Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Camp]

If you read the discussions regarding the 14th Amendment and some of the court cases its pretty clear.

Yes, it's pretty clear the 14th does not confer automatic birthright citizenship.

What part of the language of the 14th Amendment leads you to that conclusion?

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.

How many fucking times do you need for me to repeat this? 50? 100? 10,000?

"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF"

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, if you do not grasp that Indian Reservations were sovereign territory and not under the jurisdiction of the United States you will not grasp what the 14th Amendment is saying and means. If your concept had any validity there would be constitutional scholars voicing the same thing you are voicing. They are not. That is because they grasp the legal definitions of sovereignty in regard to Native American Tribal Lands established by treaty and they know the meaning of "jurisdiction".

 

[Dad2three]

What does jurisdiction mean then?

Sure there are people in the United States not subject to U.S. laws- they are called Diplomats.

In the 1860's, they also included Native Americans who lived in their own sovereign nations.

Well no, a diplomat is still subject to US laws. They can be given "diplomatic immunity" in some cases but they don't have a free pass to do anything they please. That's just insane!

Jurisdiction, in this context, means "owing allegiance to." This is the key point of debate in the famous Wong case, the immigrants were considered legal and subject to jurisdiction.. an illegal alien is NOT. A Native American living on tribal land was also not... until 1923 when Congress passed a law. This should be clear enough evidence that the 14th simply doesn't confer automatic citizenship by birth. There is another criteria that HAS TO BE MET!

Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be expelled.


Diplomatic immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Boss]

Native Americans born on, and living in Sovereign nations(on land we called part of the United States) in 1866 were really not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- they didn't have to pay taxes- and they were not subject to American law- if you don't doubt that, ask George Custer.

Native Americans who had left their nation- and were paying taxes were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and could become U.S. citizens.

Again... are you so stupid you don't understand that you are defending the very argument you just rejected? You just got through telling me the 14th confers citizenship by birth... now you are explaining why Native Americans were exempt.

Well... Illegal aliens are also exempt! Just like the Native Americans were! They do not meet the "subject to jurisdiction" criteria established in the 14th. You can sit here and "explain" all you like, the fact remains, the 14th does NOT confer automatic birthright citizenship... it never did.

You completely ignore the Supreme Court's review of English Common law as well as the initial decisions of the United States Supreme Court regarding citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark court wrote:

"InInglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

Now, explain that holding and how it does not mean that the law in the United States was consistent with English Common Law which held that person's born in the territorial jurisdiction of a nation are citizens of that nation?

Next, explain this from Wong Kim Ark:

"Mr. Justice Johnson [i.e. Supreme Court Justice Johnson] said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.

3 Pet. 155. "The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens." 3 Pet. 156.

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."
Tell us, on brilliant legal scholar, how the bold language does not mean what it says..."the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth"?

Here is some more Supreme Court authority you can only ignore to maintain your idiotic construction of the opinion from which this language comes:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

The fact is you cannot reconcile these passages with your claims so you ignore them. You will not even try to do so now. You can't. You will just repost the same nonsense you copied from some partisan hack.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that Wong Kim Ark was determined to be "subject to jurisdiction" and the court found that "subject to jurisdiction" meant allegiance and this was not ever in question when it came to birthright citizenship. If anything, Wong reaffirms the 14th doesn't automatically grant citizenship by birth alone... there is another criteria which MUST be met. This is even MORE apparent when you understand Wong did not confer citizenship of Native Americans born on the same US soil, subject to the same US laws. It took an act of Congress in 1923 to grant citizenship because ONLY CONGRESS can do this.

 

[Boss]

What does jurisdiction mean then?

Sure there are people in the United States not subject to U.S. laws- they are called Diplomats.

In the 1860's, they also included Native Americans who lived in their own sovereign nations.

Well no, a diplomat is still subject to US laws. They can be given "diplomatic immunity" in some cases but they don't have a free pass to do anything they please. That's just insane!

Jurisdiction, in this context, means "owing allegiance to." This is the key point of debate in the famous Wong case, the immigrants were considered legal and subject to jurisdiction.. an illegal alien is NOT. A Native American living on tribal land was also not... until 1923 when Congress passed a law. This should be clear enough evidence that the 14th simply doesn't confer automatic citizenship by birth. There is another criteria that HAS TO BE MET!

Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be expelled.


Diplomatic immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It doesn't, in any way, excuse them from the law. Sorry!

 

[Boss]

If you read the discussions regarding the 14th Amendment and some of the court cases its pretty clear.

