Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-31-2018, 10:38 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,913,446 times
Reputation: 14345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
Legal rulings in this country seem to be stacking up on President Trump's side.

"Under the jurisdiction thereof" didn't mean whether certain people have to obey our laws, when the 14th was written. It meant whether they have to obey the laws of some other country.

So if illegal aliens came into our country without our permission, and had a baby, they (and the baby) are not "under the jurisdiction of" the United States, even though they still have to obey our laws. And they are not citizens... and neither is the baby.
I don't know where you get this, but if they have to obey our laws, then they are "under the jurisdiction of". That's what jurisdiction means.

 
Old 10-31-2018, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Nowhere
10,098 posts, read 4,098,804 times
Reputation: 7088
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Poor you. Just for the record, the "foreign invaders" are weeks away, the midterms just days away. Trump is milking the fear and feeding the hate every way he can. Because he hopes his actions will allow the GOP to keep control of the legislature. Those midterms are his highest priority, not our sovereignty.
We'll see who's upset after Tuesday...
 
Old 10-31-2018, 10:41 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,913,446 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavalier View Post
Who knows how many are down there, giving our country/citizens a big MIDDLE FINGER on their way up here.


You know, we've been told by our "media" for the last 20 years that there are "10 million" illegals wandering around in US, when Yale just came out with data stating it's actually 22 MILLION.


The numbers aren't what matters; the fact that our country is being defecated on, does.
They aren't giving our country/citizens a big MIDDLE FINGER. They want to live in our country. They want to immigrate from where they currently live to our country because they see our country as a desirable place to live and raise children. That's not a big MIDDLE FINGER.
 
Old 10-31-2018, 10:41 AM
 
9,254 posts, read 3,595,085 times
Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
well, the original article says

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.

Please explain to me what does the bold mean then.

I am waiting.
You wouldn’t be waiting if you read the multiple responses on this point. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of” means “subject to the civil and criminal laws of the US and subject to the enforcement of those laws by the US judiciary.” Not only is this the well-defined meaning of “jurisdiction,” which derives from the Latin “juris” and “dictio” (meaning “ what the law dictates”) it’s what the delegates at the time expressly said it meant, on the record.
 
Old 10-31-2018, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,247 posts, read 27,650,711 times
Reputation: 16083
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I don't know where you get this, but if they have to obey our laws, then they are "under the jurisdiction of". That's what jurisdiction means.
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.
 
Old 10-31-2018, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,247 posts, read 27,650,711 times
Reputation: 16083
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
You wouldn’t be waiting if you read the multiple responses on this point. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of” means “subject to the civil and criminal laws of the US and subject to the enforcement of those laws by the US judiciary.” Not only is this the well-defined meaning of “jurisdiction,” which derives from the Latin “juris” and “dictio” (meaning “ what the law dictates”) it’s what the delegates at the time expressly said it meant, on the record.
Where did you get it from?

link please
 
Old 10-31-2018, 10:42 AM
 
Location: San Diego
18,741 posts, read 7,630,780 times
Reputation: 15011
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
You wouldn’t be waiting if you read the multiple responses on this point. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of” means “subject to the civil and criminal laws of the US and subject to the enforcement of those laws by the US judiciary.”
Already refuted in this thread.

But thanks for playing.....
 
Old 10-31-2018, 10:46 AM
 
Location: San Diego
18,741 posts, read 7,630,780 times
Reputation: 15011
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
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

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.
Hope this helps.
 
Old 10-31-2018, 10:46 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,913,446 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
And no where does it say children of illegals have automatic birth rights. That issue has never been addressed because that was never even a thought when it was written. That's why it needs to be revisited. Wishful thinking and coming to the conclusion that it will and does include children of illegals remains to be seen. It will be resolved at some point. It hasn't been as of now.
If it wasn't even a thought when the Amendment was written, then it's damn hard to argue the intent of the people who wrote and voted for that Amendment. But they were actually intelligent, thoughtful men who were well aware of the difference between jus soli and jus sanguinis. And they were well aware that in the New World, the Americas, that jus soli was the citizenship process. Which is why the majority of countries that use jus soli are in the Americas. Where the United States of America is.

If you want to change the law, then you need to go to the process of amending the Constitution. Executive order is not part of that process.
 
Old 10-31-2018, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,864 posts, read 26,338,151 times
Reputation: 34068
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
You miss the big picture of Elk v Wilkins, how it defined 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States':


"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 afterwards 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."
Elk V Wilkins states that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born. A child born to a non-citizen in the US is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of another nation or tribe.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top