Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. The tribes to which he is referring were sovereign - in other words, members of those tribes were not subject to the laws of and taxation by the US (e.g., they were not "subject to the jurisdiction of the US"). Immigrants present in the US, legal or otherwise, are subject to US taxation, civil and criminal laws.
I think we are getting 'subject to laws' confused with sovereignty.
All people in the US, citizens, visitors, and illegal immigrants are subject to US law while in our country, but they are not sovereign to the US. There is an element of patriotic and politic allegiance to sovereignty. For example, if, god forbid, there was a war and the US had to implement a draft - it could not draft foreign nationals on our soil.
To enforce sovereignty for citizens in a foreign land is one reason there are Embassies in foreign countries.
False. That's why an exception had to be made for US-born US aboriginal Tribe members in 1924, LONG after the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Read current US Nationality Law, and let it sink in...
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property
If "everyone" born in the US were actually automatically US citizens via the 14th Amendment, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary.
Again, because you're having trouble comprehending the truth...
If "everyone" born in the US were actually automatically US citizens via the 14th Amendment, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary.
It's not false, you are attempting to create an arbitrary distinction without any historical context. The 14th as written applied to all persons born on US soil. That absolutely included Native Americans, but their situation was complicated by hundreds of years of bad faith negotiations, treaties and laws, and by claims of sovereignty. Therefore, they required a specific clause. Immigrant children have no such complications or requirements. You're being intentionally dishonest here.
I think we are getting 'subject to laws' confused with sovereignty.
All people in the US, citizens, visitors, and illegal immigrants are subject to US law while in our country, but they are not sovereign to the US. There is an element of patriotic and politic allegiance to sovereignty. For example, if, god forbid, there was a war and the US had to implement a draft - it could not draft foreign nationals on our soil.
To enforce sovereignty for citizens in a foreign land is one reason there are Embassies in foreign countries.
Sure. But the 14th Amendment does not limit birthright citizenship to those "subject to the sovereignty" of the US, but rather those "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. Outside of taxation and criminal/civil statutes (and concomitant judicial enforcement by US courts), what else could "subject to the jurisdiction" mean?
I thought the liberals wanted us to imitate all these great liberal socialist countries...
...that do not do this
And I thought Trumpers hate every other country and argue that we should be different and exceptional? I guess that only applies to things you don't like. Otherwise, it's let's be like Japan!!!
"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."
the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" originally referred to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. — green card holders and citizens.
Depends on the interpretation now doesn't it? Yeah it does. It will go to SCOTUS and finally be resolved. It wasn't meant to be used as a citizenship generator for foreigners and everyone knows it but they cheat the system with it.
Give a moocher an inch and they'll take a mile. Criminals will find a way to break the law, milk the system, etc. Immigrants come for the right reasons and come through the legal process.
Yes. If it goes to the SCOTUS and they set limits on the 14th, that would change things. The EO, by itself, would start out an unConstitutional EO.
Which isn’t such a great idea.
Congress should be tackling this issue.
I agree that congress should have long ago addressed this matter, but they have not, and probably never will, unless forced to. However, nothing "starts out" unconstitutional, be it an E.O. or Law. Only the SCOTUS can determine the "constitutionality" of a particular legal matter.
As for setting limits … that's not what the High Court is there or empowered to do … that is the illegitimate tactic of leftist Justices legislating from the bench. Any perceived "limits" must first exist within the language of the law, if the Court is actually performing in accordance with their limited power to decide the constitutionality of a matter in law. They cannot add their own "limits" by re-interpretation of the language to suit their ideological point of view.
I think we are getting 'subject to laws' confused with sovereignty.
All people in the US, citizens, visitors, and illegal immigrants are subject to US law while in our country, but they are not sovereign to the US. There is an element of patriotic and politic allegiance to sovereignty. For example, if, god forbid, there was a war and the US had to implement a draft - it could not draft foreign nationals on our soil.
To enforce sovereignty for citizens in a foreign land is one reason there are Embassies in foreign countries.
They certainly can be if they take up residency and they are required to register for the draft.
Conservatives LOVE the constitution until it prevents them from discriminating against someone based on their brown skin or non-Christian religion...then it needs to be changed. AmIrite?
How many times are you going to continue playing the unwarranted skin color/race card in here? Changing birthright citizenship would effect all babies born from illegal parents not just the so-called "brown" ones. Geez, get over your victimhood for your so-called "browns". It's getting old and stupid!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
