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.
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?
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.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".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 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.
No Native Peoples were a party to the case...
If you are simply gonna ignore the cases posted and continue to pull things out of your ass there is no point trying to educate you.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.
Well, no... they weren't. Congress passed a law in 1923 to resolve this issue. Indians were being born on US soil, under US law, and being denied citizenship all over America. There was no uniform birthright citizenship in the US. For a very long time, it was exclusively the right of the State to determine who was a citizen because that was what Congress had decided. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the plenary power to determine who gets to be a citizen... it is NOT a birth right, never has been.
Whoever you cut and pasted that from is as big an idiot as you are.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:
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.
- Birth and
- Subject to the jurisidiction thereof
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.
And what part of the Constitution would give President Trump (gag) the authority to amend the constitution all by his lone self?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?
yes, the language is clear. It also did not comtemplate the current situation with millions of illegals and anchor babies being used to gain citizenship for illegal parents.
the 14th was put in place to give citizenship to freed slaves, nothing more. If they had contemplated the current situation they would have included language limiting its application to freed slaves.
I agree that an update is needed and if Trump becomes president it will get done.
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.
A child born to American Citizens anywhere in the world is an American Citizen, by birth. They are also, depending upon the law of that nation, citizens of that nation. That would be why Cruz was a dual citizen of the US and Canada until a year or so ago. And Mexico also grants birthright citizenship to anyone born in Mexico.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.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".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 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.
If a child is born in mexico to american parents, that child is american, not mexican.
And what part of the Constitution would give President Trump (gag) the authority to amend the constitution all by his lone self?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?
yes, the language is clear. It also did not comtemplate the current situation with millions of illegals and anchor babies being used to gain citizenship for illegal parents.
the 14th was put in place to give citizenship to freed slaves, nothing more. If they had contemplated the current situation they would have included language limiting its application to freed slaves.
I agree that an update is needed and if Trump becomes president it will get done.
WTF? Subject to the jurisdiction of the state. If an illegal alien commits a crime he can be prosecuted here.It didn't apply to certain Native Americans-
But hold on... if it applies to anyone born on US soil by the sole virtue of being born on US soil... why would it NOT apply to some Native Americans, born on the same US soil? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here, like a typical liberal always does.
YES-- Born + Jurisdiction = Citizen, but an illegal alien is not subject to the jurisdiction. Just as certain Native Americans before 1923 and passage of a citizenship act specifically for them.
A child born to American Citizens anywhere in the world is an American Citizen, by birth. They are also, depending upon the law of that nation, citizens of that nation. That would be why Cruz was a dual citizen of the US and Canada until a year or so ago. And Mexico also grants birthright citizenship to anyone born in Mexico. View attachment 48349How 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.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".How many fucking times do you need for me to repeat this? 50? 100? 10,000?
"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF"
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.
If a child is born in mexico to american parents, that child is american, not mexican.
See the pink colors. Those nations have birthright citizenship. Mexico is pink.
And what part of the Constitution would give President Trump (gag) the authority to amend the constitution all by his lone self?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?
yes, the language is clear. It also did not comtemplate the current situation with millions of illegals and anchor babies being used to gain citizenship for illegal parents.
the 14th was put in place to give citizenship to freed slaves, nothing more. If they had contemplated the current situation they would have included language limiting its application to freed slaves.
I agree that an update is needed and if Trump becomes president it will get done.
Nothing from that case is clear to you. But, you are right about one thing. It does require more than you being born here. You also have to NOT be the child of a foreigner or alien here as a representative of their government and you have to NOT be the child of a member of a foreign army that has invaded the US. Other than that, there are no other conditions. Your inability respond specifically to the passages I repeatedly cited kind of proves you have no argument to offer.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.
Wong Kim Ark makes it clear to me that no one has birth right citizenship automatically by virtue of birth. You have to meet the other requirement. If you didn't have to meet that requirement, your argument would be correct. BUT... you DO! Wong met it... illegal aliens don't.
