children regardless of the citizen status of the parents, why include that clause?
What it meant was that in order to have an American baby, the parents had to be Americans themselves. That's the argument the Supreme Court will eventually hear and decide on.
Its not hypocrisy when the 14th amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to illegal anchor babies. Trump has the guts to correct this and force the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment which is their job.
The 14th Amendment put an end to Dred Scott laws regarding citizenship.If you actually understood the constitution, you would know that only a new amendment could undo the 14th.Trump is just setting up the legal scuffle on this. Part of Trump’s Comprehensive Illegal Immigration Reform Act
The 14th wasn't written to allow children of illegals to become US citizens, it's time to follow the Constitution as it is written and stop "interpreting" it to suit agendas.
I doubt an EO will hold up in the matter but it would open up the can of worms to allow it to be addressed by the courts. Gorusch and Kavanaugh are looking like sweet picks in that regard ...another reason Trump winning was so important
No amendment was needed to undo Dread Scott, and no amendment is needed to get a proper interpretation of the 14th. It's amazing how much of the things you know, just aren't true. LMAO
.
”What it meant was that in order to have an American baby, the parents had to be Americans themselves.”Allegiance doesn’t matter to jurisdiction.
If the United States doesn’t have jurisdiction over an individual, then that individual can commit a crime in the US with immunity.
No reasonable person would seriously argue that simply because someone has allegiance to a foreign country, they could murder an American citizen and get away with it.
No, I never said that. Subject to the Jurisdiction Therein meant that they have no allegiance with another country period.
So in my scenario, let's say China wanted to sneak in a dirty bomb using this Chinese citizen of theirs who is (by our standards) an American citizen. Much easier to do being an American citizen than being a visitor of some kind. Or you can even use any country from the middle-east for that matter.
Allegiance has nothing to do with jurisdiction.
If any person of any citizenship commits a crime in the US, unless they have sovereign immunity, the US has the power to prosecute that person. That’s what jurisdiction means. Allegiance is irrelevant.
Birthright Citizenship | Federation for American Immigration Reform
Again, that link does not refute that a person in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of citizenship.
All it does is say that “some scholars argue” allegiance of a child of illegal aliens without postulating why. It does not argue that a foreign national who commits a crime in the US isn’t under the jurisdiction of US law.
It has nothing to do with law and breaking the law. So do tell: what do you think the clause meant? If they wanted for anybody to drift over and have American children regardless of the citizen status of the parents, why include that clause?
What it meant was that in order to have an American baby, the parents had to be Americans themselves. That's the argument the Supreme Court will eventually hear and decide on.
So? It says what it says. “ALL persons.” Except for those born to foreign diplomats.The 14th Amendment put an end to Dred Scott laws regarding citizenship.If you actually understood the constitution, you would know that only a new amendment could undo the 14th.Trump is just setting up the legal scuffle on this. Part of Trump’s Comprehensive Illegal Immigration Reform Act
The 14th wasn't written to allow children of illegals to become US citizens, it's time to follow the Constitution as it is written and stop "interpreting" it to suit agendas.
I doubt an EO will hold up in the matter but it would open up the can of worms to allow it to be addressed by the courts. Gorusch and Kavanaugh are looking like sweet picks in that regard ...another reason Trump winning was so important
No amendment was needed to undo Dread Scott, and no amendment is needed to get a proper interpretation of the 14th. It's amazing how much of the things you know, just aren't true. LMAO
.
The motive for passing the 14th Amendment was not to encourage Illegal Aliens to come here, or to promote Birth Tourism.
Thinking that the current interpretation is the "right one" is crazy
The question was: Please inform us what O did with an EO AFA immigration.
It's already squared away...in the ConstitutionIts not hypocrisy when the 14th amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to illegal anchor babies. Trump has the guts to correct this and force the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment which is their job.
Yup and its about damned time.
These anchor babies cost we the tax payers billions every year.
I sure hope they get this squared away.
that's not all it says. why not go look up the original debate and learn something today. i posted it already but as usual, if you don't like it, dub it FAKE and giggle your way into your own mindset. again.So? It says what it says. “ALL persons.” Except for those born to foreign diplomats.The 14th Amendment put an end to Dred Scott laws regarding citizenship.If you actually understood the constitution, you would know that only a new amendment could undo the 14th.Trump is just setting up the legal scuffle on this. Part of Trump’s Comprehensive Illegal Immigration Reform Act
The 14th wasn't written to allow children of illegals to become US citizens, it's time to follow the Constitution as it is written and stop "interpreting" it to suit agendas.
I doubt an EO will hold up in the matter but it would open up the can of worms to allow it to be addressed by the courts. Gorusch and Kavanaugh are looking like sweet picks in that regard ...another reason Trump winning was so important
No amendment was needed to undo Dread Scott, and no amendment is needed to get a proper interpretation of the 14th. It's amazing how much of the things you know, just aren't true. LMAO
.
The motive for passing the 14th Amendment was not to encourage Illegal Aliens to come here, or to promote Birth Tourism.
Thinking that the current interpretation is the "right one" is crazy
There’s nothing muddy about it. It means subject to the laws and courts.The part that says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", is the part they are going to define. It appears the meaning of that part is a bit muddy.We have to understand, the president is not trying to repeal an amendment with EO, that is not possible, and few would support it.
He is taking an action on the interpretation of the amendment, which is still sketchy, but it will force the SC to litigate the amendment and make a ruling on the meaning of the amendment.
Here's the full text of that Amendment.
Tell me which part is sketchy. It's very straight forward, exact and clear.
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]
Yep, in terms of establishing who is, or isn’t, a citizen at birth, that’s all it says.that's not all it says. why not go look up the original debate and learn something today. i posted it already but as usual, if you don't like it, dub it FAKE and giggle your way into your own mindset. again.So? It says what it says. “ALL persons.” Except for those born to foreign diplomats.The 14th Amendment put an end to Dred Scott laws regarding citizenship.If you actually understood the constitution, you would know that only a new amendment could undo the 14th.
No amendment was needed to undo Dread Scott, and no amendment is needed to get a proper interpretation of the 14th. It's amazing how much of the things you know, just aren't true. LMAO
.
The motive for passing the 14th Amendment was not to encourage Illegal Aliens to come here, or to promote Birth Tourism.
Thinking that the current interpretation is the "right one" is crazy
The question was: Please inform us what O did with an EO AFA immigration.He ADMITTEDLY violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress to impose his own EDICT.
His EO was Un-Constitutional. He violated the Constitution by DOING what Trump has only TALKED about.
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.
Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.
If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.
You want to discuss / defend his EO yet don't know anything about it? LOL! YOU look it up.OK, please cite the EO & I will look it up. Thanks
You want to discuss / defend his EO yet don't know anything about it? LOL! YOU look it up.OK, please cite the EO & I will look it up. Thanks
Also, what is in his edict which attempted to impose his own edict as 'law of the land' after bypassing Congress to do so is not as important as the fact that he admittedly violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress to impose his own edict as 'law of the land'.
Holyfuckingshit!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.
Illegals don't reside in a state, certainly not legally their residence is their home country. This is how we will end anchor babies.
