Birthright citizenship

[thoughtomator]

I'm not for birthright citizenship.

But that's not a good analogy, since illegal immigration is not a crime.

It is a crime whether you like it or not. Not only is it the law, but it's a legitimate law pursuant to the Constitution (unlike say, federal drug laws, which violate the Eighth through Tenth Amendments, or the income tax amendment which was not properly ratified).

The Constitution delegates very few, enumerated powers to Congress - and immigration laws are at the top of the list.

[Brian4Liberty]

Edit: In the past it had occurred to me that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably a new U.S. replacement for "subject of the crown". The law professor in the video confirms that.

Language changes over time, and it must be interpreted in it's proper context, including the current definitions of the time.

[jj-]

Edit: In the past it had occurred to me that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably a new U.S. replacement for "subject of the crown". The law professor in the video confirms that.

Language changes over time, and it must be interpreted in it's proper context, including the current definitions of the time.

It is an open and shut case that anchor babies aren't citizens. Children of ambassadors aren't citizens even if born in the U.S. The 14th Amendment makes no distinction between illegals and ambassadors, therefore children of illegals aren't citizens either.

[Brian4Liberty]

It is an open and shut case that anchor babies aren't citizens. Children of ambassadors aren't citizens even if born in the U.S. The 14th Amendment makes no distinction between illegals and ambassadors, therefore children of illegals aren't citizens either.

Another case of activist courts and bureaucrats changing the intent and meaning of the law.

[jj-]

Another case of activist courts and bureaucrats changing the intent and meaning of the law.

If there is a court case, I think SCOTUS might rule correctly. They would have to do extraordinary legal gymnastics to do otherwise, although they have done that with Obamacare.

[William R]

One huge scam pulled over on the American people.

[TommyJeff]

are children born in U.S. territorial waters U.S. citizens?

If their parents are citizens, of course.

[erowe1]

It is an open and shut case that anchor babies aren't citizens.

No it isn't. It may be an open and shut case that the 14th Amendment doesn't require that they be citizens. But, according to the law, as it now is, they are citizens.

[Brian4Liberty]

Establishment shill Carly Fiorina would never get rid of birthright citizenship...

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[klamath]

Anybody that supports the idea that natural born does not apply to illegal parents they better damned well hope their ancestors were all legal because if they weren't you have an appointment with a border petrol agent because your whole Fing lineage is illegal and you need to get the hell out of the country.

[erowe1]

It is a crime whether you like it or not. Not only is it the law, but it's a legitimate law pursuant to the Constitution (unlike say, federal drug laws, which violate the Eighth through Tenth Amendments, or the income tax amendment which was not properly ratified).

The Constitution delegates very few, enumerated powers to Congress - and immigration laws are at the top of the list.

Actually no, the Constitution doesn't mention immigration laws. But more importantly, morality trumps the constitution. An unjust law is no law at all, and making it constitutional doesn't change that. Human beings don't have the power to make up laws, we can only discover the moral laws that already exist.

[puppetmaster]

Anybody that supports the idea that natural born does not apply to illegal parents they better damned well hope their ancestors were all legal because if they weren't you have an appointment with a border petrol agent because your whole Fing lineage is illegal and you need to get the hell out of the country.

....yeah...ok.

[Sonny Tufts]

or the income tax amendment which was not properly ratified).

Doesn't matter. The power to impose an income tax comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.

[TommyJeff]

This video says it all. Well worth the 20 min. Specifically listen to the question and answer just after the 11min mark about Senator Howard.

[TommyJeff]

SENATOR CONESS (in senate session regarding what became the 14th amendment) ... i.e.: the senators knew it bestowed birthright citizenship

it offers birthright citizenship to those in the nation's jurisdiction. That's an important point to remember.


Senator Howard (said to be the author of the 14th Amendment,

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[thoughtomator]

Actually no, the Constitution doesn't mention immigration laws. But more importantly, morality trumps the constitution. An unjust law is no law at all, and making it constitutional doesn't change that. Human beings don't have the power to make up laws, we can only discover the moral laws that already exist.

