Trump to terminate birthright citizenship [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

specsaregood

10-30-2018, 05:28 AM

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0d21nQBY8o

Exclusive: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.

Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he has run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed with the highly controversial move, which certainly will face legal challenges.
"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.

When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."

"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."
"It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."

The president expressed surprise that "Axios on HBO" knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. "

Behind the scenes: "Axios on HBO" had been working for weeks on a story on Trump’s plans for birthright citizenship, based on conversations with several sources, including one close to the White House Counsel’s office.

The legal challenges would force the courts to decide on a constitutional debate over the 14th Amendment, which says:
"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."

Be smart: Few immigration and constitutional scholars believe it is within the president's power to change birthright citizenship, former U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief counsel Lynden Melmed tells Axios.

But some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas.

John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told "Axios on HBO" that the Constitution has been misapplied over the past 40 or so years. He says the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" originally referred to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. — green card holders and citizens.

Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration, recently took up this argument in the Washington Post.
Anton said that Trump could, via executive order, "specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens" simply because they were born on U.S. soil. (It’s not yet clear whether Trump will take this maximalist argument, though his previous rhetoric suggests there’s a good chance.)

But others — such as Judge James C. Ho, who was appointed by Trump to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans — say the line in the amendment refers to the legal obligation to follow U.S. laws, which applies to all foreign visitors (except diplomats) and immigrants. He has written that changing how the 14th Amendment is applied would be "unconstitutional."

Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented or temporary immigrants, Eastman said.
Between 1980 and 2006, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants — which opponents of birthright citizenship call "anchor babies" — skyrocketed to a peak of 370,000, according to a 2016 study by Pew Research. It then declined slightly during and following the Great Recession.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status.

The bottom line: If Trump follows through on the executive order, "the courts would have to weigh in in a way they haven't," Eastman said.
The full interview will air on "Axios on HBO" this Sunday, Nov. 4, at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

juleswin

10-30-2018, 05:53 AM

He says it, now lets wait for him to actually sign the EO. Trump says a lot of things that he has no plans of doing, so we wait until for his actions.

goldenequity

10-30-2018, 06:02 AM

He says it, now lets wait for him to actually sign the EO. Trump says a lot of things that he has no plans of doing, so we wait until for his actions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AYUB3tQs80

specsaregood

10-30-2018, 06:07 AM

He says it, now lets wait for him to actually sign the EO. Trump says a lot of things that he has no plans of doing, so we wait until for his actions.

I think he will, he gave the same type of answer as he did on association health care plans. Where he had it researched heavily before jumping in. I don't need to see any polling to know that its a winning position for him, support-wise with the American people.

dean.engelhardt

10-30-2018, 06:38 AM

I don't think an E.O. can overrule the 14th amendment to the constitution. But who am I?

Origanalist

10-30-2018, 06:48 AM

Can he make it retroactive?

specsaregood

10-30-2018, 06:52 AM

I don't think an E.O. can overrule the 14th amendment to the constitution. But who am I?

It won't. It will simply set the definition of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The argument, which is Ron Paul's argument as well, is that illegals and their children are NOT subject to the jurisdiction, and are therefore ineligible for automatic citizenship.

dean.engelhardt

10-30-2018, 06:54 AM

specsaregood

10-30-2018, 06:58 AM

If Trump can remove 14th Amendment rights by E.O., can the next Democratic President remove 2nd amendment rights by E.O.? Please don't throw away the constitution and our bill of rights in the name on immigration. This is a double edge sword. The power of the presidency last long after Trump moves on.

Again, this wont be removing the 14th amendment, it will be a matter of finally adjudicating what it means. As has already been done many times in regards to the 2nd amendment.

Origanalist

10-30-2018, 06:59 AM

If Trump can remove 14th Amendment rights by E.O., can the next Democratic President remove 2nd amendment rights by E.O.? Please don't throw away the constitution and our bill of rights in the name on immigration. This is a double edge sword. The power of the presidency last long after Trump moves on.

In this context it would only remove 2nd amendment rights from illegals.

LibertyEagle

10-30-2018, 07:14 AM

If Trump can remove 14th Amendment rights by E.O., can the next Democratic President remove 2nd amendment rights by E.O.? Please don't throw away the constitution and our bill of rights in the name on immigration. This is a double edge sword. The power of the presidency last long after Trump moves on.

Birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens was never the intent with the 14th Amendment. It was for the children of former slaves.

TheCount

10-30-2018, 07:16 AM

In this context it would only remove 2nd amendment rights from illegals.

What about an EO "clarifying" what "necessary to the security of a free State" means?

AuH20

10-30-2018, 07:34 AM

He's crazy like a fox. The 9th circuit will intervene as always and then onto the SCOTUS. Say hello to Kavanaugh.

AuH20

10-30-2018, 07:35 AM

No more Chinese and Latinos dropping off their spawn on U.S. territory. Gravy train will be closed.

timosman

10-30-2018, 07:39 AM

What's the argument in favor of birthright citizenship? :confused:

AuH20

10-30-2018, 07:40 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PctuOjySVm0

specsaregood

10-30-2018, 07:41 AM

No more Chinese and Latinos dropping off their spawn on U.S. territory. Gravy train will be closed.

It isn't just them at all. The Russians are doing it as well. And I'm sure others as well.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121

and
https://cis.org/Feere/Birth-Tourists-Come-Around-Globe

fedupinmo

10-30-2018, 07:50 AM

agitator

10-30-2018, 08:11 AM

charrob

10-30-2018, 08:20 AM

unknown

10-30-2018, 08:26 AM

What about an EO "clarifying" what "necessary to the security of a free State" means?

This will never happen.

Because he doesnt know shit nor cares about the Constitution, individual liberties, downsizing government, eliminating agencies, cutting spending etc etc etc

Thats the difference between Obama and Trump.

Obama was evil. Trump is just retarded.

Jamesiv1

10-30-2018, 08:27 AM

enhanced_deficit

10-30-2018, 08:28 AM

That's sort of divergence from his general policy direction so far; on border Wall and other things he had been citing Israel has his model but seems he's not eager to follow Israel's birthright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_Israel) model also.

Also, there's no indication that this talk a week before midterm elections is just red meat for the base as part of get the vote out campaign sort of like "middle class tax cut" trial baloon released few days ago.

Related

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/poll_posticon.gif Poll: How much trust do you put in current President's promises and statements? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?521272-How-much-trust-do-you-put-in-current-President-s-promises-and-statements&)

No change in H-1B visa policy, says US official
livemint
Aug 31, 2018 - Washington: There is no change in the US' H-1B visa policy, which is ... that it does not disadvantage US workers or wages, a senior Trump ...

Trump: I want to scrap all H1B visas (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?527029-Trump-I-want-to-scrap-all-H1B-visas&)

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/AJwG8tF1A2tVJ4fJb4rhTbNbVuI=/0x0:633x331/fit-in/1200x630/cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9245523/Screen_Shot_2017_09_14_at_10.41.46_AM.png

unknown

10-30-2018, 08:31 AM

You sir, are no lover of liberty.

I hate freeeeeeeeeeeedoooooommmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!

oyarde

10-30-2018, 08:41 AM

I don't think an E.O. can overrule the 14th amendment to the constitution. But who am I?

I do not think that amendment is intended to give birthright citizenship to two illegal immigrant parents .

aGameOfThrones

10-30-2018, 08:54 AM

Why are Puerto Ricans U.S. Citizens by Statute?

This will make Congress finally clarify what was clarified when the amendment was being discussed.

spudea

10-30-2018, 09:26 AM

What about an EO "clarifying" what "necessary to the security of a free State" means?

There have been many executive orders on gun control

Origanalist

10-30-2018, 09:41 AM

Brian4Liberty

10-30-2018, 09:41 AM

Brian4Liberty

10-30-2018, 09:50 AM

It won't. It will simply set the definition of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The argument, which is Ron Paul's argument as well, is that illegals and their children are NOT subject to the jurisdiction, and are therefore ineligible for automatic citizenship.

Interesting idea. The meaning of that language at the time it was written is key. Has the definition been changed by activist courts since it was first adopted? Constitutionally, how is that supposed to be corrected?

“Subject to the jurisdiction” is a double edged sword. Do non-citizens have the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Due process? No cruel and unusual punishment? IMHO, it should mean that anyone who is in the custody of US authorities is guaranteed those rights, with the exception of a war zone, where the Geneva Convention should apply.

With regard to illegal border crossing, there should be a process, even if that process consists of turning them around at the border if they are not citizens or have no valid visa.

Danke

10-30-2018, 09:52 AM

Why are Puerto Ricans U.S. Citizens by Statute?

This will make Congress finally clarify what was clarified when the amendment was being discussed.

It is a territory, subject to the jurisdiction of...?

Madison320

10-30-2018, 09:58 AM

Interesting. Ron Paul supported repealing birthright citizenship, but I don’t recall the details of how he wanted to do it.

Best option would be a Constitutional Amendment. That’s a high hurdle, but worth pursuing.

It seems like the courts are usually involved in interpreting the law, and constantly changing interpretation by activist courts is a problem. When the court has a wrong interpretation of the intent, is it not up to lawmakers to clarify?

An executive order to change law is not constitutional at all.

I agree. And I think it would be a good law. The only thing worse than welfare recipients being allowed to vote to steal is allowing foreigners to vote to steal. My wife is involved in this area and it's a big problem. Women come here illegally and try to have as many children as possible.

Sometimes I think it might be better if we didn't worry too much about deporting illegals, as long as their children were also illegal. They can't vote, they can't receive too much welfare, they pay sales tax and they work cheap.

Of course if the goal is socialism, this amendment would be terrible.

aGameOfThrones

10-30-2018, 10:18 AM

It is a territory, subject to the jurisdiction of...?

But it was subject to the jurisdiction before the statute was made. Before the statute, were the children born to Puerto Ricans u.s. citizens?

angelatc

10-30-2018, 11:54 AM

This will never happen.

Because he doesnt know shit nor cares about the Constitution, individual liberties, downsizing government, eliminating agencies, cutting spending etc etc etc

Thats the difference between Obama and Trump.

Obama was evil. Trump is just retarded.

There are a lot of liberals who would agree with you. I think we will see Ron Paul putting out a video on the topic fairly soon, but unless he has changed his mind, i suspect he will agree with the basic premise.

What he won't agree with (I hope) is that the president can just make this change via EO. Paul wanted to do it via legislation, and Trump is skipping that step.

angelatc

10-30-2018, 11:57 AM

Interesting. Ron Paul supported repealing birthright citizenship, but I don’t recall the details of how he wanted to do it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-joint-resolution/46

phill4paul

10-30-2018, 12:29 PM

Interesting idea. The meaning of that language at the time it was written is key. Has the definition been changed by activist courts since it was first adopted? Constitutionally, how is that supposed to be corrected?

During the second GOP debate held at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., one of the CNN moderators, Jake Tapper, asked Paul, "Where do you stand on the issue of birthright citizenship?"

Paul referenced the 1898 Supreme Court case United States vs. Wong Kim Ark.

"The case that was decided around 1900 was -- people had a green card, were here legally, and they said that their children were citizens," Paul said. "There's never been a direct Supreme Court case on people who were here illegally, whether or not their kids are citizens. So it hasn't really been completely adjudicated."

The Wong Kim Ark case

Wong Kim Ark, a laborer, was born in 1873 in San Francisco. His parents were of Chinese descent but lived legally in the United States. Around age 17, he left for a temporary visit to China, and returned to the United States without incident. Then, around age 21, he left again for a visit to China, but at the end of that trip, he was denied re-entry to the United States because the collector of customs argued that he was not a U.S. citizen. (This was no small distinction -- it was the era of anti-immigrant strictures known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts.)

The Supreme Court framed the case this way in its majority decision:

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, "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 majority ruled that Wong -- and others born on United States soil, with a few clear exceptions -- did indeed qualify for citizenship under the 14th Amendment, which reads in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The majority wrote:

The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.

So what does this mean for Paul’s claim?

He is right that the facts of Wong Kim Ark didn’t concern illegal immigrants who had a child while on U.S. soil. Rather, Wong’s parents were in the United States legally when he was born.

"Sen. Paul is correct," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell University law professor. "Wong Kim Ark was a child of parents who resided legally in the United States. The Supreme Court has not ruled explicitly on a citizenship case involving children born in the United States to undocumented parents."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/18/rand-paul/rand-paul-says-legality-birthright-citizenship-not/

phill4paul

10-30-2018, 12:40 PM

Again, this wont be removing the 14th amendment, it will be a matter of finally adjudicating what it means. As has already been done many times in regards to the 2nd amendment.

Progs are having conniption fits. They say birth right citizenship is absolutely decided in the way the 14th was written. I tell them I think the second amendment was absolutely decided in the way it was worded, but that didn't stop SCOTUS from ruling that there is a right, but that the right is limited. "BUT THAS DIFFERENT! THIS IS RACISSS!!!" I get such a chuckle out of them.

specsaregood

10-30-2018, 12:42 PM

Interesting. Ron Paul supported repealing birthright citizenship, but I don’t recall the details of how he wanted to do it.

Best option would be a Constitutional Amendment. That’s a high hurdle, but worth pursuing.

It seems like the courts are usually involved in interpreting the law, and constantly changing interpretation by activist courts is a problem. When the court has a wrong interpretation of the intent, is it not up to lawmakers to clarify?

An executive order to change law is not constitutional at all.

I don't see it that way since it is an interpretation. Is it not the executive branch that bestows citizenship officially on people? If so, then it would be in his purview to say, have the govt cease bestowing citizenship on children of illegals or nonresidents. Then those people can sue to try to get citizenship and have it adjudicated.

shakey1

10-30-2018, 01:01 PM

Progs are having conniption fits. They say birth right citizenship is absolutely decided in the way the 14th was written. I tell them I think the second amendment was absolutely decided in the way it was worded, but that didn't stop SCOTUS from ruling that there is a right, but that the right is limited. "BUT THAS DIFFERENT! THIS IS RACISSS!!!" I get such a chuckle out of them.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512793-Article-of-Impeachment-Introduced-Against-President-Donald-Trump&p=6700607#post6700607

phill4paul

10-30-2018, 01:02 PM

Valli6

10-30-2018, 01:08 PM

Unbelievable. Lindsey Graham now says he will introduce a bill to end birthright citizenship. :rolleyes:

Graham to introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship
BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 10/30/18 11:12 AM EDT
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/413832-graham-to-introduce-legislation-ending-birthright-citizenship

juleswin

10-30-2018, 01:11 PM

I don't see it that way since it is an interpretation. Is it not the executive branch that bestows citizenship officially on people? If so, then it would be in his purview to say, have the govt cease bestowing citizenship on children of illegals or nonresidents. Then those people can sue to try to get citizenship and have it adjudicated.

This is what I am hoping would happen cos a mere EO can be overturned by the next executive. This would be the first real test for the conservative supreme court. I have a feeling that they would get this right since they've already messed up with the Obamacare ruling

phill4paul

10-30-2018, 01:25 PM

Unbelievable. Lindsey Graham now says he will introduce a bill to end birthright citizenship. :rolleyes:

Possibly trying to fuck Trump over. If the bill is put forward and is rejected would that make an E.O. harder to enact?

