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.
Sorry, but you proclaiming that "under the jurisdiction of the United States" is synonymous with "not being under the jurisdiction of any country except the United States," particularly in view of the fact that all of the Senators who ratified the 14th Amendment agreed that the the "under the jurisdiction" language referred to being subject to US laws and their enforcement in US courts is not "refuting" anything. It best, it shows a misunderstanding or intentional misuse of the English language.
Analysis: The 14th Amendment may not have been intended to provide citizenship to everyone born in the U.S.
Oct. 30, 2018 / 9:23 PM ET
By Danny Cevallos
Shortly after the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court in 1872 had an opportunity to interpret it in the "Slaughterhouse Cases," observing that the amendment's "main purpose was to establish the citizenship of" African-Americans. It also concluded that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to exclude the children of "ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States."
The argument goes: If these categories of people were not "subject to the jurisdiction" then it follows that babies born of illegal immigrants have even less claim to citizenship.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna926501
Analysis: The 14th Amendment may not have been intended to provide citizenship to everyone born in the U.S.
Oct. 30, 2018 / 9:23 PM ET
By Danny Cevallos
President Donald Trump says he wants to sign an executive order ending "birthright citizenship" for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil. Most citizens are taught early in their education that birthright citizenship is an immutable, undisputed right, explicitly granted by the Constitution. But, it turns out, birthright citizenship may not be a constitutional right.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment — enacted in 1868 — reads "(a)ll 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 clause simply omitted "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then there would likely be no debate, and birthright citizenship would be unassailable absent a constitutional amendment. But the "subject to the jurisdiction" language has created a lot of debate over the years.
To some scholars, birthright citizenship has been the result of an accidental interpretation of the Constitution, federal law and Supreme Court precedent — an error that they believe can be corrected without Constitutional amendment. Shortly after the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court in 1872 had an opportunity to interpret it in the "Slaughterhouse Cases," observing that the amendment's "main purpose was to establish the citizenship of" African-Americans. It also concluded that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to exclude the children of "ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States."
The argument goes: If these categories of people were not "subject to the jurisdiction" then it follows that babies born of illegal immigrants have even less claim to citizenship.
Except that the definition of subject to the jurisdiction as used in the slaughterhouse cases was rejected in Wong Kim Ark: The Supreme Court's 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases decision contained the statement that "The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction,' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States." However, since the Slaughterhouse Cases did not deal with claims of birthright citizenship, this comment was dismissed in Wong Kim Ark and later cases as a passing remark (obiter dictum) lacking any force as a controlling precedent.
Except that the definition of subject to the jurisdiction as used in the slaughterhouse cases was rejected in Wong Kim Ark: The Supreme Court's 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases decision contained the statement that "The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction,' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States." However, since the Slaughterhouse Cases did not deal with claims of birthright citizenship, this comment was dismissed in Wong Kim Ark and later cases as a passing remark (obiter dictum) lacking any force as a controlling precedent.
Before the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Statute of 1792 imposed the restriction that “only” children of citizens of the USA (mothers and fathers of those children) born to those citizens outside of the USA were natural born citizens of the USA. Hence, a child born to a U.S citizen mother and a French citizen father in France was not a natural born U.S citizen. This, I believe, is the natural born citizenship stipulation for U.S. presidential eligibility imposed by the U.S. Constitution.
Please read: The naturalization statute of 1792 1792 1792 1792
You said MOTHERS AND FATHERS. I don't think that's correct. I don't think the mother's citizenship mattered. The father's citizenship was key. And children born to US citizen fathers abroad were considered natural-born citizens.
Not that Trump gives a damn about the constitution, mind you.
Meanwhile, a month ago the entire left was convinced a Supreme Court nominee with zero smudges on his professional record was a depraved sex junkie who preyed on drunk women at parties with absolutely zero proof, because that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing didn't fit the narrative
More faux outrage and anger and frustration and grievance from the left
You said MOTHERS AND FATHERS. I don't think that's correct. I don't think the mother's citizenship mattered. The father's citizenship was key. And children born to US citizen fathers abroad were considered natural-born citizens.
well, then who is not under the jurisdiction in this country?
Name one person.
If everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction.. then why bother adding those words in the original article?
Certainly "under the jurisdiction thereof" means something, what does it mean then in your opinion.
Foreign diplomats, and at the the time of the 14th Amendment, Native Americans. That would be millions of persons. Foreign diplomats have diplomatic immunity, which means that they are not under our jurisdiction. And at the time of the 14th Amendment, American Indians also were not under American jurisdiction.
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.
