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.
You haven't provided facts. You've provided opinion. In practice it doesn't matter where your parents were born. My cousins two children are American citizens despite both their parents being born in Jamaica because they were born here while their parents were working here.They are not citizens if they weren't conceived by citizens of this country as I already stated. You keep arguing points I've already answered and provided legal reference to. I keep providing you facts and you keep providing nonsense that isn't true.
I don't feel particularly scared. I feel amused by you if anything.We are winning
For libs nothing is more scary than that
I provided you the link to the amendment and the phrase that is the fact of the discussion about jurisdiction. Take it to a court and see.You haven't provided facts. You've provided opinion. In practice it doesn't matter where your parents were born. My cousins two children are American citizens despite both their parents being born in Jamaica because they were born here while their parents were working here.
NO YOU DID NOT INCLUDE IT.I provided the language simpleton. Check the links and the summaries I provided, sorry, enslaved people
WINNING!I provided the language simpleton. Check the links and the summaries I provided, sorry, enslaved people
explain that in a legal documentNO YOU DID NOT INCLUDE IT.
You left out what came after foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.[9]
FULL STOP.
You take it to court and see. Currently I see the babies of illegals being given birthright citizenship.I provided you the link to the amendment and the phrase that is the fact of the discussion about jurisdiction. Take it to a court and see.
No you did NOT. you failed to complete the statement of his, explaining which alien foreigners were exempted, diplomats and family members. That's it.I provided you the link to the amendment and the phrase that is the fact of the discussion about jurisdiction. Take it to a court and see.
can't help you bro, I posted links along with quotes from the links. I don't owe you shit. You can demand all the fk you want and all you will see is me responding just like this. What a authoritative fker you think you are. hilarious. look over there, where.No you did NOT. you failed to complete the statement of his, explaining which alien foreigners were exempted, diplomats and family members. That's it.
can't help you bro, I posted links along with quotes from the links. I don't owe you shit. You can demand all the fk you want and all you will see is me responding just like this. What a authoritative fker you think you are. hilarious. look over there, where.
U.S. senator from Michigan Jacob M. Howard, author of the Citizenship ClauseThere are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress and of the ratifying states, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment, as well as the customs and understandings prevalent at that time.[27][28] Some of the major issues that have arisen about this clause are the extent to which it included Native Americans, its coverage of non-citizens legally present in the United States when they have a child, whether the clause allows revocation of citizenship, and whether the clause applies to illegal immigrants.[29]The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306. This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.[26]
Garrett Epps also stresses, like Eric Foner, the equality aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment:Many things claimed as uniquely American—a devotion to individual freedom, for example, or social opportunity—exist in other countries. But birthright citizenship does make the United States (along with Canada) unique in the developed world. ... Birthright citizenship is one expression of the commitment to equality and the expansion of national consciousness that marked Reconstruction. ... Birthright citizenship is one legacy of the titanic struggle of the Reconstruction era to create a genuine democracy grounded in the principle of equality.[30]
Its centerpiece is the idea that citizenship in the United States is universal—that we are one nation, with one class of citizens, and that citizenship extends to everyone born here. Citizens have rights that neither the federal government nor any state can revoke at will; even undocumented immigrants—"persons", in the language of the amendment—have rights to due process and equal protection of the law.[20]
yep, what I posted, where is the explanation of subject to jurisdictionCitizenship Clause
Main article: Citizenship Clause
U.S. senator from Michigan Jacob M. Howard, author of the Citizenship Clause
The Citizenship Clause overruled the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that black people were not citizens and could not become citizens, nor enjoy the benefits of citizenship.[19][20] Some members of Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment in order to eliminate doubts about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,[21][22][23] or to ensure that no subsequent Congress could later repeal or alter the main provisions of that Act.[24][25] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had granted citizenship to all people born in the United States if they were not subject to a foreign power, and this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized this rule. According to Garrett Epps, professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore, "Only one group is not 'subject to the jurisdiction' [of the United States] – accredited foreign diplomats and their families, who can be expelled by the federal government but not arrested or tried."[20] The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), with respect to the purpose of the Citizenship Clause and the words "persons born or naturalized in the United States" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", in this context:
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress and of the ratifying states, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment, as well as the customs and understandings prevalent at that time.[27][28] Some of the major issues that have arisen about this clause are the extent to which it included Native Americans, its coverage of non-citizens legally present in the United States when they have a child, whether the clause allows revocation of citizenship, and whether the clause applies to illegal immigrants.[29]
The historian Eric Foner, who has explored the question of U.S. birthright citizenship in its relation to other countries, argues that:
Garrett Epps also stresses, like Eric Foner, the equality aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment:
You posted an opinion piece.yep, what I posted, where is the explanation of subject to jurisdiction
And yet it did not include Native Americans, so "every other class of person" didn't really mean every other class of person. IOW, families of diplomats was not an all-inclusive definition of "foreigners".NO YOU DID NOT INCLUDE IT.
You left out what came after foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.[9]
FULL STOP.
Nope!And yet it did not include Native Americans, so "every other class of person" didn't really mean every other class of person. IOW, families of diplomats was not an all-inclusive definition of "foreigners".
Indians were considered foreigners in the understanding of "subject to the jurisdiction of".
The question was asked in the Congress. I'm paraphrasing because I don't want to have to dig up the actual quote right now, but in substance it was "Does this definition include Indians?"
The answer was "Of course not, we deal with Indians by treaty. They are treated as individual sovereign nations within our borders".
So that was a class of foreigner that was not included for the purpose of birthright citizenship, and it stayed that way for some 70 years.
Something that was already in place was the Naturalization Act, and that recognized that anyone who had immigrated with the intent of becoming a naturalized citizen was considered "subject to the jurisdiction of", and entitled to the protections of the US Gov't.
An originalist interpretation might conclude that someone who immigrates and is a permanent legal resident (green card holder) would have the right, while someone on a student or other temporary visa (or is here without permission) would not.
"Because I say so" is not an argument.Nope!
On this one you should give up. Only a constitutional amendment will change the 14th Amendment, and that is simply not happening.We’ll see
Libs never give up and neither should we
SCOTUS says otherwise, dumbass!Current law does not need to be changed, the statemen 'subject to jurisdiction' is intended for enslaved people, and I know of no one enslaved any longer.
It's been that way for more than 125 years. have libs been around and in control of the government for that long?Thats the lib side that wants to pack America with foreigners
Why? You haven't! Your theories are continuously disproved by references and you simply ignore them because you either cannot read or refuse to understand.No I am not. I do however know that there are legal references of the language in the amendment and you simply ignore it. Do some research and learn a bit!
The 14th Amendment says otherwise.They are not citizens if they weren't conceived by citizens of this country as I already stated. You keep arguing points I've already answered and provided legal reference to. I keep providing you facts and you keep providing nonsense that isn't true.