Aratus

10-30-2018, 01:38 PM

Unbelievable. Lindsey Graham now says he will introduce a bill to end birthright citizenship. :rolleyes:

Possibly trying to $#@! Trump over. If the bill is put forward and is rejected would that make an E.O. harder to enact?

Legislation, even if dormant and not immediately acted on, has more legal weight,
more gravitas to it, than an immediate and transitory E.O that a future POTUS can
reverse by the whim of the moment. The crux of this is that DJT is going after the
Reconstruction Amendments, for the most part. Again, we are about to debate how
inclusive citizenship is. As the Democrats unite to put him on trial. Next is a zoo!!!

TheCount

10-30-2018, 01:38 PM

Is it not the executive branch that bestows citizenship officially on people?
No.

Aratus

10-30-2018, 01:40 PM

DJT's E.O on this = Uncnstitutional.
Lindsey Graham is being more correct,
even if he is totally wrong ultimately.

TheCount

10-30-2018, 01:44 PM

DJT's E.O on this = Uncnstitutional.
Lindsey Graham is being more correct,
even if he is totally wrong ultimately.
They're equally wrong . Congress has authority over naturalization but not birthright citizenship.

KEEF

10-30-2018, 01:48 PM

I don't think an E.O. can overrule the 14th amendment to the constitution. But who am I?

According to my State Rep just one District over...
1057265102527909894

Zippyjuan

10-30-2018, 01:52 PM

I don't think an E.O. can overrule the 14th amendment to the constitution. But who am I?

Congress would have to replace the Amendment which would then also have three fourths of the states agree before it came into effect. You can't alter the Constitution via Executive Order.

KEEF

10-30-2018, 01:52 PM

Dammit! somehow I hit the neg rep button on this, when I wanted to go +. Somebody help me out here! Sorry about that specs, the dialog disappeared and reappeared and I just hit the rep button without checking.

got him for you.

Aratus

10-30-2018, 01:59 PM

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0d21nQBY8o

Tacitly the expansion of what is basically a system of concentration camps over the issue
of immigration has the ACLU taking a broad and inclusive approach to the 14th Amendment
in addition to stressing why Habeas Corpus exists as a legal concept from King John's reign.

kahless

10-30-2018, 02:01 PM

Paul Ryan shoots down Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship
https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/paul-ryan-shoots-down-trumps-plan-to-end-birthright-citizenship/

“Well, you obviously cannot do that. You know, as a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution, and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process,” he said.

Trump said, insisting he could do it by executive order.“You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order,” he said, adding incorrectly: “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States.”

Aratus

10-30-2018, 02:02 PM

If Trump can remove 14th Amendment rights by E.O., can the next Democratic President remove 2nd amendment rights by E.O.? Please don't throw away the constitution and our bill of rights in the name on immigration. This is a double edge sword. The power of the presidency last long after Trump moves on.

Trump thinks his E.O can basically herring-gut the 14th Amendment...

Aratus

10-30-2018, 02:06 PM

Paul Ryan shoots down Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship
https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/paul-ryan-shoots-down-trumps-plan-to-end-birthright-citizenship/

Paul Ryan is more correct on what this might actually take, but he
is the Speaker of the House until his term ends. Congress will be
slightly or significantly different this February. DJT has just started
what may be a hot and furious debate over the next three months.

dannno

10-30-2018, 02:07 PM

Paul Ryan shoots down Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship
https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/paul-ryan-shoots-down-trumps-plan-to-end-birthright-citizenship/

he said, adding incorrectly: “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States.”

What other country in the world besides the United States where a person comes in and has a baby, is that baby essentially a citizen of the United States?

phill4paul

10-30-2018, 02:13 PM

Trump thinks his E.O can basically herring-gut the 14th Amendment...

He's not talking about ending birthright citizenship. He's talking about ending birthright citizenship for ILLEGALS. Non-citizens that have not gone through the legal process to enter the country.

I think this distinction is important when discussing this.

Aratus

10-30-2018, 02:15 PM

There is a further irony to this debate, if American exceptionalism stems from our system
of government as a social experiment, some advocates of this pointed out that birthright
citizenship was a proof positive for this, as a cornerstone of an actual, honest meltingpot
society that brought forth utopian impulses in the population as a whole. The first half of
the 20th Century had these concepts being linked. Our strength stems from Madisonian
Checks and Balances, and our Constitution, not from the decrees of a wise tinhorn tyrant.

phill4paul

10-30-2018, 02:23 PM

Congress would have to replace the Amendment which would then also have three fourths of the states agree before it came into effect. You can't alter the Constitution via Executive Order.

He's not altering it. He is not talking about ending birthright citizenship to those non-citizens that are in the country legally. He is talking about ending it for those that have entered illegally. And according to many legal scholars he is correct in his interpretation of the 14th. The only SCOTUS ruling regarding this amendment was United States vs. Wong Kim Ark. In it they allowed birth right citizenship to a man whose non-citizen parents were in the country LEGALLY. There is nothing regarding illegal non-citizens.

aGameOfThrones

10-30-2018, 02:26 PM

He's not altering it. He is not talking about ending birthright citizenship to those non-citizens that are in the country legally. He is talking about ending it for those that have entered illegally. And according to many legal scholars he is correct in his interpretation of the 14th. The only SCOTUS ruling regarding this amendment was United States vs. Wong Kim Ark. In it they allowed birth right citizenship to a man whose non-citizen parents were in the country LEGALLY. There is nothing regarding illegal non-citizens.

Clear as day!

specsaregood

10-30-2018, 02:27 PM

homahr

10-30-2018, 02:29 PM

I could be wrong, but I've heard that the birthright citizenship thing extends to children of diplomats as well who were born in the US, which is ridiculous.

phill4paul

10-30-2018, 02:50 PM

Oh my God the Progs are whipped into an absolute lather over this. This is the best Trump has come up with yet!

Aratus

10-30-2018, 03:03 PM

By asking the Supreme Court to redefine or even once again sharply define citizenship,
Donald Trump is revisiting the turbulent era right after our Civil War that saw ole Andrew
Johnson such a household word, and all over the newspapers of the era. I keep on saying
that the Democrats will dearly want to impeach him, although Joe Biden & Nancy Pelosi do
feel this is a bad idea. The source of this discontent is to Bernie's left, but we must think
over how tempting political payback is to a partisan hack who hero worships the Clintons!
Keep in mind impeachment exists so that there is a redress for abuse of power. It is not
an exercise in frivolity. The quaint rhetoric of 1868 is about to get a Hollywood rewrite!!!

AuH20

10-30-2018, 03:11 PM

Oh my God the Progs are whipped into an absolute lather over this. This is the best Trump has come up with yet!

And it's a major political loser for them. Even the normies can perform basic arithmetic and deduce that birthright citizenship is a raw deal for them.

Who do you think will be paying for all these hungry mouths? Look in the mirror. At some point, the democrats will be going over the proverbial falls as public resources dwindle. Just look at all the hospital closures nationwide and especially in immigrant heavy states like California.

kahless

10-30-2018, 03:23 PM

I don't think it applies to people here temporarily either, non-residents. eg: student visas, tourism visas

If a single parent is a citizen or a green card holder, under Trump's plan the child would be granted birthright citizenship. That has not stopped the news media from having a total meltdown over it tonight.

As part of the fear mongering CBS 2 in NY at 5pm used a selection of experts to trash Trump on it, including a really ethnic looking and sounding Jewish lawyer. The report followed coverage of the synagogue shooting and probably hoping they could subconsciously connect the two in the viewers minds.

DamianTV

10-30-2018, 03:37 PM

I swear the way the Democrats vote (not talk, they NEVER admit this) is to flat out hand Voting Rights to Illegals who didnt even immigrate! If he pulls this off, next target Welfare. It removes two of many incentives to break our laws and replace our population with democratic voters, because that is ALL that matters to many at the top! Also keep in mind its not solely the Democrats, but many Republicans too if you look carefully at their voting history...

Our own Laws are used against us, to destroy and replace us.

homahr

10-30-2018, 03:45 PM

I could be wrong, but I've heard that the birthright citizenship thing extends to children of diplomats as well who were born in the US, which is ridiculous.

https://cis.org/Report/Birthright-Citizenship-Children-Foreign-Diplomats

Anti Globalist

10-30-2018, 04:10 PM

I'd rather have this be done through a constitutional amendment than an EO.

Anti Federalist

10-30-2018, 04:14 PM

angelatc

10-30-2018, 04:16 PM

Unbelievable. Lindsey Graham now says he will introduce a bill to end birthright citizenship. :rolleyes:

HE will probably tie it to amnesty. :rolleyes:

Anti Federalist

10-30-2018, 04:20 PM

Unbelievable. Lindsey Graham now says he will introduce a bill to end birthright citizenship. :rolleyes:

I swear, that guy got hit by lightening or something...

aGameOfThrones

10-30-2018, 04:21 PM

I'd rather have this be done through a constitutional amendment than an EO.

Does it really need an amendment? What if the SCOTUS just clarifies what it ment and what it means?

Anti Federalist

10-30-2018, 04:24 PM

Does it really need an amendment? What if the SCOTUS just clarifies what it ment and what it means?

That would cover it I would think.

A ruling clearly stating that the 14th does not apply to persons in the country illegally.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 04:25 PM

I'd rather have this be done through a constitutional amendment than an EO.
It was done by legislating from the bench so I don't see why an EO can't undo it, legislation or a constitutional amendment should follow so that the next president can't just undo it.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 04:27 PM

I swear, that guy got hit by lightening or something...
I am totally convinced now that McCain had blackmail on him.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 04:36 PM

angelatc

10-30-2018, 04:42 PM

What other country in the world besides the United States where a person comes in and has a baby, is that baby essentially a citizen of the United States?

A lot of other countries offer birthright citizenship but in the not-the-third-world countries, only the US and Canada. The United Kingdom removed unconditional citizenship by birth in the British Nationality Act of 1981, because people were flooding into their country.

Brian4Liberty

10-30-2018, 05:46 PM

Interesting idea. The meaning of that language at the time it was written is key. Has the definition been changed by activist courts since it was first adopted? Constitutionally, how is that supposed to be corrected?

“Subject to the jurisdiction” is a double edged sword. Do non-citizens have the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Due process? No cruel and unusual punishment? IMHO, it should mean that anyone who is in the custody of US authorities is guaranteed those rights, with the exception of a war zone, where the Geneva Convention should apply.

With regard to illegal border crossing, there should be a process, even if that process consists of turning them around at the border if they are not citizens or have no valid visa.

I don't see it that way since it is an interpretation. Is it not the executive branch that bestows citizenship officially on people? If so, then it would be in his purview to say, have the govt cease bestowing citizenship on children of illegals or nonresidents. Then those people can sue to try to get citizenship and have it adjudicated.

It isn't changing the law, it is enforcing it properly.

Per my key question highlighted above, Mark Levin was talking about this today. He claims that the interpretation was changed to what it is today in the 1960’s by the executive bureaucracy. If true, then it is no longer interpreted according to the original intent.

I will always be against legislating from the Executive or Judicial Branches. How to correct it when one of those non-legislative branches changes the law via “interpretation” it is the question. What is the Constitutional solution?

Issuing an executive order might send it to the courts, and in this case, it can be guaranteed that the left will take this to court, and the lower courts will rule against it. It might go to the Supreme Court. Is this the best route? Is this the only route?

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 05:52 PM

Per my key question highlighted above, Mark Levin was talking about this today. He claims that the interpretation was changed to what it is today in the 1960’s by the executive bureaucracy. If true, then it is no longer interpreted according to the original intent.

I will always be against legislating from the Executive or Judicial Branches. How to correct it when one of those non-legislative branches changes the law via “interpretation” it is the question. What is the Constitutional solution?

Issuing an executive order might send it to the courts, and in this case, it can be guaranteed that the left will take this to court, and the lower courts will rule against it. It might go to the Supreme Court. Is this the best route? Is this the only route?
It will do until we can get legislation or a constitutional amendment.

Origanalist

10-30-2018, 05:54 PM

I swear, that guy got hit by lightening or something...

Got himself a new man.

Brian4Liberty

10-30-2018, 06:06 PM

I swear, that guy got hit by lightening or something...

He seems kind of directionless without McCain.

Got himself a new man.

Trump?

phill4paul

10-30-2018, 06:08 PM

Trump’s Critics Are Wrong about the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship

Legislation to end birthright citizenship has been circulating in Congress since the mid ’90s and such a bill is circulating in both houses today. It will, of course, not pass Congress, and if it did pass it would be vetoed. But if birthright citizenship becomes an election issue and a Republican is elected president, then who knows what the future might hold. It is difficult to imagine that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to confer the boon of citizenship on the children of illegal aliens when they explicitly denied that boon to Indians who had been born in the United States. Those who defy the laws of the U.S. should not be allowed to confer such an advantage on their children. This would not be visiting the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. would not be denied anything to which they otherwise would have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. A nation that cannot determine who becomes citizens or believes that it must allow the children of those who defy its laws to become citizens is no longer a sovereign nation. No one is advocating that those who have been granted birthright citizenship be stripped of their citizenship. Equal protection considerations would counsel that citizenship once granted is vested and cannot be revoked; this, I believe, is eminently just. The proposal to end birthright citizenship is prospective only.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution/?fbclid=IwAR1e-8MqFMJ84_AVc4j6cQspumWE0aaVXfH4ggROLMKnCjvwGkfB8Wk yLuA

juleswin

10-30-2018, 06:09 PM

A lot of other countries offer birthright citizenship but in the not-the-third-world countries, only the US and Canada. The United Kingdom removed unconditional citizenship by birth in the British Nationality Act of 1981, because people were flooding into their country.

30 countries to be specific. No country in Asia, Africa or Europe. Its mainly Island countries, territories and a few big countries in North and South America.

specsaregood

10-30-2018, 06:11 PM

That would cover it I would think.

A ruling clearly stating that the 14th does not apply to persons in the country illegally.

Not just illegals, but non residents. I see no reason that somebody on a tourist visa should be considered able to confer citizenship onto their child born here.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 06:23 PM

Not just illegals, but non residents. I see no reason that somebody on a tourist visa should be considered able to confer citizenship onto their child born here.
I agree but legal visitors might be considered to be under US jurisdiction during their stay so we might need a Constitutional amendment for that.

angelatc

10-30-2018, 06:30 PM

Not just illegals, but non residents. I see no reason that somebody on a tourist visa should be considered able to confer citizenship onto their child born here.

I think we all know I'm a supporter of ending birthright citizenship. But just playing the Devil's Advocate...wouldn't passing it now be sort of ex post facto, which isn't legal either?

I can only assume the interpretation wouldn't apply to people who are already born? Like I said, when Graham is around I smell amnesty.

phill4paul

10-30-2018, 06:31 PM

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 06:36 PM

I think we all know I'm a supporter of ending birthright citizenship. But just playing the Devil's Advocate...wouldn't passing it now be sort of ex post facto, which isn't legal either?

I can only assume the interpretation wouldn't apply to people who are already born? Like I said, when Graham is around I smell amnesty.
I'm not sure if changing an interpretation of a law that existed long ago would be ex post facto but it is probably too close for comfort.

