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.
"Granted, the language of the Citizenship Clause deviates slightly from that of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but there is no compelling evidence that the 39th Congress intended a different meaning. In fact, the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), stated that its language “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” explaining that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” (Emphasis added.)
The record of the debate in 1866 is illuminating. When Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.” (Emphasis added.) Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its “jurisdiction” in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted into the armed forces of the United States, or prosecuted for treason if they take up arms against it.
The President has said that an executive order can deny citizenship by birth.
Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I think this is correct. At the time this was written in the 14th amendment, the phrase referred to people who were also under the jurisdiction of foreign nations.
I think the then-contemporary record supports this.
The people under the jurisdiction of foreign nations weren't people immigrating to the United States. At the time of the writing of the 14th Amendment, diplomats and Native Americans were the people who weren't under the jurisdiction. If you can arrest them, put them on trial, and imprison them, then they are under your jurisdiction. And the United States doesn't care one whit what other countries' jurisdiction.
This is the same kind of bs that the birthers were slinging when questioning Obama's citizenship. The United States determines who are citizens without reference to any other countries' laws or claims. Period.
No, once again you refuse to acknowledge that one is legal and one is illegal. You may not like that, but it's a fact. I know you have to always have the last word but it's pointless. You are not on the Supreme Court and it won't be your decision.
What matters isn't if you or I make a distinction of legal or illegal. What matters is if the 14th Amendment made such a distinction. Which it did not.
The President has said that an executive order can deny citizenship by birth.
Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Since "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes illegal aliens and their US-born babies from citizenship, their being subject to the laws of their own country, the President is right.
The people under the jurisdiction of foreign nations weren't people immigrating to the United States. At the time of the writing of the 14th Amendment, diplomats and Native Americans were the people who weren't under the jurisdiction. If you can arrest them, put them on trial, and imprison them, then they are under your jurisdiction. And the United States doesn't care one whit what other countries' jurisdiction.
This is the same kind of bs that the birthers were slinging when questioning Obama's citizenship. The United States determines who are citizens without reference to any other countries' laws or claims. Period.
Oh brother!
I can reassure you that many of us never doubted for a second that President Obama was born in the United States and the birther movement is ridiculous as heck.
The following is factual. It is not an opinion, so here it goes
"Granted, the language of the Citizenship Clause deviates slightly from that of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but there is no compelling evidence that the 39th Congress intended a different meaning. In fact, the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), stated that its language “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” explaining that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” (Emphasis added.)
The record of the debate in 1866 is illuminating. When Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.” (Emphasis added.) Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its “jurisdiction” in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted into the armed forces of the United States, or prosecuted for treason if they take up arms against it.
Since "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes illegal aliens and their US-born babies from citizenship, their being subject to the laws of their own country, the President is right.
Nice try.
Correct, in fact the Courts have ruled against absolute birthright citizenship in the past
So if the 14th amendment is open for interpretation would others be open to interpretation.
I wonder if through EO a democrat can redefine "Well regulated Militia"
Throughout the history, constitution has always been "open for interpretation".
If Democrats is in charge, I am pretty sure they will define, or redefine "well regulated militia"
Hey, this is American politics. It is life.
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.
The President is Wrong