Given that you have advocated the welcome of illegals on the basis of being able to steal their Social Security taxes, you are in absolutely no position to lecture anyone on morality.

[erowe1]

Given that you have advocated the welcome of illegals on the basis of being able to steal their Social Security taxes, you are in absolutely no position to lecture anyone on morality.

I have never advocated anything like that. You're as bad as the Trump trolls.

I wasn't lecturing anyone, I was making a statement of fact. It is incontrovertible that, in order to have enforceable immigration laws that don't effectively entail open borders, the government must engage in immoral activities. Even if these things were constitutional, they would still be immoral, and thus invalid as laws.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[TommyJeff]

Yes it is. And as you quote from Senator Cowan, a foreigner in the US is under the protection and jurisdiction of those laws.

Thats because you're using he wrong definition of jurisdiction. Though modern day doesn't use this definition, at the time of the amendment, Wiki says, "The word "jurisdiction" is also used, especially in informal writing, to refer to a state or political subdivision generally, or to its government, rather than to its legal authority."

Their use, meaning and intent of the term is further explained here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2139082/posts
(Senator Howard & Trumbull are two framers of the 14th amendment.)

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.

Senator Trumbull: The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Senator Howard: [I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

[TaftFan]

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

according to the law, as it now is, they are citizens.

This is false. The statutory law just repeats the language of the 14th. They are citizens only "according to" bureaucratic practices. Please refrain from posting false information.

[OReich]

Many legal scholars believe that changing the policy would require changing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, on which birthright citizenship is based. But “many” legal scholars is not the same thing as “all.”

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment begins this way: “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 key phrase here is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” say some experts.

Illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction, in the sense that they cannot be drafted into the US military or tried for treason against the US, said John Eastman, a professor at the Chapman University School of Law, in a media conference call Monday. Their children would share that status, via citizenship in their parents’ nation or nations of birth – and so would not be eligible for a US passport, even if born on US soil, according to Dr. Eastman.

Furthermore, federal courts have upheld the right of Congress to regulate naturalization policies over and above the basic constitutional guarantee, according to Eastman. Taken together, he says, all this means lawmakers, if they choose, could deny birthright citizenship to the children of parents here illegally.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...e-Constitution

If you guys don't think illegal immigrants are under our jurisdiction, then are you saying a US court can't prosecute an illegal immigrant for murder? Are you saying a Texas court cannot exercise jurisdiction and handle a case in which an illegal immigrant commits a crime? Obviously that would be absurd

Anyone physically within the borders of the US is within the jurisdiction. Jurisdiction literally means the land in which a state's law applies. Saying that a court has no jurisdiction over illegal immigrants is the equivalent of saying our laws don't apply to illegal immigrants. So how are they here illegally? They're here in violation of our laws precisely because our laws apply to them when they're in our land.

Jurisdiction doesn't just mean the ability to draft someone to the military, it refers to legal sovereignty. Courts have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants within our borders, such persons are within US jurisdiction, hence our courts prosecute and enforce our laws against them. Furthermore, a person born here to illegal parents, by virtue of being a US citizen, CAN be drafted. Even if illegal immigrants were not part of US jurisdiction (which is a contradiction, since that would mean our laws don't apply to them, and thus they won't be violating our laws by being here), their children born here are under our jurisdiction.

The ppl bringing up freed slaves here misunderstand the entire purpose of writing a law. You don't write a law to deal with one scenario. If they wanted it to apply to freed slaves, they would have said freed slaves. They did not. They wrote a rule that included freed slaves. Its true that anchor babies are a crappy loophole the drafters probably did not foresee, but the rule they wrote is the rule they wrote. The constitution means exactly what it says, that anyone born here, under our jurisdiction (our territories or military bases), is a citizen.