Yes, it's pretty clear the 14th does not confer automatic birthright citizenship.

What part of the language of the 14th Amendment leads you to that conclusion?

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.

How many fucking times do you need for me to repeat this? 50? 100? 10,000?

"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF"

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, if you do not grasp that Indian Reservations were sovereign territory and not under the jurisdiction of the United States you will not grasp what the 14th Amendment is saying and means. If your concept had any validity there would be constitutional scholars voicing the same thing you are voicing. They are not. That is because they grasp the legal definitions of sovereignty in regard to Native American Tribal Lands established by treaty and they know the meaning of "jurisdiction".

And Mexico is also a sovereign territory! Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" because they have not been naturalized as citizens of the US, they are still citizens of Mexico. But even still... IF the 14th (or Wong) meant you are a citizen because you popped out of momma's womb on US soil.. then why are you giving me excuses for how Native Americans didn't qualify? You're trying to explain why something is two different things but insisting it's only one thing.

 

[Redfish]

to the OP.

the 14th amendment is not unconstitutional. The way it is currently being interpreted is unconstitutiional.

the 14th was put in place to grant citizenship to freed slaves who had been brought into this country against their will.

It was never intended to convey citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens. That is a ridiculous interpretation, no country in the world would condone such an idiotic idea.

The language of the 14th Amendment doesn't get much clearer

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.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend it to apply to 'all persons born...in the United States'- who were subject to the laws of the United States(jurisdiction) they certainly could have written it so it didn't apply to all persons born in the United States who are subject to the laws of the United States.

At the time it was written they never contemplated an illegal invasion using anchor babies. When looking at past legislation we need to look at the intent of the writers and what they were dealing with at the time.

 

[Syriusly]

What does jurisdiction mean then?

Sure there are people in the United States not subject to U.S. laws- they are called Diplomats.

In the 1860's, they also included Native Americans who lived in their own sovereign nations.

Well no, a diplomat is still subject to US laws. They can be given "diplomatic immunity" in some cases but they don't have a free pass to do anything they please. That's just insane!
!

The Diplomats we are speaking of have been given 'diplomatic immunity'- meaning that yes indeed- they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

If the Ambassador of France robbed Citibank in New York City- he could not be prosecuted for bank robbery- unless France revoked his diplomat status. At most we could expel him from the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

If you read the discussions regarding the 14th Amendment and some of the court cases its pretty clear.

Yes, it's pretty clear the 14th does not confer automatic birthright citizenship.

What part of the language of the 14th Amendment leads you to that conclusion?

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.

How many fucking times do you need for me to repeat this? 50? 100? 10,000?

"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF"

And subject to the jurisdiction means subject to the laws of the United States- which includes everyone in the United States except diplomats.

 

[Syriusly]

to the OP.

the 14th amendment is not unconstitutional. The way it is currently being interpreted is unconstitutiional.

the 14th was put in place to grant citizenship to freed slaves who had been brought into this country against their will.

It was never intended to convey citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens. That is a ridiculous interpretation, no country in the world would condone such an idiotic idea.

The language of the 14th Amendment doesn't get much clearer

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.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend it to apply to 'all persons born...in the United States'- who were subject to the laws of the United States(jurisdiction) they certainly could have written it so it didn't apply to all persons born in the United States who are subject to the laws of the United States.

At the time it was written they never contemplated an illegal invasion using anchor babies. When looking at past legislation we need to look at the intent of the writers and what they were dealing with at the time.

When looking at the U.S. Constitution we first look at the language. And the language couldn't be much clearer.

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.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend it to apply to 'all persons born...in the United States'- who were subject to the laws of the United States(jurisdiction) they certainly could have written it so it didn't apply to all persons born in the United States who are subject to the laws of the United States.

Rather than trying to make the 14th Amendment say something it doesn't- why aren't you trying to change the Constitution to fix what you consider to be the problem?

 

[Syriusly]

What does jurisdiction mean then?

Sure there are people in the United States not subject to U.S. laws- they are called Diplomats.

In the 1860's, they also included Native Americans who lived in their own sovereign nations.

Jurisdiction, in this context, means "owing allegiance to." This is the key point of debate in the famous Wong case, the immigrants were considered legal and subject to jurisdiction.. an illegal alien is NOT. A Native American living on tribal land was also not... until 1923 when Congress passed a law. This should be clear enough evidence that the 14th simply doesn't confer automatic citizenship by birth. There is another criteria that HAS TO BE MET!