I don't think Trump intends to apply this retroactively but we will have to see.

Another option would be to apply it retroactively only to those who have not yet reached 18.

Zippyjuan

10-30-2018, 06:40 PM

What other country in the world besides the United States where a person comes in and has a baby, is that baby essentially a citizen of the United States?

Only the US can make somebody a US Citizen. Other countries can't do that for us. However-

https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5bd8b338b73c281f485b38d0-960-1260.jpg

There are also quite a few European countries where they can be granted citizenship for being born in the county but must live there a certain amount of time before it becomes official.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/

In Europe, 8 countries (Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom) have strong jus soli dispositions, where children born from foreign parents can acquire nationality quite easily (for example, in France, with a 5 years residency condition),

Zippyjuan

10-30-2018, 06:54 PM

Here is what the Constitution says:

Amendment XIV

Section 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.

The key part is actually "and subject to the Jurisdiction of". Persons not subject to the jurisdiction are people not liable under US laws and that generally applies to diplomats and American Indians. If an illegal immigrant can be charged with a crime, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Diplomats are not subject to US laws and neither were Native Americans.

If you want to declare illegal immigrants not subject to the jurisdiction of the US so their children born in the US are not considered citizens, you cannot deport them for being in the country illegally or charge them with any crimes they may commit while in the US because you declared they are not subject to the laws of the United States.

If you want the Supreme Court to follow the Constitution to the letter and not "interpret" it, this will be their ruling- that it applies to illegal immigrants and that it can only be changed by changing the Amendment.

Itsback

10-30-2018, 07:08 PM

I could be wrong, but I've heard that the birthright citizenship thing extends to children of diplomats as well who were born in the US, which is ridiculous.

MAGA = Make America Great Again.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 07:11 PM

Here is what the Constitution says:

The key part is actually "and subject to the Jurisdiction of". Persons not subject to the jurisdiction are people not liable under US laws and that generally applies to diplomats and American Indians. If an illegal immigrant can be charged with a crime, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Diplomats are not subject to US laws and neither were Native Americans.

If you want to declare illegal immigrants not subject to the jurisdiction of the US so their children born in the US are not considered citizens, you cannot deport them for being in the country illegally or charge them with any crimes they may commit while in the US because you declared they are not subject to the laws of the United States.
They aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US until we catch them, until then they are living in a state of outlawry, so you could argue that if children are born to them in custody they get citizenship but they should be expelled before they give birth.

Jamesiv1

10-30-2018, 07:15 PM

Good discussion about the 14th amendment (birthright citizenship) by a constitutional scholar.

4-5 minutes starting at 7:37

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlCsZPmtYzI

DamianTV

10-30-2018, 07:32 PM

How about this. Citizenship acquired by Illegal means, such as Illegally Immigrating is INVALID.

Its no different than money aquired by illegal means is immediately taken from the possessor. Stolen goods do not legitimately belong to the thief, so why should Citizenship?

Pauls' Revere

10-30-2018, 07:41 PM

Again, this wont be removing the 14th amendment, it will be a matter of finally adjudicating what it means. As has already been done many times in regards to the 2nd amendment.

Right, the original intent (due to slaves at the time) was why it was written as it is. Now, the definition has been abused and manipulated to include anchor babies. Which for me at least distorts the original intent of the law.

CCTelander

10-30-2018, 07:59 PM

They aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US until we catch them, until then they are living in a state of outlawry, so you could argue that if children are born to them in custody they get citizenship but they should be expelled before they give birth.

You apparently don't realize it (or think the rest of us are too stupid to realize it), but with your tortured misinterpretations of the English language and legal doctrine you're actually arguing against your own position. If, as you claim, "illegal" immigrants "aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US," then they quite literally, by definition, are not subject to the laws of the US, since that is exactly what being subject to the jurisdiction of means. They therefore could not be "illegal" immigrants but would be here perfectly legally, completely defeating your entire argument.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 08:05 PM

UWDude

10-30-2018, 08:07 PM

Congress would have to replace the Amendment which would then also have three fourths of the states agree before it came into effect. You can't alter the Constitution via Executive Order.

Thank god Kavenaugh hates the constitution. He can start by taking citizen's rights from non-citizens, like voting, and anchor baby auto-citizenship. Maybe even their right not to be shot when entering clearly defined border areas, marked as sniper sentried.

Americas border isn't going to be pushed over like Mexico's. We said you aren't allowed in, and we mean it.

TheCount

10-30-2018, 08:08 PM

LOL

It makes them invaders that we have a right to expel.

Invaders that you cannot, legally, expel.

If it were possible, it would make being an illegal immigrant the best status for a resident of the country. It would elevate them above citizens.

Zippyjuan

10-30-2018, 08:08 PM

You apparently don't realize it (or think the rest of us are too stupid to realize it), but with your tortured misinterpretations of the English language and legal doctrine you're actually arguing against your own position. If, as you claim, "illegal" immigrants "aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US," then they quite literally, by definition, are not subject to the laws of the US, since that is exactly what being subject to the jurisdiction of means. They therefore could not be "illegal" immigrants but would be here perfectly legally, completely defeating your entire argument.

If they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the US", they are not illegally in the country. Anything they do would not be illegal- our laws would not apply to them. If they are subject to jurisdiction, then their children born in this country must be considered citizens under the Constitution- unless Congress and the states can change the 14th Amendment. Unless you want activist judges to interpret the Constitution and not follow the letter of the law. You don't get it both ways.

CCTelander

10-30-2018, 08:10 PM

LOL

It makes them invaders that we have a right to expel.

Not subject to the jurisdiction of = not subject to the laws of, by definition. They therefore cannot be "illegal" immigrants, nor "invaders," nor any other unlawful entity since they are not subject to the laws in question to begin with. Assuming your claim that they "aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is factual, which of course it is not.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 08:12 PM

Invaders that you cannot, legally, expel.

If it were possible, it would make being an illegal immigrant the best status for a resident of the country. It would elevate them above citizens.

If they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the US", they are not illegally in the country. Anything they do would not be illegal- our laws would not apply to them. If they are subject to jurisdiction, then their children born in this country must be considered citizens under the Constitution- unless Congress and the states can change the 14th Amendment. Unless you want activist judges to interpret the Constitution and not follow the letter of the law. You don't get it both ways.

Not subject to the jurisdiction of = not subject to the laws of, by definition. They therefore cannot be "illegal" immigrants, nor "invaders," nor any other unlawful entity since they are not subject to the laws in question to begin with. Assuming your claim that they "aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is factual, which of course it is not.

LOL

We can expel an invading army and they are not subject to our jurisdiction, we can expel diplomats and they are not subject to our jurisdiction.

These invaders are no different.

UWDude

10-30-2018, 08:12 PM

You apparently don't realize it (or think the rest of us are too stupid to realize it), but with your tortured misinterpretations of the English language and legal doctrine you're actually arguing against your own position. If, as you claim, "illegal" immigrants "aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US," then they quite literally, by definition, are not subject to the laws of the US, since that is exactly what being subject to the jurisdiction of means. They therefore could not be "illegal" immigrants but would be here perfectly legally, completely defeating your entire argument.

Laws exist because of force. Not because of some silly pantomiming and clown-logic.
Anyways, I don't believe in your laws, man. I believe in reality, and only reality.

Pauls' Revere

10-30-2018, 08:18 PM

https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-joint-resolution/46

+rep

Forwarded to:

whitehouse.gov & Twitter.

realDonaldTrump Re: Birthright Citizenship executive order. Please refer to former congressman Dr. Ron Paul's resolution
H.J.Res.46 — 110th Congress (2007-2008)

Zippyjuan

10-30-2018, 08:19 PM

LOL

We can expel an invading army and they are not subject to our jurisdiction, we can expel diplomats and they are not subject to our jurisdiction.

These invaders are no different.

Diplomats have immunity from the laws of their host country. Their children thus are not automatically citizens under the 14th Amendment since they are not subject to our jurisdiction. Illegal immigrants are subject to the laws of the US. If you want to declare them exempt from US laws, then you can deny their children born in the US automatic citizenship. That is the choice.

acptulsa

10-30-2018, 08:21 PM

Laws exist because of force. Not because of some silly pantomiming and clown-logic.
Anyways, I don't believe in your laws, man. I believe in reality, and only reality.

How does that change the reality that swordshyll is arguing against his own stated opinion?

Yeah, the post gave you all those irrelevant feelz. Who cares? You in no way disproved--nor addressed, nor, apparently, even understood--what he said.. So why would anyone care about your unrelated and irrelevant feelz?

CCTelander

10-30-2018, 08:23 PM

DamianTV

10-30-2018, 08:24 PM

An ARMY of Invaders are NOT Diplomats. It is nothing short of an ACT OF WAR.

TheCount

10-30-2018, 08:25 PM

We can expel an invading army and they are not subject to our jurisdiction, we can expel diplomats and they are not subject to our jurisdiction.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. You "expel" diplomats by revoking their diplomatic accreditation, which invalidates both their diplomatic immunity and their visas. The diplomats then leave of their own accord because if they didn't, they would then be subject to your laws. They are not, in actuality, subject to your laws at any time. This is the entire reason that the 'subject to the jurisdiction' clause exists in the 14th amendment to begin with.

Article 9

The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.
If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this Article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.

...

Article 39

Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy them from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as may be agreed.
When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country, or on expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so, but shall subsist until that time, even in case of armed conflict. However, with respect to acts performed by such a person in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission, immunity shall continue to subsist.

Members of invading armies are not expelled, they are killed or captured. Once captured, they can be prosecuted, not only under the laws of war but under local laws. In other words, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the territory that they are in.

Pauls' Revere

10-30-2018, 08:26 PM

Since corporations are people, if a corporation is started in one of these countries it also becomes a citizen/entity of that country?

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 08:26 PM

Diplomats have immunity from the laws of their host country. Their children thus are not automatically citizens under the 14th Amendment since they are not subject to our jurisdiction. Illegal immigrants are subject to the laws of the US. If you want to declare them exempt from US laws, then you can deny their children born in the US automatic citizenship. That is the choice.

Diplomatic immunity is limited and in any case they can be expelled but illegals are more like an invading army because they weren't invited like diplomats are, they are not subject to our jurisdiction until we capture them but we can expel them or punish them for war crimes they committed before we caught them.

Illegals aren't subject to our jurisdiction until we catch them but they can be expelled or punished for crimes they committed before we caught them

angelatc

10-30-2018, 08:30 PM

If you want to declare (illegals) exempt from US laws, then you can deny their children born in the US automatic citizenship.

Being that they're here, we can easily make a case that they consider themselves exempt from US Law.

angelatc

10-30-2018, 08:31 PM

Since corporations are people, if a corporation is started in one of these countries it also becomes a citizen/entity of that country?

Oh FFS. Corporations aren't people. They are groups of people.

acptulsa

10-30-2018, 08:32 PM

Illegals aren't subject to our jurisdiction until we catch them but they can be expelled or punished for crimes they committed before we caught them

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. If they can be prosecuted for laws they break before they are caught, then they are subject to the jurisdiction while they are in it.

In the 1970s, "It's only illegal if you get caught" was one of the standard jokes of the era. Seeing that used as a serious argument is a damned sight funnier.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 08:32 PM

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. You "expel" diplomats by revoking their diplomatic accreditation, which invalidates both their diplomatic immunity and their visas. The diplomats then leave of their own accord because if they didn't, they would then be subject to your laws. They are not, in actuality, subject to your laws at any time. This is the entire reason that the 'subject to the jurisdiction' clause exists in the 14th amendment to begin with.
How can you revoke anything if they aren't subject to our laws?
And they are ordered out of the country as part of the revocation.

Members of invading armies are not expelled, they are killed or captured. Once captured, they can be prosecuted, not only under the laws of war but under local laws. In other words, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the territory that they are in.
They most certainly are expelled, at the end of the war they are sent home and during the war they are killed and pursued for capture until they leave, I said illegals in custody may be subject to our jurisdiction and that they should be expelled before they can give birth but they can be tried for crimes committed against our people while they were not subject to our jurisdiction just as enemy soldiers can.

angelatc

10-30-2018, 08:36 PM

If they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the US", they are not illegally in the country. Anything they do would not be illegal- our laws would not apply to them. If they are subject to jurisdiction, then their children born in this country must be considered citizens under the Constitution- unless Congress and the states can change the 14th Amendment. Unless you want activist judges to interpret the Constitution and not follow the letter of the law. You don't get it both ways.

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 08:36 PM

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. If they can be prosecuted for laws they break before they are caught, then they are subject to the jurisdiction while they are in it.
The laws already existed so it isn't Ex post facto, their living in a state of outlawry doesn't grant them immunity and it never has in history.

In the 1970s, "It's only illegal if you get caught" was one of the standard jokes of the era. Seeing that used as a serious argument is a damned sight funnier.
That isn't the argument, the crimes are always illegal they just aren't subject to our laws while living in a state of outlawry.

acptulsa

10-30-2018, 08:38 PM

How can you revoke anything if they aren't subject to our laws?.

How do you revoke immunity? It's pretty damned simple, isn't it? You remove the diplomatic plate from their car, and if they don't pull over the next time they run a light, you lay stop sticks in front of them.

Why is this silly-assed rhetorical distinction you're trying to conjure out of thin air so damned important to you?

That isn't the argument, the crimes are always illegal they just aren't subject to our laws while living in a state of outlawry.

Jesus. Look. What about citizens? Are citizens "living in a state if outlawry" subject to the law before they get caught?

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 08:39 PM

Please, educate yourself. There really is no excuse for this level of ignorance.
Take your own advice.

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 08:40 PM

How do you revoke immunity? It's pretty damned simple, isn't it? You remove the diplomatic plate from their car, and if they don't pull over the next time they run a light, you lay stop sticks in front of them.

Why is this silly-assed rhetorical distinction you're trying to conjure out of thin air so damned important to you?
So you admit we can revoke their immunity even though they aren't subject to our jurisdiction?
Good, we can expel them without them being subject to our jurisdiction too.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 08:41 PM

How does that change the reality that swordshyll is arguing against his own stated opinion?

LOL

acptulsa

10-30-2018, 08:43 PM

So you admit we can revoke their immunity even though they aren't subject to our jurisdiction?
Good, we can expel them without them being subject to our jurisdiction too.

No. Once immunity is revoked, they are subject to the jurisdiction they're in.

Are citizens "living in a state of outlawry" subject to the jurisdiction they're in before they get caught?

LOL

You really seem to enjoy making an ass of yourself.

CCTelander

10-30-2018, 08:45 PM

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. If they can be prosecuted for laws they break before they are caught, then they are subject to the jurisdiction while they are in it.

In the 1970s, "It's only illegal if you get caught" was one of the standard jokes of the era. Seeing that used as a serious argument is a damned sight funnier.

Grammatical and legal realities are, apparently, irrelevant. All that seems to matter is enabling Trump to embrace and expand the imperial presidential powers set in precident by the Bush and Obama administrations so he can tickle Swordy's feelz on this issue, lawful proceedure be damned.

Origanalist

10-30-2018, 08:46 PM

He seems kind of directionless without McCain.