[William R]

If you guys don't think illegal immigrants are under our jurisdiction, then are you saying a US court can't prosecute an illegal immigrant for murder? Are you saying a Texas court cannot exercise jurisdiction and handle a case in which an illegal immigrant commits a crime? Obviously that would be absurd

Anyone physically within the borders of the US is within the jurisdiction. Jurisdiction literally means the land in which a state's law applies. Saying that a court has no jurisdiction over illegal immigrants is the equivalent of saying our laws don't apply to illegal immigrants. So how are they here illegally? They're here in violation of our laws precisely because our laws apply to them when they're in our land.

Jurisdiction doesn't just mean the ability to draft someone to the military, it refers to legal sovereignty. Courts have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants within our borders, such persons are within US jurisdiction, hence our courts prosecute and enforce our laws against them. Furthermore, a person born here to illegal parents, by virtue of being a US citizen, CAN be drafted. Even if illegal immigrants were not part of US jurisdiction (which is a contradiction, since that would mean our laws don't apply to them, and thus they won't be violating our laws by being here), their children born here are under our jurisdiction.

The ppl bringing up freed slaves here misunderstand the entire purpose of writing a law. You don't write a law to deal with one scenario. If they wanted it to apply to freed slaves, they would have said freed slaves. They did not. They wrote a rule that included freed slaves. Its true that anchor babies are a crappy loophole the drafters probably did not foresee, but the rule they wrote is the rule they wrote. The constitution means exactly what it says, that anyone born here, under our jurisdiction (our territories or military bases), is a citizen.

Think of it this way. When a British tourist visits the United States, he subjects himself to our laws as long as he remains within our borders. He must drive on the right side of the road, for example. He is subject to our partial, territorial jurisdiction, but he does not thereby subject himself to our complete, political jurisdiction. He does not get to vote, or serve on a jury; he cannot be drafted into our armed forces; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason if he takes up arms against us, because he owes us no allegiance. He is merely a “temporary sojourner,” to use the language employed by those who wrote the 14th Amendment, and not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the full and complete sense intended by that language in the 14th Amendment.


The same is true for those who are in this country illegally. They are subject to our laws by their presence within our borders, but they are not subject to the more complete jurisdiction envisioned by the 14th Amendment as a precondition for automatic citizenship. It is just silliness to contend, as the Journal does, that this is “circular restrictionist logic” that would prevent illegal immigrants from being “prosecuted for committing crimes because they are not U.S. citizens.”

John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former dean at Chapman University School of Law. He also serves as the director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...14th-amendment

[OReich]

Think of it this way. When a British tourist visits the United States, he subjects himself to our laws as long as he remains within our borders. He must drive on the right side of the road, for example. He is subject to our partial, territorial jurisdiction, but he does not thereby subject himself to our complete, political jurisdiction. He does not get to vote, or serve on a jury; he cannot be drafted into our armed forces; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason if he takes up arms against us, because he owes us no allegiance. He is merely a “temporary sojourner,” to use the language employed by those who wrote the 14th Amendment, and not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the full and complete sense intended by that language in the 14th Amendment.


The same is true for those who are in this country illegally. They are subject to our laws by their presence within our borders, but they are not subject to the more complete jurisdiction envisioned by the 14th Amendment as a precondition for automatic citizenship. It is just silliness to contend, as the Journal does, that this is “circular restrictionist logic” that would prevent illegal immigrants from being “prosecuted for committing crimes because they are not U.S. citizens.”

John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former dean at Chapman University School of Law. He also serves as the director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...14th-amendment

Jurisdiction does not mean the ability to draft a person into an army, it does not refer to the ability to prosecute someone for the specific crime of treason, and it does not refer to allegiance. Jurisdiction is the power of the state (and specifically a court as the state's arm) to exercise its laws over a person. Your concept of "the full and complete sense [of jurisdiction] intended by that language in the 14th Amendment" is made up. And you're not answering my question because of this. Can a US court exercise jurisdiction over an illegal immigrant and therefore deport them?