There is no 'other criteria' that has to be met- there is only:

• Birth and
• Subject to the jurisidiction thereof

Wong Kim Ark did not require aliens to be legal aliens- and Plyler v. Doe makes it clear that anyone within the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if they are subject to the laws of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

If you read the discussions regarding the 14th Amendment and some of the court cases its pretty clear.

Yes, it's pretty clear the 14th does not confer automatic birthright citizenship.

What part of the language of the 14th Amendment leads you to that conclusion?

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.

How many fucking times do you need for me to repeat this? 50? 100? 10,000?

"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF"

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, if you do not grasp that Indian Reservations were sovereign territory and not under the jurisdiction of the United States you will not grasp what the 14th Amendment is saying and means. If your concept had any validity there would be constitutional scholars voicing the same thing you are voicing. They are not. That is because they grasp the legal definitions of sovereignty in regard to Native American Tribal Lands established by treaty and they know the meaning of "jurisdiction".

And Mexico is also a sovereign territory! .

And a child born in Mexico is not born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

A child born in the United States however, is born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Dad2three]

What does jurisdiction mean then?

Sure there are people in the United States not subject to U.S. laws- they are called Diplomats.

In the 1860's, they also included Native Americans who lived in their own sovereign nations.

Well no, a diplomat is still subject to US laws. They can be given "diplomatic immunity" in some cases but they don't have a free pass to do anything they please. That's just insane!

Jurisdiction, in this context, means "owing allegiance to." This is the key point of debate in the famous Wong case, the immigrants were considered legal and subject to jurisdiction.. an illegal alien is NOT. A Native American living on tribal land was also not... until 1923 when Congress passed a law. This should be clear enough evidence that the 14th simply doesn't confer automatic citizenship by birth. There is another criteria that HAS TO BE MET!

Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be expelled.


Diplomatic immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It doesn't, in any way, excuse them from the law. Sorry!

Your inability to EVER accept reality IS noted Bubs

 

[Syriusly]

Native Americans born on, and living in Sovereign nations(on land we called part of the United States) in 1866 were really not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- they didn't have to pay taxes- and they were not subject to American law- if you don't doubt that, ask George Custer.

Native Americans who had left their nation- and were paying taxes were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and could become U.S. citizens.

Again... are you so stupid you don't understand that you are defending the very argument you just rejected? You just got through telling me the 14th confers citizenship by birth... now you are explaining why Native Americans were exempt. .

Look- it is not my problem that you are ignorant of the both the facts and history-and too stupid to care about your ignorance.

Native Americans in 1866 living in their sovereign nations were outside the jurisdiction of the United States- George Custer found that out a few years later.

Native Americans living in Dallas were within the jurisdiction- and could be arrested- and executed.
Illegal aliens living in Dallas are within the jurisdiction- and have been arrested- and executed.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it's pretty clear the 14th does not confer automatic birthright citizenship.

What part of the language of the 14th Amendment leads you to that conclusion?

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.

How many fucking times do you need for me to repeat this? 50? 100? 10,000?

"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF"

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, if you do not grasp that Indian Reservations were sovereign territory and not under the jurisdiction of the United States you will not grasp what the 14th Amendment is saying and means. If your concept had any validity there would be constitutional scholars voicing the same thing you are voicing. They are not. That is because they grasp the legal definitions of sovereignty in regard to Native American Tribal Lands established by treaty and they know the meaning of "jurisdiction".

And Mexico is also a sovereign territory! .

And a child born in Mexico is not born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

A child born in the United States however, is born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

It really is that simple; except to the Right.

 

[paddymurphy]

Native Americans born on, and living in Sovereign nations(on land we called part of the United States) in 1866 were really not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- they didn't have to pay taxes- and they were not subject to American law- if you don't doubt that, ask George Custer.

Native Americans who had left their nation- and were paying taxes were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and could become U.S. citizens.

Again... are you so stupid you don't understand that you are defending the very argument you just rejected? You just got through telling me the 14th confers citizenship by birth... now you are explaining why Native Americans were exempt.

Well... Illegal aliens are also exempt! Just like the Native Americans were! They do not meet the "subject to jurisdiction" criteria established in the 14th. You can sit here and "explain" all you like, the fact remains, the 14th does NOT confer automatic birthright citizenship... it never did.

You completely ignore the Supreme Court's review of English Common law as well as the initial decisions of the United States Supreme Court regarding citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark court wrote:

"InInglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

Now, explain that holding and how it does not mean that the law in the United States was consistent with English Common Law which held that person's born in the territorial jurisdiction of a nation are citizens of that nation?