Trump?

It would seem that way.

CCTelander

10-30-2018, 08:47 PM

No. Once immunity is revoked, they are subject to the jurisdiction they're in.

Are citizens "living in a state of outlawry" subject to the jurisdiction they're in before they get caught?

You really seem to enjoy making an ass of yourself.

Oh, he EXCELS at that.

acptulsa

10-30-2018, 08:49 PM

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 08:51 PM

No. Once immunity is revoked, they are subject to the jurisdiction they're in.
But we can revoke their immunity while they are not subject to our laws or it couldn't be revoked since they have it.
We can also expel them.

In diplomacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy), a persona non grata (Latin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin): "person not appreciated", plural (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural): personae non gratae) is a foreign person whose entering or remaining in a particular country is prohibited by that country's government. Being so named is the most serious form of censure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure) which a country can apply to foreign diplomats, who are otherwise protected by diplomatic immunity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity) from arrest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest) and other normal kinds of prosecution.

Under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations), a receiving state may "at any time and without having to explain its decision" declare any member of a diplomatic staff persona non grata. A person so declared is considered unacceptable and is usually recalled to his or her home nation. If not recalled, the receiving state "may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission".[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata#cite_note-1)
With the protection of mission staff from prosecution for violating civil and criminal laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law), depending on rank, under Articles 41 and 42 of the Vienna Convention, they are bound to respect national laws and regulations. Breaches of these articles can lead to a persona non grata declaration being used to punish erring staff. It is also used to expel diplomats suspected of espionage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage) (described as "activities incompatible with diplomatic status")[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] or any overt criminal act such as drug trafficking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_trafficking). The declaration may also be a symbolic indication of displeasure.
So-called "tit for tat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat)" exchanges have occurred (whereby ambassadors of countries involved in a dispute each expel the ambassador of the other country), notably during the Cold War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War). A notable occurrence outside of the Cold War was an exchange between the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and Ecuador (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador) in 2011: the Ecuadorian government expelled the United States ambassador, as a result of diplomatic cables leaking (WikiLeaks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks)), the United States responded by expelling the Ecuadorian ambassador.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata#cite_note-2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata

Are citizens "living in a state of outlawry" subject to the jurisdiction they're in before they get caught?
No, they are not.

You really seem to enjoy making an ass of yourself.
You are the one who does that.

TheCount

10-30-2018, 08:56 PM

How can you revoke anything if they aren't subject to our laws?

Wow, you really have no idea how any of this works, do you?

Diplomatic accreditation is granted by the receiving country prior to the arrival of the diplomat. It signals that the country will recognize them as a diplomat and - as per the Vienna Convention - regard them as not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the country. It's not a legal process, it's a diplomatic process.

And they are ordered out of the country as part of the revocation.No. They leave of their own accord.

If they were to stick around beyond the grace period that they have been granted, then you could deport them because at that point they would be subject to your jurisdiction.

It's the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

They most certainly are expelled, at the end of the war they are sent home

They can be sent home. They can be prosecuted for crimes, war or otherwise. There is no law which gives soldiers immunity from prosecution.

Side note: Have you suddenly developed a devotion to international law? Do you believe that the United States is actually bound by any of the conventions related to the law of war?

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 08:56 PM

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 08:58 PM

Oh, I don't know. If he had the decency to admit that he doesn't consider himself as a citizen to do anything illegal until he gets caught, just like aliens, we'd all see that he's not even doing anything as heavy as trashing the Constitution and promoting the Imperial Presidency. He's just playing rhetorical Silly Buggars.
Proving that you are incapable of understanding my argument so you just make things up yet again.

TheCount

10-30-2018, 08:59 PM

But we can revoke their immunity while they are not subject to our laws or it couldn't be revoked since they have it.
We can also expel them.

Dude, I quoted the source document for that wiki article. You even replied to that post, but obviously you couldn't didn't read it. It's the Vienna Convention. The part I quoted was even about the exact thing you're trying to talk about. Here it is again:

Article 9

The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.
If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this Article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.

The sending state recalls them. They are not expelled.

1) Declare PNG
2) Grant grace period for person to leave
3) They don't leave
4) They are now subject to your laws (no longer a diplomat)
5) Now you can expel them

Again, the exact and polar opposite of what you claim.

Origanalist

10-30-2018, 08:59 PM

I'm just glad we have a autistic screeching retard on board, it makes it so much livelier.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:02 PM

Wow, you really have no idea how any of this works, do you?

Diplomatic accreditation is granted by the receiving country prior to the arrival of the diplomat. It signals that the country will recognize them as a diplomat and - as per the Vienna Convention - regard them as not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the country. It's not a legal process, it's a diplomatic process.
There are laws that create the diplomatic process.

No. They leave of their own accord.

If they were to stick around beyond the grace period that they have been granted, then you could deport them because at that point they would be subject to your jurisdiction.

It's the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

In diplomacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy), a persona non grata (Latin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin): "person not appreciated", plural (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural): personae non gratae) is a foreign person whose entering or remaining in a particular country is prohibited by that country's government. Being so named is the most serious form of censure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure) which a country can apply to foreign diplomats, who are otherwise protected by diplomatic immunity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity) from arrest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest) and other normal kinds of prosecution.

Under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations), a receiving state may "at any time and without having to explain its decision" declare any member of a diplomatic staff persona non grata. A person so declared is considered unacceptable and is usually recalled to his or her home nation. If not recalled, the receiving state "may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission".[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata#cite_note-1)
With the protection of mission staff from prosecution for violating civil and criminal laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law), depending on rank, under Articles 41 and 42 of the Vienna Convention, they are bound to respect national laws and regulations. Breaches of these articles can lead to a persona non grata declaration being used to punish erring staff. It is also used to expel diplomats suspected of espionage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage) (described as "activities incompatible with diplomatic status")[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] or any overt criminal act such as drug trafficking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_trafficking). The declaration may also be a symbolic indication of displeasure.
So-called "tit for tat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat)" exchanges have occurred (whereby ambassadors of countries involved in a dispute each expel the ambassador of the other country), notably during the Cold War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War). A notable occurrence outside of the Cold War was an exchange between the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and Ecuador (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador) in 2011: the Ecuadorian government expelled the United States ambassador, as a result of diplomatic cables leaking (WikiLeaks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks)), the United States responded by expelling the Ecuadorian ambassador.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata#cite_note-2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata
They can be expelled.

They can be sent home. They can be prosecuted for crimes, war or otherwise. There is no law which gives soldiers immunity from prosecution.
And yet they were not subject to our jurisdiction until we caught them..........................JUST LIKE ILLEGALS.

Side note: Have you suddenly developed a devotion to international law? Do you believe that the United States is actually bound by any of the conventions related to the law of war?
Did we sign and ratify the treaties involved?

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:03 PM

Dude, I quoted the source document for that wiki article. You even replied to that post, but obviously you couldn't didn't read it. It's the Vienna Convention. The part I quoted was even about the exact thing you're trying to talk about. Here it is again:

The sending state recalls them. They are not expelled.

1) Declare PNG
2) Grant grace period for person to leave
3) They don't leave
4) They are now subject to your laws (no longer a diplomat)
5) Now you can expel them

Again, the exact and polar opposite of what you claim.
Declaring them PNG is the expulsion order and it takes place while they have diplomatic immunity.

acptulsa

10-30-2018, 09:05 PM

I'm just glad we have a autistic screeching retard on board, it makes it so much livelier.

That's so unfair!

Autistic people are actually smart.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:12 PM

Grammatical and legal realities are, apparently, irrelevant. All that seems to matter is enabling Trump to embrace and expand the imperial presidential powers set in precident by the Bush and Obama administrations so he can tickle Swordy's feelz on this issue, lawful proceedure be damned.

I'm just glad we have a autistic screeching retard on board, it makes it so much livelier.

That's so unfair!

Autistic people are actually smart.
Try learning:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by angelatc http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6700938#post6700938)

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/ (http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/)

Idiots.

TheCount

10-30-2018, 09:13 PM

Declaring them PNG is the expulsion order and it takes place while they have diplomatic immunity.

What you're claiming is invalidated by the text that you quoted.

CCTelander

10-30-2018, 09:17 PM

LOL

Grammatical and legal realities are on my side.

You are factually in error. This is, really, a minor point. Just admit your error and save yourself further humiliation.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:19 PM

What you're claiming is invalidated by the text that you quoted.
No it isn't, if the embassy fails to comply then the diplomat will be forcibly expelled if he steps off its grounds.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:19 PM

You are factually in error. This is, really, a minor point. Just admit your error and save yourself further humiliation.
That is your position.
Take your own advice.

acptulsa

10-30-2018, 09:20 PM

Try learning:

Idiots.

Another guideline violation.

And where does that say nobody is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction they are in unless and until they get caught?

CCTelander

10-30-2018, 09:20 PM

Try learning:

Idiots.

A person with just a little knowledge, who doesn't fully comprehend even that which he has, is usually insufferably arrogant about it. Case in point.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:20 PM

You are factually in error. This is, really, a minor point. Just admit your error and save yourself further humiliation.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by angelatc http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6700938#post6700938)

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/ (http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/)...

Origanalist

10-30-2018, 09:22 PM

Another guideline violation.

And where does that say nobody is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction they are in unless and until they get caught?

I'm beginning to wonder if he supports the mission statement.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:23 PM

Another guideline violation.
That is rich coming from you.

And where does that say nobody is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction they are in unless and until they get caught?
It says that even if my argument about oulawry was wrong (it isn't) they still would not be "subject to" "our jurisdiction" according to its meaning in the Constitution.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:24 PM

I'm beginning to wonder if he supports the mission statement.
You started the insults, what is the matter? You can dish it out but you can't take it?

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:24 PM

A person with just a little knowledge, who doesn't fully comprehend even that which he has, is usually insufferably arrogant about it. Case in point.
Yes you are.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:26 PM

Good discussion about the 14th amendment (birthright citizenship) by a constitutional scholar.

4-5 minutes starting at 7:37

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlCsZPmtYzI
...

CCTelander

10-30-2018, 09:28 PM

That is your position.
Take your own advice.

Son, it's very likely that while I was actually spending the vast majority of my free time in dimly lit university law libraries actually studying this stuff ndependently, you were still having your diapers changed by your mother. I certainly don't claim to be any kind of expert. But, judging by some of the opinions you post anyway, I've probably forgotten more on the subjects of the constitution and constitutional law than you'vevyetvlearned. Stop digging.

Origanalist

10-30-2018, 09:29 PM

You started the insults, what is the matter? You can dish it out but you can't take it?

I can take whatever you think you have boy scout, however, I specifically directed no insult at you. Be careful Junior.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:31 PM

I can take whatever you think you have boy scout, however, I specifically directed no insult at you. Be careful Junior.
If you meant someone else when you said
I'm just glad we have a autistic screeching retard on board, it makes it so much livelier.

Then I apologize to you.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:32 PM

Son, it's very likely that while I was actually spending the vast majority of my free time in dimly lit university law libraries actually studying this stuff ndependently, you were still having your diapers changed by your mother. I certainly don't claim to be any kind of expert. But, judging by some of the opinions you post anyway, I've probably forgotten more on the subjects of the constitution and constitutional law than you'vevyetvlearned. Stop digging.
Education is not a substitute for intelligence.

acptulsa

10-30-2018, 09:34 PM

If you meant someone else when you said

Then I apologize to you.

If you had even ten percent the legal mind you think you have, you'd see why that makes no difference.

He did not violate guidelines. You did.

Education is not a substitute for intelligence.

And endless arrogant bluster is not a substitute for either--much less both.

CCTelander

10-30-2018, 09:35 PM

Education is not a substitute for intelligence.

And arrogance is a very poor substitute for wisdom. So is hubris.

Origanalist

10-30-2018, 09:36 PM

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:36 PM

If you had even ten percent the legal mind you think you have, you'd see why that makes no difference.

He did not violate guidelines. You did.

And endless arrogant bluster is not a substitute for either--much less both.
So it wasn't a guideline violation to call somebody a retard?

LOL

acptulsa

10-30-2018, 09:37 PM

So it wasn't a guideline violation to call somebody a retard?

LOL

He didn't call anyone a retard in this thread.

Anyone who can't see that is a retard.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:43 PM

He didn't call anyone a retard in this thread.

Anyone who can't see that is a retard.

I'm just glad we have a autistic screeching retard on board, it makes it so much livelier.

...

acptulsa

10-30-2018, 09:49 PM

...

And whose name do you see in his post?

But, of course, you know that. You're just doing what you always do--pure disruption. You turned two pages of rational discourse into six pages of stupid flame war, because you don't want anyone to learn the facts that were being presented.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 09:51 PM

And whose name do you see in his post?
It doesn't take a name.

But, of course, you know that. You're just doing what you always do--pure disruption. You turned two pages of rational discourse into six pages of stupid flame war, because you don't want anyone to learn the facts that were being presented.
That is what you do but most of this has been a discussion of legal points rather than a flame war.

Brian4Liberty

10-30-2018, 09:59 PM

Good discussion about the 14th amendment (birthright citizenship) by a constitutional scholar.

4-5 minutes starting at 7:37

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlCsZPmtYzI

And I will return again to my first key question, which is what was the original intent. Assuming this guy is accurately portraying the history, and he says that his source is the original debates, the words “under the jurisdiction” was meant to mean that a person was only subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and not subject to laws or citizenship of another nation.

Interesting, as that might also have ramifications for dual citizenship.

Carry on...

angelatc

10-30-2018, 10:02 PM

I'm just glad we have a autistic screeching retard on board, it makes it so much livelier.

We have more than one. Why on Earth we are discussing diplomatic immunity in a thread about birthright citizenship escapes me.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 10:03 PM

And I will return again to my first key question, which is what was the original intent. Assuming this guy is accurately portraying the history, and he says that his source is the original debates, the words “under the jurisdiction” was meant to mean that a person was only subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and not subject to laws or citizenship of another nation.

Interesting, as that might also have ramifications for dual citizenship.

Carry on...
Indeed.

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 10:05 PM

We have more than one. Why on Earth we are discussing diplomatic immunity in a thread about birthright citizenship escapes me.
Because diplomats are the classic example of someone who is not subject to our jurisdiction and whose children don't get citizenship.

acptulsa

10-30-2018, 10:15 PM

It doesn't take a name.

That's your concept of legal proof?

That is what you do but most of this has been a discussion of legal points rather than a flame war.

Care to put that to a vote? Or would you rather stay up De Nile without a paddle again?

Brian4Liberty

10-30-2018, 10:16 PM

Some background...

The Civil War ended on May 9, 1865. Just more than three years later, on July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed. This amendment and the 13th and 15th amendments were a part of the Reconstruction Era of the United States, which focused on civil rights and rebuilding the war-torn nation. The 14th Amendment states that every person born or naturalized in America is a citizen of the country as well as their state of residence.