Your answer will prob be "Yes, they have jurisdiction, but not 'full and complete' jurisdiction." This is a totally made up concept that has no relation whatsoever to jurisdiction. I studied federal civil procedure in law school, we spent an ungodly amount of time on jurisdiction, reading cases from before the 14th amendment's passage, demonstrating what the words meant at the time the 14th amendment was drafted. For a court to handle a case, they need each of the following: jurisdiction over each of the persons over which the laws will be enforced, they need jurisdiction over the territory in which it happened, and the court needs the statutory or constitutional authorization to enforce the specific laws which are at issue. That's it. That's what jurisdiction means. An illegal immigrant in the US is under our jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that they are in the US. By being present in Polk County, FL, one is under the jurisdiction of Polk County courts, whether they're a citizen of a foreign nation or not.

The argument against birthright citizenship is a great, persuasive policy argument, its NOT a legal argument.

[William R]

Jurisdiction does not mean the ability to draft a person into an army, it does not refer to the ability to prosecute someone for the specific crime of treason, and it does not refer to allegiance. Jurisdiction is the power of the state (and specifically a court as the state's arm) to exercise its laws over a person. Your concept of "the full and complete sense [of jurisdiction] intended by that language in the 14th Amendment" is made up. And you're not answering my question because of this. Can a US court exercise jurisdiction over an illegal immigrant and therefore deport them?

Your answer will prob be "Yes, they have jurisdiction, but not 'full and complete' jurisdiction." This is a totally made up concept that has no relation whatsoever to jurisdiction. I studied federal civil procedure in law school, we spent an ungodly amount of time on jurisdiction, reading cases from before the 14th amendment's passage, demonstrating what the words meant at the time the 14th amendment was drafted. For a court to handle a case, they need each of the following: jurisdiction over each of the persons over which the laws will be enforced, they need jurisdiction over the territory in which it happened, and the court needs the statutory or constitutional authorization to enforce the specific laws which are at issue. That's it. That's what jurisdiction means. An illegal immigrant in the US is under our jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that they are in the US. By being present in Polk County, FL, one is under the jurisdiction of Polk County courts, whether they're a citizen of a foreign nation or not.

The argument against birthright citizenship is a great, persuasive policy argument, its NOT a legal argument.

Yes it is a legal argument


The record of the debate in 1866 is illuminating. When Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.” (Emphasis added.) Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its “jurisdiction” in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted into the armed forces of the United States, or prosecuted for treason if they take up arms against it.

Senator Howard agreed with Trumbull’s explanation, saying:I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part 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.


http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/0...t-citizenship/

[OReich]

Yes it is a legal argument


The record of the debate in 1866 is illuminating. When Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.” (Emphasis added.) Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its “jurisdiction” in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted into the armed forces of the United States, or prosecuted for treason if they take up arms against it.

Senator Howard agreed with Trumbull’s explanation, saying:I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part 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.


http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/0...t-citizenship/

They were talking about Indians, which were under their own jurisdiction. I'm trying to find the actual transcript (the big ole PDF's), because I've already read on several sites that this was regarding the Indians. You're taking dialogue from an overall discussion about the status of Indians under the proposed 14th amendment, and taking it out of context, and then using this out-of-context dialogue to say that the 14th amendment's plain, unambiguous language has been taken out of context.

[OReich]

Yes it is a legal argument


The record of the debate in 1866 is illuminating. When Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.” (Emphasis added.) Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its “jurisdiction” in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted into the armed forces of the United States, or prosecuted for treason if they take up arms against it.