Next, explain this from Wong Kim Ark:

"Mr. Justice Johnson [i.e. Supreme Court Justice Johnson] said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.

3 Pet. 155. "The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens." 3 Pet. 156.

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."
Tell us, on brilliant legal scholar, how the bold language does not mean what it says..."the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth"?

Here is some more Supreme Court authority you can only ignore to maintain your idiotic construction of the opinion from which this language comes:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

The fact is you cannot reconcile these passages with your claims so you ignore them. You will not even try to do so now. You can't. You will just repost the same nonsense you copied from some partisan hack.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that Wong Kim Ark was determined to be "subject to jurisdiction" and the court found that "subject to jurisdiction" meant allegiance and this was not ever in question when it came to birthright citizenship. If anything, Wong reaffirms the 14th doesn't automatically grant citizenship by birth alone... there is another criteria which MUST be met. This is even MORE apparent when you understand Wong did not confer citizenship of Native Americans born on the same US soil, subject to the same US laws. It took an act of Congress in 1923 to grant citizenship because ONLY CONGRESS can do this.

So, you did not realize that what is above in quotes is from Wong Kim Ark? For example, this is verbatim from the opinion: " "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together." If birth and allegiance go together, according to the Supreme Court, explain again how they are different things. These passages explain what "subject to jurisdiction" means. And Native Americans born on US soil were U.S. Citizens. Only those born on the nominally sovereign Indian lands were not U.S. Citizens. The 14th was intended to only exclude two categories from birthright citizenship. As the Court held:

"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42. "
The Court went on to specifically hold that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means precisely the same thing as "within its jurisdiction".
" It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

"In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, "not subject to any foreign power," were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright, or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the Civil Rights Act, "not subject to any foreign power," gave way, in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to the affirmative words, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Now, unless you can explain away each of these passages from Wong Kim Ark, you are wrong. A real man would admit that and go away.

 

[Syriusly]

What does jurisdiction mean then?

Sure there are people in the United States not subject to U.S. laws- they are called Diplomats.

In the 1860's, they also included Native Americans who lived in their own sovereign nations.

Well no, a diplomat is still subject to US laws. They can be given "diplomatic immunity" in some cases but they don't have a free pass to do anything they please. That's just insane!

Jurisdiction, in this context, means "owing allegiance to." This is the key point of debate in the famous Wong case, the immigrants were considered legal and subject to jurisdiction.. an illegal alien is NOT. A Native American living on tribal land was also not... until 1923 when Congress passed a law. This should be clear enough evidence that the 14th simply doesn't confer automatic citizenship by birth. There is another criteria that HAS TO BE MET!

Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be expelled.


Diplomatic immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It doesn't, in any way, excuse them from the law. Sorry!

We can lead a horse to water, but we can't make you drink it.

 

[paddymurphy]

What does jurisdiction mean then?

Sure there are people in the United States not subject to U.S. laws- they are called Diplomats.

In the 1860's, they also included Native Americans who lived in their own sovereign nations.

Well no, a diplomat is still subject to US laws. They can be given "diplomatic immunity" in some cases but they don't have a free pass to do anything they please. That's just insane!

Jurisdiction, in this context, means "owing allegiance to." This is the key point of debate in the famous Wong case, the immigrants were considered legal and subject to jurisdiction.. an illegal alien is NOT. A Native American living on tribal land was also not... until 1923 when Congress passed a law. This should be clear enough evidence that the 14th simply doesn't confer automatic citizenship by birth. There is another criteria that HAS TO BE MET!

Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be expelled.


Diplomatic immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It doesn't, in any way, excuse them from the law. Sorry!

What, then, does "immunity" mean?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

It has already been "tested out". In 1898, the Supremes ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that even though his parents were citizens of China, by being born in San Francisco in 1871 conveyed birthright citizenship upon him under Clause 1 of Amendment XIV. That decision cemented the interpretation of birthright citizenship of those born in the Nation to non-citizens and that birthright is inalienable.

One can read the Syllabus, Opinion of the Court and Dissent here:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This continues to be a LIE the left is throwing up. Wong Kim Ark was about LEGAL immigrants. In fact, the documentation of the case itself, talks extensively about "jurisdiction" in context of "allegiance."

Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese nationals but they were here legally in our country. Because they were here legally and not illegally, they met the criteria for "subject to jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th.