Some southern states began actively passing laws that restricted the rights of former slaves after the Civil War, and Congress responded with the 14th Amendment, designed to place limits on states' power as well as protect civil rights. To be readmitted to the Union after the Civil War, southern states had to ratify the 14th Amendment. Initially, Native Americans were not granted citizenship by this amendment because they were under the jurisdiction of tribal laws. It was not until 1924 that Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act, which granted Native Americans citizenship rights as well.
...
https://employment.law.tulane.edu/articles/history-of-law-the-fourteenth-amendment

And how should the first sentence’s restriction to persons “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States be understood? When adopted, that clause, which was drafted against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Act, was clearly understood to withhold birthright citizenship from the American-born children of foreign diplomats present in this country, because under international law diplomats and their families were largely immune from the legal control and the courts of their host country. The limiting clause also was understood not to grant birthright citizenship to various members of Indian tribes whose political relations with the United States limited its authority over the tribes’ members. The scope of the limiting clause is a matter of political controversy today.
...
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/the-citizenship-clause-by-akhil-amar-and-john-harrison/clause/56

Swordsmyth

10-30-2018, 10:19 PM

That's your concept of legal proof?

Care to put that to a vote? Or would you rather stay up De Nile without a paddle again?
This is the only response your childishness deserves:

:rolleyes:

dannno

10-30-2018, 10:42 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8

WarmPotato

10-30-2018, 11:18 PM

Fingers crossed he succeeds!

LibertyEagle

10-30-2018, 11:19 PM

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Swordsmyth again.

Kilrain

10-30-2018, 11:23 PM

Jus soli is a goofy concept, and one that no one actually believes in. If they did, they would argue that a child born to American parents in Saudi Arabia was Saudi, not American.

aGameOfThrones

10-30-2018, 11:26 PM

Puerto Ricans had Spanish Citizenship at the time it was awarded to the U.S and yet congress had to pass a law decades after to make people born on the island U.S. citizens. Why do illegal aliens get special treatment?

Zippyjuan

10-30-2018, 11:38 PM

Jus soli is a goofy concept, and one that no one actually believes in. If they did, they would argue that a child born to American parents in Saudi Arabia was Saudi, not American.

That would be up to Saudi Arabia to decide if that child would be considered one of their citizens. A person can be the citizen of more than one country. If the child's parents were American Citizens, then the child would be. If Saudi Arabia decided to say the child was one of their citizens, the kid would have both citizenships.

In terms of actual practice, the father would have to be Saudi for the kid to be considered a Saudi citizen. https://www.multiplecitizenship.com/wscl/ws_SAUDI_ARABIA.html

Kilrain

10-30-2018, 11:49 PM

That would be up to Saudi Arabia to decide if that child would be considered one of their citizens. A person can be the citizen of more than one country. If the child's parents were American Citizens, then the child would be. If Saudi Arabia decided to say the child was one of their citizens, the kid would have both citizenships.

In terms of actual practice, the father would have to be Saudi for the kid to be considered a Saudi citizen.

Yes, of course it would be up to Saudi Arabia to decide which people are citizens. It doesn't change the fact that if you think citizenship should be awarded based on where you popped out of the womb, you have to think it should apply to everyone. But no one actually believes this, it's always a one-way street in these people's minds. They think (or claim to think) of a Mexican born in the US as American, but they also think of an American born in Japan as American. It's not so much a matter of law as of logic.

UWDude

10-31-2018, 12:27 AM

How does that change the reality that swordshyll is arguing against his own stated opinion?

Yeah, the post gave you all those irrelevant feelz. Who cares? You in no way disproved--nor addressed, nor, apparently, even understood--what he said.. So why would anyone care about your unrelated and irrelevant feelz?

Aww, I'm flattered. I wonder what throngs of people are reading the Tulsa riot thread, and picking sides, right this minute.
It only stings if it's true.

UWDude

10-31-2018, 12:49 AM

What is legal is what Trump signs by EO, then gets the new full powered Rubber stamp GOP congress, and then off to the supreme court to shoot the shit with Thomas, Kavenaugh, Gorsuch.

The rest of the arguing on here is conjecture.

Brian4Liberty

10-31-2018, 09:15 AM

It is always problematic to attempt to interpret words and meaning from the past using current definitions and usage. It gets even harder when the people who originally wrote the words intensely debated the meaning such that they came up with a meaning and intent that was very specific to their current situation.

In other words, they created a unique definition specific to their discussion and intent. Modern interpretation is meaningless out of context.

The Key Phrase: ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’

Howard and Trumbull see the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as key in determining the limits of citizenship. In a response to Anton in the Washington Post, Elizabeth Wydra dismisses the importance of this phrase as a fixation of those who “deny the plain meaning of the citizenship clause.”

However, the meaning of this phrase was the central topic of debate precisely because it qualified who was to be considered a citizen in the citizenship clause. It is this phrase that made it clear that Indians were not included because even though they were born on American soil, they were not under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States.

For Sen. Trumbull, “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.” Senator Johnson agreed, stating that he knows “of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

Jurisdiction, says Sen. Howard, “ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States […], that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” In other words, the citizenship clause does not cover those who are not under the United States’ full and complete jurisdiction.

Williams clarifies this point at the end of the debate. “In one sense,” he says, “all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States [they are still expected to obey the laws of the land and be punished for breaking them], but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense [they are still subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government to which they owe allegiance].”

Two-thirds of the senators present for the vote agreed that no further clarification was needed to make sure the amendment excluded Indians. Only those under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States are included in the clause. The fact that this amendment did not authorize birthright citizenship as it exists today is demonstrated further by the fact that Native Americans did not gain U.S. citizenship en masse when this amendment passed, in 1868, but 56 years later, with an act of Congress.

Regardless of whether we should have birthright citizenship today or not, it is clear that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend individuals not subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States to be included as citizens. It is hard to believe that they would have accepted our modern conception of “birthright citizenship,” in which any person, regardless of whether they are in the country legally, and regardless of their parents’ citizenship, can claim U.S. citizenship.

It is clear that individuals within the territory of the United States, under a tourist or student visa, or who have crossed the border illegally, are not under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States, but are still under the jurisdiction, at least in part, of a foreign nation.
...
http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/23/no-fourteenth-amendment-not-authorize-birthright-citizenship/

aGameOfThrones

10-31-2018, 09:59 AM

Anti Federalist

10-31-2018, 10:10 AM

Not just illegals, but non residents. I see no reason that somebody on a tourist visa should be considered able to confer citizenship onto their child born here.

Yes, this...non citizens.

phill4paul

10-31-2018, 10:13 AM

Yes, this...non citizens.

Yup, that would include Russians and Chinese. And anybody else for that matter. Proving that, for me, it isn't about race.

DamianTV

10-31-2018, 11:30 AM

Unbelievable. Lindsey Graham now says he will introduce a bill to end birthright citizenship. :rolleyes:

That douchebag just wants to ride Trumps coattails. If he genuinely gave two fucks about this country, he would have introduced this bill in his last 73 terms in fucking office.

devil21

10-31-2018, 11:57 AM

Interesting! To understand what's going on you have to know the history involved.

The 14th amendment was added during Reconstruction and created the status of "US Citizen", which turned everyone into a "US Citizen", a slave to the government corporations while abolishing private slave ownership under the new 13th Amendment. The original 13th barred lawyers from public office. Eventually, when the UCC was implemented in the 50's, which legislated the process for converting our birth certificates into debt instruments, at roughly the same time the anchor baby policy was enacted. It has been used ever since as an automatic way to create more legal debt slaves for the bankers by creating birth certificates for every anchor baby born here, even to non-US citizens. Anchor baby policy has been one of the biggest ways the bankers have kept the debt issuance game going. The game always needs fresh bodies to securitize! When the Treasury needs to issue more debt, they entice more and more immigrants to come.

Think that's far fetched? Compare the exploding federal budget/deficit to the open border policy of letting in immigrants that pop out 2 or 3 kids quickly. It's all intentional and planned.

Rescinding this anchor baby policy means two things. First, an avenue to judicially change that policy and quite possibly the Constitution itself. Second, if successfully changed it means a big change to how debt is created at the federal level. Anchor babies have been a HUGE part of federal debt funding. The more I see from Trump, the more he reminds me of FDR. Someone put in office to sell MAJOR changes to the established system under various narratives. Some false, some true. But mostly false. Public perception is all that matters.

aGameOfThrones

10-31-2018, 01:30 PM

Judge napolitano agrees with Paul Ryan :rolleyes:

LibertyEagle

10-31-2018, 01:41 PM

Judge napolitano agrees with Paul Ryan :rolleyes:

I wonder if Trump is trying to force the Supreme Court to adjudicate the issue.

aGameOfThrones

10-31-2018, 01:48 PM

I wonder if Trump is trying to force the Supreme Court to adjudicate the issue.

Trump is forcing congress to act and if they don’t....

My thing is; if Puerto Ricans needed an act of congress to become citizens after the island was already “under the jurisdiction thereof” and the citizens on the island had to renounce their spanish citizenship in order to be allowed US citizenship, then why do illegal aliens get a free pass?

Jamesiv1

10-31-2018, 01:55 PM

Immigration is a big issue for Trump. If nothing else he has made it an issue that people are talking about. We'll see on Nov 6 how America feels about it.

shakey1

10-31-2018, 01:59 PM

Interesting! To understand what's going on you have to know the history involved.

The 14th amendment was added during Reconstruction and created the status of "US Citizen", which turned everyone into a "US Citizen", a slave to the government corporations while abolishing private slave ownership under the new 13th Amendment. The original 13th barred lawyers from public office. Eventually, when the UCC was implemented in the 50's, which legislated the process for converting our birth certificates into debt instruments, at roughly the same time the anchor baby policy was enacted. It has been used ever since as an automatic way to create more legal debt slaves for the bankers by creating birth certificates for every anchor baby born here, even to non-US citizens. Anchor baby policy has been one of the biggest ways the bankers have kept the debt issuance game going. The game always needs fresh bodies to securitize! When the Treasury needs to issue more debt, they entice more and more immigrants to come.

Interesting indeed. I remember reading some history on the 13th & 14th amendments. There are some who believe that the 14th was never legally ratified...
http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm

related... the 'missing' 13th amendment...
https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/13th%20Amendment.pdf

devil21

10-31-2018, 03:11 PM

Interesting indeed. I remember reading some history on the 13th & 14th amendments. There are some who believe that the 14th was never legally ratified...
http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm

related... the 'missing' 13th amendment...
https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/13th%20Amendment.pdf

There is definitely merit and evidence to the idea that since the Civil War, no amendments actually needed ratification, since the Constitution from that point forward ceased being the document that formed the Republic and instead became a set of bylaws of a corporation.

Swordsmyth

10-31-2018, 03:12 PM

Judge napolitano agrees with Paul Ryan :rolleyes:
Link?
I'd like to add that to my Judge Swamp thread.

aGameOfThrones

10-31-2018, 04:08 PM

Link?
I'd like to add that to my Judge Swamp thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouu9EsIJ9O8

Swordsmyth

10-31-2018, 04:16 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouu9EsIJ9O8
Thanks.

I owe you rep.

phill4paul

10-31-2018, 06:38 PM

Trump is forcing congress to act and if they don’t....

My thing is; if Puerto Ricans needed an act of congress to become citizens after the island was already “under the jurisdiction thereof” and the citizens on the island had to renounce their spanish citizenship in order to be allowed US citizenship, then why do illegal aliens get a free pass?

That's a good question. Perhaps Puerto Ricans should sue for citizenship. United States vs Puerto Rico.

Swordsmyth

10-31-2018, 06:53 PM

That's a good question. Perhaps Puerto Ricans should sue for citizenship. United States vs Puerto Rico.
They have it already but it took legislation to get it.

Jamesiv1

10-31-2018, 07:13 PM

Listen to the smart lady in green at 38:07. She makes a good point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1jz1Cg7_Uo

Trump played a Halloween trick on Congress getting them (Paul Ryan et al.) to admit that "Fixing immigration is our job not the President's"

So now USAmericans be like, "Ok pud. So fix it."

aGameOfThrones

10-31-2018, 07:19 PM

That's a good question. Perhaps Puerto Ricans should sue for citizenship. United States vs Puerto Rico.

They did sue. I forget the case, but I think it was because someone wanted to go to NY or something like that.

Found it: Gonzales v. Williams

BTW, that case didn't make Puerto Ricans U.S. Citizens, it was only after congress made a statute. We still have American nationals and we give illegal alien babies citizenship :rolleyes:

Anti Federalist

10-31-2018, 07:26 PM

You know what this was?

An Epic Troll.

The more I understand what he's doing, the more the Drunken Monkey approach makes sense.

Fucking hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAWmCuIMET8

Ender

10-31-2018, 07:27 PM

There is definitely merit and evidence to the idea that since the Civil War, no amendments actually needed ratification, since the Constitution from that point forward ceased being the document that formed the Republic and instead became a set of bylaws of a corporation.

Yep- and all "citizens" became slaves.

AuH20

10-31-2018, 07:37 PM

Amazing how things have changed.........

1057683481793302528

spudea

10-31-2018, 07:48 PM

after the 14th amendment, congress had to pass a law to make Indians and their babies citizens, congress had to pass a law to make Puerto Ricans and their babies citizens. So how in the hell did birthright citizenship even come about holy hell.

UWDude

10-31-2018, 08:23 PM

Yep- and all "citizens" became slaves.

Now the neo-confederates start to come out of the woodwork, and we are almost full circle.
States have rights, to own slaves.
Not in America. Not anymore.
That is what I mean about the silly discussion of law.

Corporations have rights to refuse service to anyone.
Corporations are people too.
Wrong. They aren't.
Not in America. Watch.

Brian4Liberty

10-31-2018, 08:51 PM

Audio at link...

Tuesday on his radio program, LevinTV host Mark Levin spoke with Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz about birthright citizenship — and that President Donald Trump is entirely within his rights to interpret and enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Horowitz told Levin that President Trump has the authority to issue an executive order clarifying how the executive branch will interpret the 14th Amendment concerning the citizenship status of children born in the United States to illegal aliens. He said that those who say otherwise, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., are “constitutionally illiterate.”
...
“The reality is that even if we agree to the notion of birthright citizenship … there is no way you could extrapolate that to people who came here without consent. The key words are ‘consent’ and ‘sovereignty.’ Nothing ever supersedes that. Nobody could unilaterally assert jurisdiction and make it that there’s nothing we can do to stop this,” he continued.

At Levin’s request, Horowitz explained how an executive order issued by Trump ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants would not be lawless because the order would be pursuant to law. It is not like Obama’s illegal DACA amnesty, which was an order contrary to law.

“For 130 years there’s an uninterrupted stream of case law, including cases written by the Wong Kim Ark justice, Horace Gray, saying that if you come here without consent and you do not have legal status, it is, in the most literal and physical sense, as if you are standing outside of our boundaries in terms of access to the courts, in terms of rights, in terms of everything,” Horowitz said. This means that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

Horowitz made the point that our modern concept of birthright citizenship came about not as the result of a court decision, not by an act of Congress, but by the executive branch’s lax enforcement of immigration law. Levin pointed out that if birthright citizenship is a bureaucratic creation, as the chief of the bureaucracy, President Trump has the right to correct years of extra-constitutional behavior by the executive branch.