They are not "asking' for anything; they are simply trying to explain to a lot of really stupid people that the 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship. Frankly, I would imagine that the children of illegals would also have citizenship in the nation where the parents came from, as long as that nation's law were consistent with our law, as most laws in this hemisphere are.A child born to American Citizens anywhere in the world is an American Citizen, by birth. They are also, depending upon the law of that nation, citizens of that nation. That would be why Cruz was a dual citizen of the US and Canada until a year or so ago. And Mexico also grants birthright citizenship to anyone born in Mexico. View attachment 48349How 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.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.
If a child is born in mexico to american parents, that child is american, not mexican.
See the pink colors. Those nations have birthright citizenship. Mexico is pink.
Yes, I get it. The anchor baby advocates are not asking for dual citizenship, they are asking for american citizenship.
So, you were not aware that "Anchor babies" are US citizens? And what does this "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;" have to do with this discussion? Yes, Congress has exclusive authority to decide how non-citizens can become naturalized ones. That, by the way, is a process that no "anchor babies" need follow since they are already US citizens because, like you, I assume, they were born here.And what part of the Constitution would give President Trump (gag) the authority to amend the constitution all by his lone self?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?
yes, the language is clear. It also did not comtemplate the current situation with millions of illegals and anchor babies being used to gain citizenship for illegal parents.
the 14th was put in place to give citizenship to freed slaves, nothing more. If they had contemplated the current situation they would have included language limiting its application to freed slaves.
I agree that an update is needed and if Trump becomes president it will get done.
There is no need to amend the Constitution. This can be settled with a joint resolution from Congress... they don't even need to pass an act. If YOU want to make anchor babies citizens, YOU need to pass an amendment.
Now, go read Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the US Constitution and try to grasp who is your daddy when it comes to naturalization... it's not the court... this isn't gay marriage.
And what part of the Constitution would give President Trump (gag) the authority to amend the constitution all by his lone self?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?
yes, the language is clear. It also did not comtemplate the current situation with millions of illegals and anchor babies being used to gain citizenship for illegal parents.
the 14th was put in place to give citizenship to freed slaves, nothing more. If they had contemplated the current situation they would have included language limiting its application to freed slaves.
I agree that an update is needed and if Trump becomes president it will get done.
There is no need to amend the Constitution. This can be settled with a joint resolution from Congress... they don't even need to pass an act. If YOU want to make anchor babies citizens, YOU need to pass an amendment.
Now, go read Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the US Constitution and try to grasp who is your daddy when it comes to naturalization... it's not the court... this isn't gay marriage.
A child born to American Citizens anywhere in the world is an American Citizen, by birth. They are also, depending upon the law of that nation, citizens of that nation. That would be why Cruz was a dual citizen of the US and Canada until a year or so ago. And Mexico also grants birthright citizenship to anyone born in Mexico. View attachment 48349How 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.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.
If a child is born in mexico to american parents, that child is american, not mexican.
See the pink colors. Those nations have birthright citizenship. Mexico is pink.
Yes, I get it. The anchor baby advocates are not asking for dual citizenship, they are asking for american citizenship.
No one is asking for anything except Trump and his supporters. The 14th Amendment is firmly in place and enforced. There is nothing for it's advocates to ask for. Children born in the USA, the kids you call anchor babies, are US citizens and no one of authority questions it in a legal or legislative forum or recognized manner. It is an argument being made by a non lawyer businessman running for President and his followers. Very few if any experts in constitutional law support his concept. Claims the 14th Amendment can be interpreted differently then it has for over 150 years are just political rhetoric and at this point in time legally meaningless.A child born to American Citizens anywhere in the world is an American Citizen, by birth. They are also, depending upon the law of that nation, citizens of that nation. That would be why Cruz was a dual citizen of the US and Canada until a year or so ago. And Mexico also grants birthright citizenship to anyone born in Mexico. View attachment 48349How 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.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.
If a child is born in mexico to american parents, that child is american, not mexican.
See the pink colors. Those nations have birthright citizenship. Mexico is pink.
Yes, I get it. The anchor baby advocates are not asking for dual citizenship, they are asking for american citizenship.
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.
Well, no... they weren't. Congress passed a law in 1923 to resolve this issue. Indians were being born on US soil, under US law, and being denied citizenship all over America. There was no uniform birthright citizenship in the US. For a very long time, it was exclusively the right of the State to determine who was a citizen because that was what Congress had decided. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the plenary power to determine who gets to be a citizen... it is NOT a birth right, never has been.