There is a very good reason you must go back to 1890 to find a SCOTUS case on the 'jurisdiction' clause of the 14th. You will note Section 5 of the 14th... it's not put there to be ignored. Congress has FULL authority over this. No one else! Got it? Not the courts, not some liberal drone, not CNN or MSNBC talking heads! The United States Congress has the plenary power to establish naturalization law in this country. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4--- It's an enumerated and plenary power of Congress!

The 14th was specifically written to enfranchise slaves into the citizenry. Slaves became "subject to jurisdiction" with passage of the 13th.

This entire debate is over liberal pinheads misinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. IF THEIR ARGUMENT WERE TRUE, there is no need for this part in the sentence, it is redundant.

It matters NOT whether the child was of legal or illegal immigrants!

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
[Emphasis Added] < United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

You are in error!

And yet... at the very same time this ruling was made and opinion rendered... it does not apply to aliens who are Native American. Born on the same US soil and subject to the same US laws. It is incident to birth if the birth meets the criteria, otherwise it is given by statute. If neither apply, it doesn't exist.

YOU are in error!

No Native Peoples were a party to the case, and you are employing a STRAWMAN argument attempting to change the narrative. Therefore you are in error again. Given you concluded I was in error regarding Native Americans and you claim error on my part that places you in error again. That is three errors for two posts. You're OUT! Back to the dugout wif' ya'.

 

[paddymurphy]

If you read the discussions regarding the 14th Amendment and some of the court cases its pretty clear.

Yes, it's pretty clear the 14th does not confer automatic birthright citizenship.

What part of the language of the 14th Amendment leads you to that conclusion?

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.

How many fucking times do you need for me to repeat this? 50? 100? 10,000?

"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF"

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, if you do not grasp that Indian Reservations were sovereign territory and not under the jurisdiction of the United States you will not grasp what the 14th Amendment is saying and means. If your concept had any validity there would be constitutional scholars voicing the same thing you are voicing. They are not. That is because they grasp the legal definitions of sovereignty in regard to Native American Tribal Lands established by treaty and they know the meaning of "jurisdiction".

And Mexico is also a sovereign territory! Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" because they have not been naturalized as citizens of the US, they are still citizens of Mexico. But even still... IF the 14th (or Wong) meant you are a citizen because you popped out of momma's womb on US soil.. then why are you giving me excuses for how Native Americans didn't qualify? You're trying to explain why something is two different things but insisting it's only one thing.

How many fucking times do you have to be told that Indians born on US soil, that is, not on the land ceded to the various Indian tribes, were US citizens? And yes, Mexican territory is sovereign and if a person is born on that territory, guess what, they are not US citizens.

 

[Boss]

What does jurisdiction mean then?

Sure there are people in the United States not subject to U.S. laws- they are called Diplomats.

In the 1860's, they also included Native Americans who lived in their own sovereign nations.

Jurisdiction, in this context, means "owing allegiance to." This is the key point of debate in the famous Wong case, the immigrants were considered legal and subject to jurisdiction.. an illegal alien is NOT. A Native American living on tribal land was also not... until 1923 when Congress passed a law. This should be clear enough evidence that the 14th simply doesn't confer automatic citizenship by birth. There is another criteria that HAS TO BE MET!

There is no 'other criteria' that has to be met- there is only:

• Birth and
• Subject to the jurisidiction thereof

Wong Kim Ark did not require aliens to be legal aliens- and Plyler v. Doe makes it clear that anyone within the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if they are subject to the laws of the United States.

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “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.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.

During the debates of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, both its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns of including such persons as Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Additionally, Sen. Fessenden (co-chairman of the Reconstruction Committee) raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country – an issue he would not have raised if Congress were merely reaffirming the common law doctrine – and of course, the question of Indians.

A common mischaracterization of the debates says Senators Trumbull, Cowan and Conness suggested both the Civil Rights Bill and the Fourteenth Amendment would make children born to Chinese or Mongolian parent’s citizens regardless of the condition of the parents. However, this is an erroneous conclusion because they were discussing concerns over whether “race” of the parents could play a role. They were not suggesting locality of birth alone was to be the sole requirement of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, this discussion appeared before the chief authors, Senators Lyman and Howard, provided the proper intended operation of the language.

Sen. Trumbull attempted to assure Senators that Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Sen. Johnson argued that Sen. Trumbull was in error in regards to the Indian’s not being under the jurisdiction of the United States. This must have raised concerns with Howard because he strongly made it known that he had no intention whatsoever to confer citizenship upon the Indians under his amendment, no matter if born within or outside of their tribal lands.

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provide the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

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 ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.