“He’s not changing the Constitution by executive order. He’s not reinterpreting the Constitution by executive order. He’s getting the executive branch under control and saying, ‘This is what the 14th Amendment means,'” Levin said.
...
More: https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-and-horowitz-yes-trump-can-end-birthright-citizenship-for-children-of-illegal-immigrants-with-an-executive-order/

Swordsmyth

10-31-2018, 08:59 PM

Now the neo-confederates start to come out of the woodwork, and we are almost full circle.
States have rights, to own slaves.
Not in America. Not anymore.
That is what I mean about the silly discussion of law.

Corporations have rights to refuse service to anyone.
Corporations are people too.
Wrong. They aren't.
Not in America. Watch.
There is so much wrong with what you said that it isn't worth derailing the thread to respond.

osan

10-31-2018, 09:08 PM

Note to OP: Thread title is FAIL.

Should read: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship for illegals.

Swordsmyth

10-31-2018, 09:15 PM

Note to OP: Thread title is FAIL.

Should read: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship for illegals.
I think the mods should fix it.

UWDude

10-31-2018, 09:15 PM

As part of the fear mongering CBS 2 in NY at 5pm used a selection of experts to trash Trump on it, including a really ethnic looking and sounding Jewish lawyer. The report followed coverage of the synagogue shooting and probably hoping they could subconsciously connect the two in the viewers minds.

They have been doing that for decades. Segway infectors.

osan

10-31-2018, 09:40 PM

Now the neo-confederates start to come out of the woodwork, and we are almost full circle.

Corporations have rights to refuse service to anyone.
Corporations are people too.

Um, no. Corporations are PERSONS. That is actually correct. If you know the etymology of "person", you would know that this is actually proper.

What is a "person"? "Person" derives from "persona" , from the Latin . A "persona" was the MASK worn by theater actors in the days prior to electrical sound amplification/broadcast systems. It consisted of a mask with what amounted to a small megaphone at the mouth for projecting the voice. It came to denote humans, but that is a different sense of the term. The LEGAL sense of "person" WRT corporations is not that they are human beings, but that they are a false face, indicative of their roles as practical legal conveniences such that they are then treated as extant entities for the various purposes that would become very cumbersome were these legal instruments not available to us.

I suppose it is partially understandable that people mistake this arrangement for something that it is not, but at the end of the day there is no excuse for adults to be so ignorant of the truth. This is actually a very important concept and one would think that intelligent and responsible adults of good character would take the time to learn about the truth of it. They don't. Rather, they move forward on their assumptions about what it all means, often using that false understanding as the pretext for all their bitching, moaning, and bellyaching about the Eville™ corporations. It is childish, boring as all hell, even more stupid, and dangerous as well.

I will add that there is no such thing as a bad or Eville™ corporation, but only the people who hide behind the veil of such legal instruments. Therefore, blaming "corporations" becomes trebly dangerous in practical terms because the wrong thing receives the ire of the bile-laden.

The depth of ignorance by the average man of basic and essential items of knowledge is so great as to leave some of us wondering how in hell this nation doesn't collapse in on itself in the manner of a black hole... or at least a neutron star.

UWDude

10-31-2018, 09:43 PM

Um, no. Corporations are PERSONS. That is actually correct. If you know the etymology of "person", you would know that this is actually proper.

What is a "person"? "Person" derives from "persona" , from the Latin . A "persona" was the MASK worn by theater actors in the days prior to electrical sound amplification/broadcast systems. It consisted of a mask with what amounted to a small megaphone at the mouth for projecting the voice. It came to denote humans, but that is a different sense of the term. The LEGAL sense of "person" WRT corporations is not that they are human beings, but that they are a false face, indicative of their roles as practical legal conveniences such that they are then treated as extant entities for the various purposes that would become very cumbersome were these legal instruments not available to us.

I suppose it is partially understandable that people mistake this arrangement for something that it is not, but at the end of the day there is no excuse for adults to be so ignorant of the truth. This is actually a very important concept and one would think that intelligent and responsible adults of good character would take the time to learn about the truth of it. They don't. Rather, they move forward on their assumptions about what it all means, often using that false understanding as the pretext for all their bitching, moaning, and bellyaching about the Eville™ corporations. It is childish, boring as all hell, even more stupid, and dangerous as well.

I will add that there is no such thing as a bad or Eville™ corporation, but only the people who hide behind the veil of such legal instruments. Therefore, blaming "corporations" becomes trebly dangerous in practical terms because the wrong thing receives the ire of the bile-laden.

The depth of ignorance by the average man of basic and essential items of knowledge is so great as to leave some of us wondering how in hell this nation doesn't collapse in on itself in the manner of a black hole... or at least a neutron star.

Yeah, the point of my statement is corporations are persons or whatever they think they are, until the law gets changed.
See, people, peoplehood, cannot be wiped out by a law.
But through law alone, corporations could be made to cease to exist, if one so chose.
Although they may seem a real entity, they are only real, until they aren't. Kind of like almost every treaty ever written.

Mach

11-01-2018, 03:34 AM

Talk about sell outs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvRZdNoHEf8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdL2k8jbnAs

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-01-2018, 07:21 PM

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Wow, you must be a debate master!

NorthCarolinaLiberty

11-01-2018, 07:22 PM

Wow, you really have no idea how any of this works, do you?

Another awesome argument from RPF's debate master!

Anti Globalist

11-01-2018, 07:28 PM

Dems were saying the right thing back then but then their views "evolved".

Swordsmyth

11-01-2018, 07:31 PM

Dems were saying the right thing back then but then their views "evolved".
Their talking points evolved, if they had meant it back then it would already be fixed.

AuH20

11-02-2018, 05:03 PM

1058152079187984385

AuH20

11-02-2018, 07:31 PM

1058417533517217792

TheCount

11-02-2018, 11:12 PM

1058152079187984385

If they wanted something else, then they should have written something else.

Swordsmyth

11-02-2018, 11:15 PM

If they wanted something else, then they should have written something else.
In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/ (http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/)

Danke

11-03-2018, 03:48 AM

Danke

11-03-2018, 03:50 AM

If they wanted something else, then they should have written something else.

Write the Chinese government and inform them their Citizens are no longer under their jurisdiction.

Danke

11-03-2018, 03:52 AM

1058417533517217792

Perfect.

Working Poor

11-03-2018, 05:40 AM

Women should not be able to come to the US on a VISA and have a child and the be child deemed a citizen. My grand parents came to the US to escape Hitler. They still had to apply for asylum and be screened by the government. My mother was born in the USA but was not deemed citizenship until after her mother became a citizen although her father was a citizen. A child is considered to be the race or nationality of the mother.
My son's father was not a citizen of the USA but because I was a citizen my child was born a citizen. In a sense the child is considered to be more related to the mother like it or not. My grandchildren were born in the USA and because their mother applied to enter the USA with a green card under the jurisdiction of the usa and was married to a USA citizen they were deemed citizens. Does that clear anything up?

TheCount

11-03-2018, 07:21 AM

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/ (http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/)

The Attorney General does not issue rulings.

Also, Elk v. Wilkins (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15118083235858813035&q=Elk+v.+Wilkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1) is about the particulars of Indian sovereignty as independent nations:

Under the Constitution of the United States, as originally established, "Indians not taxed" were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives and direct taxes were apportioned among the several States; and Congress had and exercised the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and the members thereof, whether within or without the boundaries of one of the States of the Union. The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States; but they were alien nations, distinct political communities, with whom the United States might and habitually did deal, as they thought fit, either through treaties made by the President and Senate, or through acts of Congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States.

Want to see the examples that he uses? They're going to sound awfully familiar...

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

This ruling says the exact opposite of what you say it does. I suppose that's why you are quoting from what the attorney said rather than quoting what the court said.

TheCount

11-03-2018, 09:24 AM

Write the Chinese government and inform them their Citizens are no longer under their jurisdiction.

I can't find the part of the 14th amendment which says anything about any other country's jurisdiction. Could you point it out to me?

PS: The United States government doesn't get to decide what the Chinese government does or does not consider under their jurisdiction. Nor does it really matter.

TheTexan

11-03-2018, 09:57 AM

Swordsmyth

11-03-2018, 02:17 PM

The Attorney General does not issue rulings.
Yes he does on immigration matters:

Unlike the federal judiciary system, U.S. immigration courts fall under the Department of Justice and the attorney general can intervene.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-6069545/U-S-attorney-general-issues-order-speed-immigrant-deportations.html

Sessions has been issuing more rulings than usual lately.

Also, Elk v. Wilkins (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15118083235858813035&q=Elk+v.+Wilkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1) is about the particulars of Indian sovereignty as independent nations:

Want to see the examples that he uses? They're going to sound awfully familiar...

This ruling says the exact opposite of what you say it does. I suppose that's why you are quoting from what the attorney said rather than quoting what the court said.

Sorry but it means what that illegals can't be citizens:

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which "no person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;" and "the Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, art. 2, sect. 1; art. 1, sect. 8.
By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution slavery was prohibited. 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 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3231372247892780026&q=Elk+v.+Wilkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1)); 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. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12565118578780815007&q=Elk+v.+Wilkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1); Strauder v. West Virginia, 102 U.S. 303, 306 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10979220518323133653&q=Elk+v.+Wilkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1).
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared 102 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15118083235858813035&q=Elk+v.+Wilkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1#p102)*102 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15118083235858813035&q=Elk+v.+Wilkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1#p102) 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 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.

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

This view is confirmed by the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." Slavery having been abolished, and the persons formerly held as slaves made citizens, this clause fixing the apportionment of representatives has abrogated so much of the corresponding clause of the original Constitution as counted only three-fifths of such persons. But Indians not taxed are still excluded from the count, for the reason that they are not citizens. Their absolute exclusion from the basis of representation, in which all other persons are now included, is wholly inconsistent with their being considered citizens.
So the further provision of the second section for a proportionate 103 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15118083235858813035&q=Elk+v.+Wilkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1#p103)*103 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15118083235858813035&q=Elk+v.+Wilkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1#p103) reduction of the basis of the representation of any State in which the right to vote for presidential electors, representatives in Congress, or executive or judicial officers or members of the legislature of a State, is denied, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, to "any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States," cannot apply to a denial of the elective franchise to Indians not taxed, who form no part of the people entitled to representation.

It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev. Stat. § 1992.

Such Indians, then, not being citizens by birth, can only become citizens in the second way mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment, by being "naturalized in the United States," by or under some treaty or statute.
The action of the political departments of the government, not only after the proposal of the Amendment by Congress to the States in June, 1866, but since the proclamation in July, 1868, of its ratification by the requisite number of States, accords with this construction.
While the Amendment was pending before the legislatures of the several States, treaties containing provisions for the naturalization of members of Indian tribes as citizens of the United States were made on July 4, 1866, with the Delawares, in 1867 with various tribes in Kansas, and with the Pottawatomies, and in April, 1868, with the Sioux. 14 Stat. 794, 796; 15 Stat. 513, 532, 533, 637.
The treaty of 1867 with the Kansas Indians strikingly illustrates the principle that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent, and directly contradicts the supposition that a member of an Indian tribe can at will be alternately a citizen of the United States and a member of the tribe.

That treaty not only provided for the naturalization of members 104 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15118083235858813035&q=Elk+v.+Wilkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1#p104)*104 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15118083235858813035&q=Elk+v.+Wilkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1#p104) of the Ottawa, Miami, Peoria, and other tribes, and their families, upon their making declaration, before the District Court of the United States, of their intention to become citizens; 15 Stat. 517, 520, 521; but, after reciting that some of the Wyandotts, who had become citizens under the treaty of 1855, were "unfitted for the responsibilities of citizenship;" and enacting that a register of the whole people of this tribe, resident in Kansas or elsewhere, should be taken, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, showing the names of "all who declare their desire to be and remain Indians and in a tribal condition," and of incompetents and orphans as described in the treaty of 1855, and that such persons, and those only, should thereafter constitute the tribe; it provided that "no one who has heretofore consented to become a citizen, nor the wife or children of any such person, shall be allowed to become members of the tribe, except by the free consent of the tribe after its new organization, and unless the agent shall certify that such party is, through poverty or incapacity, unfit to continue in the exercise of the responsibilities of citizenship of the United States, and likely to become a public charge." 15 Stat. 514, 516.
Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has passed several acts for naturalizing Indians of certain tribes, which would have been superfluous if they were, or might become, without any action of the government, citizens of the United States...

...The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said: "Being born a member of `an independent political community' — the Chinook — he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States — not born in its allegiance." McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawyer, 118, 134 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=3447580777407380768&q=Elk+v.+Wilkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1).

More at: Elk v. Wilkins (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15118083235858813035&q=Elk+v.+Wilkins&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1)

aGameOfThrones

11-03-2018, 06:10 PM

Yes he does on immigration matters:

You thoughts on this one?

Syllabus

The Immigration Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1084, relates to foreigners as respects this country -- to persons owing allegiance to a foreign government; citizens of Porto Rico are not "aliens," and upon arrival by water at the ports of our mainland, are not "alien immigrants" within the intent and meaning of the act.

The facts of this case, which involved the power of the Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of New York to detain a citizen of Porto Rico as an alien immigrant under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1084, are stated in the opinion of the court.

Isabella Gonzales, an unmarried woman, was born and resided in Porto Rico, and was an inhabitant thereof on April 11, 1899, the date of the proclamation of the Treaty of Paris. She arrived at the Port of New York from Porto Rico August 24, 1902, when she was prevented from landing, and detained by the Immigration Commissioner at that port as an "alien immigrant" in order that she might be returned to Porto Rico if it appeared that she was likely to become a public charge.

If she was not an alien immigrant within the intent and meaning of the Act of Congress entitled "An Act in Amendment to the Various Acts Relative to Immigration and the Importation of Aliens under Contract or Agreement to Perform Labor," approved March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1084, c. 551, the commissioner had no power to detain or deport her, and the final order of the circuit court must be reversed.

The act referred to contains these provisions:

"That the following classes of aliens shall be excluded from admission into the United States, in accordance with the

Page 192 U. S. 8

existing acts regulating immigration, other than those concerning Chinese laborers: all idiots, insane persons, paupers, or persons likely to become a public charge."

"SEC. 10. That all aliens who may unlawfully come to the United States shall, if practicable, be immediately sent back on the vessel by which they were brought in. . . ."

"SEC. 11. That any alien who shall come into the United States in violation of law may be returned as by law provided. . . ."

The treaty ceding Porto Rico to the United States was ratified by the Senate February 6, 1899; Congress passed an act to carry out its obligations March 2, 1899, and the ratifications were exchanged and the treaty proclaimed April 11, 1899, 30 Stat. 1754. Then followed the act entitled "An Act Temporarily to Provide Revenues and a Civil government for Porto Rico, and for Other Purposes," approved April 12, 1900. 31 Stat. 77, c. 191. The treaty provided:

Page 192 U. S. 9

"Article II"

"Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones."

"Article IX"

"Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds, and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce, and professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain in the territory, they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall be held to have renounced it, and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside."

"The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress."

By the Constitution of the Spanish monarchy and the Spanish Civil Code, in force in Porto Rico when the treaty was proclaimed, persons born in Spanish territory were declared to be Spaniards, but Porto Ricans who were not natives of the Peninsula, remaining in Porto Rico, could not, according to the terms of the treaty, elect to retain their allegiance to Spain. By the cession, their allegiance became due to the United

Page 192 U. S. 10

states, which was in possession and had assumed the government, and they became entitled to its protection. The nationality of the island became American, instead of Spanish, and, by the treaty, Peninsulars not deciding to preserve their allegiance to Spain were to be "held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside."

By section 7, the inhabitants of Porto Rico who were Spanish subjects on the day the treaty was proclaimed, including Spaniards of the Peninsula who had not elected to preserve their allegiance to the Spanish Crown, were to be deemed citizens of Porto Rico, and they and citizens of the United States residing in Porto Rico were constituted a body politic under the name of The People of Porto Rico. *

Page 192 U. S. 12

Gonzales was a native inhabitant of Porto Rico and a Spanish subject, though not of the Peninsula, when the cession transferred her allegiance to the United States, and she was a citizen of Porto Rico under the act. And there was nothing expressed in the act, nor reasonably to be implied therefrom, to indicate the intention of Congress that citizens of Porto Rico should be considered as aliens and the right of free access denied to them.

Counsel for the government contends that the test of Gonzales' rights was citizenship of the United States, and not alienage. We do not think so, and, on the contrary, are of opinion that, if Gonzales were not an alien within the act of 1891, the order below was erroneous.

Conceding to counsel that the general terms "alien," "citizen," "subject," are not absolutely inclusive or completely comprehensive, and that therefore neither of the numerous definitions of the term "alien" is necessarily controlling, we nevertheless cannot concede, in view of the language of the treaty and of the Act of April 12, 1900, that the word "alien," as used in the act of 1891, embraces the citizens of Porto Rico.

We are not required to discuss the power of Congress in the premises; or the contention of Gonzales' counsel that the cession of Porto Rico accomplished the naturalization of its people, or that of Commissioner Degetau, in his excellent argument as amicus curiae, that a citizen of Porto Rico, under the act of 1900, is necessarily a citizen of the United States. The question is the narrow one whether Gonzales was an alien within the meaning of that term as used in the act of 1891.

Page 192 U. S. 13

The act excludes from admission into the United States, "in accordance with the existing acts regulating immigration other than those concerning Chinese laborers," certain classes of "aliens" or "alien immigrants" arriving at any place within the United States, in respect of all of whom it is required that the commanding officer and agents of the vessel by which they come shall report the name, nationality, last residence, and destination before any are landed.

The decisions of the inspection officers adverse to the right to land are made final unless an appeal is taken to the Superintendent of Immigration, whose action is subject to review by the Secretary of the Treasury, and all aliens who unlawfully come into the United States in violation of law shall be immediately, if practicable, sent back, or may be returned as by law provided.

We think it clear that the act relates to foreigners as respects this country, to persons owing allegiance to a foreign government, and citizens or subjects thereof, and that citizens of Porto Rico, whose permanent allegiance is due to the United States, who live in the peace of the dominion of the United States, the organic law of whose domicil was enacted by the United States and is enforced through officials sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, are not "aliens," and, upon their arrival by water at the ports of our mainland, are not "alien immigrants" within the intent and meaning of the act of 1891.

Indeed, instead of the immigration laws' operating externally and adversely to the citizens of Porto Rico, they were themselves put in force and effect there by section 14 of the Act of April 12, 1900, as the Secretary of the Treasury was advised by the Acting Attorney General July 15, 1902, in respect of the Act "to Regulate Immigration," approved August 3, 1882, 22 Stat. 214, c. 376; 24 Op. 86. The act provided for the collection of

"a duty of fifty cents for each and every passenger, not a citizen of the United States, who shall come by steam or sail vessel from a foreign port to any port within the United

Page 192 U. S. 14

States. . . . The money thus collected shall be paid into the United States Treasury, and shall constitute a fund to be called the immigrant fund, and shall be used, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, to defray the expense of regulating immigration under this act. . . ."

Again, in respect of paragraph 703 of the Tariff Act of July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 203, c. 11, exempting "works of art, the production of American artists residing temporarily abroad," the Department of Justice held that Mr. Molinas, a native of Porto Rico, and an artist, temporarily living in Biarritz, France, and there on April 11, 1899, became, under section 7 of the Act of April 12, 1900, a citizen of Porto Rico, and as such an American artist entitled to the privileges of that paragraph. 24 Op. 40.

The Attorney General, in his communication to the Secretary of the Treasury, among other things, said:

"It will be observed that paragraph 703, above quoted, does not mention citizenship, but uses the phrase 'American artists.' It is clearly not inconceivable

Page 192 U. S. 15

for a man to be an American artist within the meaning of such a statute and yet not a citizen of the United States."

And after commenting on the effect of the temporary absence of Mr. Molinas at the time the treaty was proclaimed, the Attorney General concluded his opinion thus:

"But even in supposing that a native Porto Rican like Mr. Molinas, temporarily absent at the date of the treaty, has been unintentionally omitted from section 7, he is undoubtedly one of those turned over to the United States by Article IX of the treaty to belong to our nationality. He is also clearly a Porto Rican -- that is to say, a permanent inhabitant of that island, which was also turned over by Spain to the United States. As his country became a domestic country, and ceased to be a foreign country within the meaning of the tariff act above referred to, and has now been fully organized as a country of the United States by the Foraker Act, it seems to me that he has become an American notwithstanding such supposed omission."

The Attorney General applied the ruling in De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, that "with the ratification of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain, April 11, 1899, the Island of Porto Rico ceased to be a "foreign country" within the meaning of the tariff laws."

Our conclusion is not affected by the provision in the Sundry Civil Act of August 18, 1894, 28 Stat. 372, 390, c. 301, in relation to the finality of the decisions of the appropriate immigration or custom officers, or the similar provision in the act "to Regulate the Immigration of Aliens into the United States,"

Page 192 U. S. 16

approved March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 1213, c. 1012. The latter act was approved after the Gonzales litigation was moved, but it is worthy of notice that the words "United States," as used in the title and throughout the act, were required to be construed to mean "the United States and any waters, territory, or other place now subject to the jurisdiction thereof." § 33. The definition indicates the view of Congress on the general subject.

Gonzales was not a passenger from a foreign port, and was a passenger "from territory or other place" subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/192/1/

TheCount

11-03-2018, 06:33 PM

Yes he does on immigration matters

Which branch of government is the attorney general in again?

Sorry but it means what that illegals can't be citizens:

Nope. You skipped everything in between. Y'know, the parts about how the Indians were, at one point in time, specifically exempted from US law and the Constitution by certain treaties and Constitutional language despite their nations being considered part of US territory. It's right there in your quote, you just bolded the wrong parts.

Why did this only apply to some Indians, the ones who were not taxed, and not to others? Because those Indians were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, despite being within the United States. It would have differed from tribe to tribe depending on treaty.

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

This view is confirmed by the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." Slavery having been abolished, and the persons formerly held as slaves made citizens, this clause fixing the apportionment of representatives has abrogated so much of the corresponding clause of the original Constitution as counted only three-fifths of such persons. But Indians not taxed are still excluded from the count, for the reason that they are not citizens. Their absolute exclusion from the basis of representation, in which all other persons are now included, is wholly inconsistent with their being considered citizens. So the further provision of the second section for a proportionate reduction of the basis of the representation of any State in which the right to vote for presidential electors, representatives in Congress, or executive or judicial officers or members of the legislature of a State, is denied, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, to "any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States," cannot apply to a denial of the elective franchise to Indians not taxed, who form no part of the people entitled to representation.

Swordsmyth

11-03-2018, 06:35 PM

You thoughts on this one?
PR was put in a weird state of limbo where it was considered American territory but was given its own semi-independent government and not considered to be under the jurisdiction of the United States, its citizens at the time were given a weird status of being domestic Americans but not citizens.
It was a thoroughly intolerable state of affairs.
PR should have been either fully absorbed as a territory or treated as a totally foreign possession.
PR's current status is somewhat better but not very good, it needs to be made a state or made independent but its people cant agree on what to do and we can't afford to add another potentially blue state unless we get rid of several that we already have first.

However the totally foreign countries that our current illegals come from have neither the original nor the current status of PR and their citizens who invade or visit us are completely ineligible to have their children receive birthright citizenship.

Swordsmyth

11-03-2018, 06:50 PM

Which branch of government is the attorney general in again?
It doesn't matter, the law puts him in charge of immigration courts and allows him to make rulings for them and in any case a court accepted the definition.

Nope. You skipped everything in between. Y'know, the parts about how the Indians were, at one point in time, specifically exempted from US law and the Constitution by certain treaties and Constitutional language despite their nations being considered part of US territory. It's right there in your quote, you just bolded the wrong parts.

Why were the Indians not taxed? Because they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, despite being within the United States.
Those parts don't change the principles outlined in the parts I bolded.

Read it slowly:

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.

{Illegals are not completely subject to [American] political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. This part states that that is the definition to be used in relation to the 14thA regardless of any of the issues involved with indians}

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

{And since illegals don't meet the 14thA requirement then children born to them are no more automatically citizens than the children of ambassadors are in spite of the fact that the details involved differ}

It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed."

{Note that the "not subject to any foreign power" comes before the mention of "Indians not taxed", illegals are subjects of a foreign power}

You just can't spin your way out of this, the case did involve other differing elements but it clearly discusses facts and definitions that apply to illegals and make their children ineligible for birthright citizenship.

TheCount

11-03-2018, 06:58 PM

It doesn't matter, the law puts him in charge of immigration courts and allows him to make rulings for them and in any case a court accepted the definition.

He cannot make a ruling for a court. He can submit amicus briefs for consideration by a court... just like anyone else.

Those parts don't change the principles outlined in the parts I bolded.

Yes, they do. Or else they wouldn't be there. Like this part:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Why does that say "born within the domain of that government?" If what you are claiming were true, that phrase would not be there. It would just say "children of subjects of any foreign government."

Swordsmyth

11-03-2018, 07:09 PM

He cannot not make a ruling for a court. He can submit amicus briefs for consideration by a court... just like anyone else.
He can for immigration courts and Sessions has done so recently.

One example:
The Trump administration will stop granting asylum to victims of gang violence and domestic abuse, Attorney General Jeff Sessions (https://thehill.com/people/jeff-sessions) announced Monday.
“Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum,” Sessions wrote in his decision (https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1070866/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery).
“The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes — such as domestic violence or gang violence — or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim,” he continued.

The ruling came hours after Sessions announced (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/391624-sessions-to-tighten-asylum-rules) that he would issue a new interpretation of asylum law.
He told the judges — administrative employees of the Department of Justice, rather than part of the judicial branch — that the asylum system was being “abused to the detriment of the rule of law.”

Sessions's ruling came under the attorney general's review powers over immigration cases.

He came to the decision by overturning a case known as the Matter of A-B-, a Salvadoran woman granted asylum by the Board of Immigration Appeals on the grounds that her husband had abused her and the police had done nothing to stop it.

"In reaching these conclusions, I do not minimize the vile abuse that the respondent reported she suffered at the hands of her ex-husband or the harrowing experiences of many other victims of domestic violence around the world," Sessions said in the decision.

But, Sessions added, quoting an earlier decision, "the ‘asylum statute is not a general hardship statute.’ "

In overturning the A-B- appeal, Sessions also overturned a prior decision that allowed for women fleeing domestic violence without state protection to be considered a "particular social group."

Under asylum law, migrants seeking asylum can claim to be part of a particular social group that is fleeing persecution.

The ruling overturned by Sessions allowed women under those circumstances to qualify for asylum.

More at: https://thehill.com/latino/391684-trump-admin-to-stop-granting-asylum-to-victims-of-gang-violence-domestic-abuse?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=thehill.com&utm_term=68731&utm_content=2250152

Yes, they do. Or else they wouldn't be there. Like this part:

Why does that say "born within the domain of that government?" If what you are claiming were true, that phrase would not be there. It would just say "children of subjects of any foreign government."
It says that because it was another factor involved with the specific case but elsewhere it states the more general principle which you studiously ignore:

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.

{Illegals are not completely subject to [American] political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. This part states that that is the definition to be used in relation to the 14thA regardless of any of the issues involved with indians}

It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed."

{Note that the "not subject to any foreign power" comes before the mention of "Indians not taxed", illegals are subjects of a foreign power}

TheCount

11-03-2018, 08:13 PM

He can for immigration courts and Sessions has done so recently.

One example:
The Trump administration will stop granting asylum to victims of gang violence and domestic abuse, Attorney General Jeff Sessions (https://thehill.com/people/jeff-sessions) announced Monday.
“Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum,” Sessions wrote in his decision (https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1070866/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery).
“The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes — such as domestic violence or gang violence — or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim,” he continued.

That's not a court decision, that is a policy decision.

It says that because it was another factor involved with the specific case but elsewhere it states the more general principle which you studiously ignore:

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.Which Indians were not and did not because they were exempt even while on American soil. They had partial immunity to American laws by treaty, just like diplomats have partial immunity to American laws by treaty. And that's why the judge bothers to explain that in all of the paragraphs surrounding your selective quotes. See, now we're back to those pesky parts of the ruling that you think aren't important.

political jurisdiction

LOL

It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed."

{Note that the "not subject to any foreign power" comes before the mention of "Indians not taxed", illegals are subjects of a foreign power}

I did note that. He quoted just a portion of that sentence. Why doesn't his quote stop after "not subject to any foreign power" if the fact that Indians are not taxed is unimportant? If, at that time, Congress and the judiciary considered Indians to be subject to a foreign power by mere fact of being citizens of a foreign nation (their tribe), then why are they mentioned twice in that law?

Note that when I moved the underline and the italics, the emphasis changed. Huh. Maybe the surrounding context is important.

Side note: If that's what the people wanted the amendment to say and mean, they could have made it say and mean that. They chose something different for the 'subject to any foreign power' part, but then they didn't change the 'Indians not taxed' part. Weird. It's almost as if... and hear me out here, because this is a radical concept... it's almost as if words have meaning, and that's not what the amendment means.

Again, if what you believe is true, why are all those other paragraphs about representation in government and taxes included in the ruling? Why is the judge bothering to explain why Indians specifically are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Why does he say this:

children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
And not this:

children of subjects of any foreign government

Swordsmyth

11-03-2018, 09:01 PM

That's not a court decision, that is a policy decision.

The ruling came hours after Sessions announced (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/391624-sessions-to-tighten-asylum-rules) that he would issue a new interpretation of asylum law.
He told the judges — administrative employees of the Department of Justice, rather than part of the judicial branch — that the asylum system was being “abused to the detriment of the rule of law.”

Sessions's ruling came under the attorney general's review powers over immigration cases.
You are totally wrong and yet it doesn't even matter because we have a court case that accepted the definition.

Which Indians were not and did not because they were exempt even while on American soil. They had partial immunity to American laws by treaty, just like diplomats have partial immunity to American laws by treaty. And that's why the judge bothers to explain that in all of the paragraphs surrounding your selective quotes. See, now we're back to those pesky parts of the ruling that you think aren't important.
He went into details that applied to Indians because that case dealt with an Indian but that doesn't change the general principle that is laid out here:

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.
Illegals do not owe direct or immediate allegiance to the US.

LOL

LOL?
That is what it says in the quote:

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.

It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed."

I did note that. He quoted just a portion of that sentence. Why doesn't his quote stop after "not subject to any foreign power" if the fact that Indians are not taxed is unimportant? If, at that time, Congress and the judiciary considered Indians to be subject to a foreign power by mere fact of being citizens of a foreign nation (their tribe), then why are they mentioned twice in that law?
Probably because Indian tribes were not regular European style "foreign powers" and were not treated as such, in any case it doesn't matter why superfluous language was used, the only people that get birthright citizenship are people who aren't subject to a foreign power, no amount of spin can change that to mean that any class of people subject to any manner of foreign power are eligible.

Note that when I moved the underline and the italics, the emphasis changed. Huh. Maybe the surrounding context is important.
The emphasis didn't change nor did it alter the meaning in the slightest, the context can't make anyone who is subject to a foreign power qualify.

Side note: If that's what the people wanted the amendment to say and mean, they could have made it say and mean that. They chose something different for the 'subject to any foreign power' part, but then they didn't change the 'Indians not taxed' part. Weird. It's almost as if... and hear me out here, because this is a radical concept... it's almost as if words have meaning, and that's not what the amendment means.
That might work except they said what they meant and they meant that those subject to a foreign power weren't part of those under the jurisdiction of the United States:

The Key Phrase: ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’

Howard and Trumbull see the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as key in determining the limits of citizenship. In a response to Anton in the Washington Post, Elizabeth Wydra dismisses the importance of this phrase as a fixation of those who “deny the plain meaning of the citizenship clause.”

However, the meaning of this phrase was the central topic of debate precisely because it qualified who was to be considered a citizen in the citizenship clause. It is this phrase that made it clear that Indians were not included because even though they were born on American soil, they were not under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States.

For Sen. Trumbull, “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.” Senator Johnson agreed, stating that he knows “of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

Jurisdiction, says Sen. Howard, “ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States […], that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” In other words, the citizenship clause does not cover those who are not under the United States’ full and complete jurisdiction.

Williams clarifies this point at the end of the debate. “In one sense,” he says, “all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States [they are still expected to obey the laws of the land and be punished for breaking them], but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense [they are still subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government to which they owe allegiance].”

Two-thirds of the senators present for the vote agreed that no further clarification was needed to make sure the amendment excluded Indians. Only those under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States are included in the clause. The fact that this amendment did not authorize birthright citizenship as it exists today is demonstrated further by the fact that Native Americans did not gain U.S. citizenship en masse when this amendment passed, in 1868, but 56 years later, with an act of Congress.

Regardless of whether we should have birthright citizenship today or not, it is clear that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend individuals not subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States to be included as citizens. It is hard to believe that they would have accepted our modern conception of “birthright citizenship,” in which any person, regardless of whether they are in the country legally, and regardless of their parents’ citizenship, can claim U.S. citizenship.

It is clear that individuals within the territory of the United States, under a tourist or student visa, or who have crossed the border illegally, are not under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States, but are still under the jurisdiction, at least in part, of a foreign nation.
...
http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/23/...t-citizenship/ (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/23/no-fourteenth-amendment-not-authorize-birthright-citizenship/)

And the court reminds us of that in its ruling:

It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev. Stat. § 1992.

Again, if what you believe is true, why are all those other paragraphs about representation in government and taxes included in the ruling? Why is the judge bothering to explain why Indians specifically are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Why does he say this:

And not this:
Because the case was about an Indian, but the general principles were discussed and they apply to everyone.

And now let us look at United States v. Wong Kim Ark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark)

The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4])

The Wong Kim Ark case is in conflict with the original intent of the 14thA as expressed by those who drafted it and unless overruled would allow legal visitors and dual citizens to qualify but even it would allow illegals to be excluded because illegals are hostile invaders who are occupying our territory.
(It should be overruled)

Remember that until the 1960's nobody claimed illegals were covered by the 14thA.

TheCount

11-03-2018, 09:59 PM

You are totally wrong and yet it doesn't even matter because we have a court case that accepted the definition.

It did? Where in the court ruling did the judge quote the attorney general's opinion? Can you point it out to me?

He went into details that applied to Indians because that case dealt with an Indian but that doesn't change the general principle

Then why did he mention it? Did he have some kind of infatuation with Indian facts? Is there a reason why he chose those particular, unimportant facts and not others? Why didn't he include a couple of paragraphs on how to make pemmican instead?

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.

Oops, you bolded the wrong part again. Here, let me help:

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.

As in, if they were not subject to some laws, like say... taxes, hypothetically, then that wouldn't count. Y'know what, I'll let the judge lay it out for you:

Indians and their property, exempt from taxation by treaty or statute of the United States, could not be taxed by any State. General acts of Congress did not apply to Indians, unless so expressed as to clearly manifest an intention to include them.

Illegals do not owe direct or immediate allegiance to the US.

Cool story, bro. Who is being born, the parents or their child?

LOL?
That is what it says in the quote:

Yep, it sure does. Don't worry, you'll figure it out eventually... or not.

Probably because Indian tribes were not regular European style "foreign powers" and were not treated as such

You don't have to "probably" anything, he explicitly explains it in the ruling.

the only people that get birthright citizenship are people who aren't subject to a foreign power, no amount of spin can change that to mean that any class of people subject to any manner of foreign power are eligible.

The emphasis didn't change nor did it alter the meaning in the slightest, the context can't make anyone who is subject to a foreign power qualify.

That might work except they said what they meant and they meant that those subject to a foreign power weren't part of those under the jurisdiction of the United States:

And the court reminds us of that in its ruling:

Cool stories bro #s 2, 3, and 4

Also:

It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev. Stat. § 1992.

Because the case was about an Indian, but the general principles were discussed and they apply to everyone.

They apply to everyone who is granted exemption to American jurisdiction like the Indians, yes.

UWDude

11-03-2018, 10:12 PM

TheCount vs Swordsmyth was almost entertaining a few days ago, when they resorted to "nut uh" and "uh huh", but that was pretty stale. I thought it could not get any more stale.

But this is a cookie left out on the back porch stale.

Funny isn't it, as the elections approach, and emotions inflame, the instinct is to do what you have always been doing, but do it more?

Ha ha ha.

Not gonna change the outcome.

Red Tsunami.

Swordsmyth

11-03-2018, 10:17 PM

It did? Where in the court ruling did the judge quote the attorney general's opinion? Can you point it out to me?
I have been doing just that in this thread.

Then why did he mention it? Did he have some kind of infatuation with Indian facts? Is there a reason why he chose those particular, unimportant facts and not others? Why didn't he include a couple of paragraphs on how to make pemmican instead?
Because courts and lawyers like to go into every detail that applies to a case and the details about Indians applied in a case about an Indian.

Oops, you bolded the wrong part again. Here, let me help:
No, you are bolding the wrong part.

As in, if they were not subject to some laws, like say... taxes, hypothetically, then that wouldn't count. Y'know what, I'll let the judge lay it out for you:
That part applied because the case was about an Indian but illegals don't qualify because they don't owe direct and immediate allegiance to the US:

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.

Cool story, bro. Who is being born, the parents or their child?
It is the status of the parents that determines the eligibility of the child.

Yep, it sure does. Don't worry, you'll figure it out eventually... or not.:rolleyes:

You don't have to "probably" anything, he explicitly explains it in the ruling.
No, he doesn't.

Cool stories bro #s 2, 3, and 4:rolleyes:

Also:

They apply to everyone who is granted exemption to American jurisdiction like the Indians, yes.
They apply to everyone who doesn't meet the requirements for ANY reason, you must meet ALL the requirements.

Your arguments get more pathetic the longer this thread gets.

Swordsmyth

11-03-2018, 10:20 PM

UWDude

11-03-2018, 10:22 PM

The count is very stale, denying reality is always stale.

Relax, winning an argument against The Count isn't going to change reality.
You can do that in other ways.

UWDude

11-03-2018, 10:25 PM

The count is very stale, denying reality is always stale.

I mean, I'll be real, I have read three more very good new stories coming out of Korea.... ..that I am supposed to rub his face in, but I'm getting so tired of this puppy.

Why waste my time on it?

I have better things to do, than to rub his puppy face in the Joint Korea hosting the Summer Olympics, and the closing of more guard stations on the border.

Swordsmyth

11-03-2018, 10:25 PM

Relax, winning an argument against The Count isn't going to change reality.
You can do that in other ways.
I know.
I just can't stand liars.

osan

11-04-2018, 07:47 AM

Talk about sell outs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvRZdNoHEf8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdL2k8jbnAs

Their noses should be rubbed in these snippets as often as possible so as to keep them off-balance. Make them address these gender-fluid positions on such issues, and make them do it PUBLICLY. Not just once, but every time they are in front of an audience. Hammer and harangue them until they can no longer stand it. Do it politely, but relentlessly and keep them on the spot.

That is one of the techniques that needs to be employed. We should have started this years ago, but that's water under the bridge. From this point on, the idiocy, hypocrisy, blind ignorance, and criminality of these people should be latched on to and never let go, making their "work" lives all the more difficult, if not impossible. Keep asking the questions that point out the inconsistencies and self-contradictions of their spew.

My plugged kopek's worth.

osan

11-04-2018, 07:48 AM

The count is very stale, denying reality is always stale.

I noted just a few minutes ago the profound alteration made by the removal of but a single letter from TheCount's moniker.

I will leave it as an exercise for y'all to dope out which one to drop.

ARF ARF ARF...

Danke

11-04-2018, 07:50 AM

I noted just a few minutes ago the profound alteration made by the removal of but a single letter from TheCount's moniker.

I will leave it as an exercise for y'all to dope out which one to drop.

ARF ARF ARF...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAAJXxudqLQ

TheCount

11-04-2018, 08:28 AM

I have been doing just that in this thread. Nowhere in the ruling does he cite the attorney general's opinion that you quoted.

It is the status of the parents that determines the eligibility of the child.

How? The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about parents.

Danke

11-04-2018, 08:47 AM

How? The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about parents.

Circular Reasoning.

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
They are subject to the jurisdiction thereof just by being born here? But not until they are actually birthed here. Or does it have something to do with who brought them into this world? So they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof in mom's belly while she is here?

timosman

11-04-2018, 09:03 AM

devil21

11-04-2018, 01:58 PM

Circular Reasoning.

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
They are subject to the jurisdiction thereof just by being born here?

No, it means if they're born in a hospital here and a birth certificate is issued in "their" name by that state. That BC and the name on it eventually becomes what the government has jurisdiction over, along with the SS# that identifies the name as "US Citizen". In the current commercial legal system, jurisdiction has nothing to do with the physical body, except by consent. It is jurisdiction over the "name" legal fiction that the physical body identifies as throughout the course of its life.

But not until they are actually birthed here. Or does it have something to do with who brought them into this world? So they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof in mom's belly while she is here?

Again, it's not about jurisdiction over the physical body. It means jurisdiction over the legal fiction "name".

Swordsmyth

11-04-2018, 05:41 PM

Nowhere in the ruling does he cite the attorney general's opinion that you quoted.
It just uses the same definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

How? The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about parents.
It is part of the known intent and standard interpretation, if the status of the parents wasn't the issue then children born to ambassadors or invaders would be citizens and so would the children of "Indians not taxed".

AGAIN:

The Key Phrase: ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’

Howard and Trumbull see the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as key in determining the limits of citizenship. In a response to Anton in the Washington Post, Elizabeth Wydra dismisses the importance of this phrase as a fixation of those who “deny the plain meaning of the citizenship clause.”

However, the meaning of this phrase was the central topic of debate precisely because it qualified who was to be considered a citizen in the citizenship clause. It is this phrase that made it clear that Indians were not included because even though they were born on American soil, they were not under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States.

For Sen. Trumbull, “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.” Senator Johnson agreed, stating that he knows “of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

Jurisdiction, says Sen. Howard, “ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States […], that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” In other words, the citizenship clause does not cover those who are not under the United States’ full and complete jurisdiction.

Williams clarifies this point at the end of the debate. “In one sense,” he says, “all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States [they are still expected to obey the laws of the land and be punished for breaking them], but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense [they are still subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government to which they owe allegiance].”

Two-thirds of the senators present for the vote agreed that no further clarification was needed to make sure the amendment excluded Indians. Only those under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States are included in the clause. The fact that this amendment did not authorize birthright citizenship as it exists today is demonstrated further by the fact that Native Americans did not gain U.S. citizenship en masse when this amendment passed, in 1868, but 56 years later, with an act of Congress.

Regardless of whether we should have birthright citizenship today or not, it is clear that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend individuals not subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States to be included as citizens. It is hard to believe that they would have accepted our modern conception of “birthright citizenship,” in which any person, regardless of whether they are in the country legally, and regardless of their parents’ citizenship, can claim U.S. citizenship.

It is clear that individuals within the territory of the United States, under a tourist or student visa, or who have crossed the border illegally, are not under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States, but are still under the jurisdiction, at least in part, of a foreign nation.
...
http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/23/...t-citizenship/ (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/23/no-fourteenth-amendment-not-authorize-birthright-citizenship/)

TheCount

11-04-2018, 07:35 PM

AGAIN:

For Sen. Trumbull, “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.” Senator Johnson agreed, stating that he knows “of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

Jurisdiction, says Sen. Howard, “ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States […], that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” In other words, the citizenship clause does not cover those who are not under the United States’ full and complete jurisdiction.

Williams clarifies this point at the end of the debate. “In one sense,” he says, “all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States [they are still expected to obey the laws of the land and be punished for breaking them], but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense [they are still subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government to which they owe allegiance].”Your source doesn't cite any of these quotes because:

They're talking about Indians in every case.
Other senators disagreed with them during the debate.
The debate immediately before this debate was about children of foreigners, and yet the person that you're quoting ignores that part to instead quote the part about Indians. Let's find out why, shall we?

Here, have some context:

Sen. Trumball: "Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in any just sense? They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.

Sen. Johnson: "The honorable member from Illinois... supposes and states very positively that the Indians are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. With due deference to my friend from Illinois, I think he is in error. They are within the territorial limits of the United States.

...

"when, therefore, the courts come to consider the meaning of this provision, that all persons born within the limits of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens, and are called upon to decide whether Indians born within the United States, with whom we are now making treaties are citizens, I think that they will decide that they have become citizens by virtue of this amendment."

Sen. Hendricks: "If the Indian is bound to obey the law he is subject to the jurisdiction of the country;"

Sen. Doolittle: "The immediate question is whether the language which he uses, "all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," includes these Indians. I maintain that it does;"

All those quotes, by the way, are from a debate about adding "Indians not taxed" to section 1 of the 14th amendment in order to prevent the amendment from applying to Indians. It did not pass.

Now, for the part about children of foreigners... you know, the debate that was only one single page away in the Congressional record...

Sen. Conness: "The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.

...

"I beg my honorable friend from Pennsylvania to give himself no further trouble on account of the Chinese in California or on the Pacific coast. We are fully aware of the nature of that class of people and their influence among us, and feel entirely able to take care of them and to provide against any evils that may flow from their presence among us. We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."

No one disagreed.