Senator Howard agreed with Trumbull’s explanation, saying:I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part 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.


http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/0...t-citizenship/

Alright, I'll concede to a huge part of your argument, which is that those senators quoted did not intend for foreigners to be considered under our jurisdiction, and you've got me 90% of the way to saying there is no birthright citizenship to those born to foreign parents. My one issue is that the 14th amendment still says "jurisdiction," and so those senators could still be wrong. This isn't some weird argument, you can find lawmakers on the record with disagreement about what a bill means, and then they all vote to pass it, making legislative intent ambiguous. Seriously though, you've got me 90% of the way there. But I can't stand the idea that the constitution means anything other than its plain, unambiguous meaning. Their use of the word jurisdiction ("full and complete") still looks like it could be only THEIR understanding of it, because its not in the 14th amendment.

Also, I'm not interpreting "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to be meaningless, it has a plain, obvious, and useful meaning that makes it absolutely essential to the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was passed to deal with what many saw as the failure of the 13th amendment. Ppl thought that banning slavery in the 13th would leave us with a classless, equal society, and then when Jim Crow laws popped up, they sued in court under the 13th amendment, saying that political discrimination was effectively slavery under a new name. The courts rejected this, so the 14th amendment was drafted, and the language of the 14th is all-encompassing, redundant and overlapping, to make sure its its 'invincible' in a courtroom, and that no one could get around it to justify discrimination. Hence the privileges and immunities clause was written to limit the legislature's power, the due process clause was written to limit the judiciary's power, and the equal protection clause was written to limit the executive's power; but each of the clauses are open-ended and overlapping in their language. They wanted each of those three clauses to be effective against all branches, they wanted to cover all their bases. Everything in the 14th amendment is overkill to make sure no discriminatory laws could possibly survive a challenge. Hence, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to encompass our diplomats in foreign nations, and members of the armed services not currently in the US. It also, conversely, keeps out diplomats and soldiers of foreign nations currently in the US, since they're NOT under our jurisdiction by the exact same logic.

So when I look at "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," it has a plain, obvious, logical purpose. I'd like to see if ppl other than those senators actually used the word "jurisdiction" in the way they describe it, where jurisdiction was considered "limited" and "partial" as to foreign nationals. That implies that a US court has limited jurisdiction over a foreigner simply due to treaties with other countries, but this is absurd. We had partial jurisdiction as to Indians and diplomats/soldiers, that as it. Our country had 100% jurisdiction over anyone walking on our land, with the exception of special rules for Indians/diplomats/soldiers, which were based on specific treaties saying they carried their foreign jurisdiction/sovereignty with them. The fact that a few senators in 1866 said that we did not have jurisdiction over foreigners isn't enough for me, because senators aren't gods or geniuses. I want to see what the definition of jurisdiction back then really was, and two senators isn't enough for me. Two senators in 1866 have as much intelligence as two senators in 2015, and you have congressmen misusing legal terms all the time.

[William R]

Alright, I'll concede to a huge part of your argument, which is that those senators quoted did not intend for foreigners to be considered under our jurisdiction, and you've got me 90% of the way to saying there is no birthright citizenship to those born to foreign parents. My one issue is that the 14th amendment still says "jurisdiction," and so those senators could still be wrong. This isn't some weird argument, you can find lawmakers on the record with disagreement about what a bill means, and then they all vote to pass it, making legislative intent ambiguous. Seriously though, you've got me 90% of the way there. But I can't stand the idea that the constitution means anything other than its plain, unambiguous meaning. Their use of the word jurisdiction ("full and complete") still looks like it could be only THEIR understanding of it, because its not in the 14th amendment.

Also, I'm not interpreting "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to be meaningless, it has a plain, obvious, and useful meaning that makes it absolutely essential to the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was passed to deal with what many saw as the failure of the 13th amendment. Ppl thought that banning slavery in the 13th would leave us with a classless, equal society, and then when Jim Crow laws popped up, they sued in court under the 13th amendment, saying that political discrimination was effectively slavery under a new name. The courts rejected this, so the 14th amendment was drafted, and the language of the 14th is all-encompassing, redundant and overlapping, to make sure its its 'invincible' in a courtroom, and that no one could get around it to justify discrimination. Hence the privileges and immunities clause was written to limit the legislature's power, the due process clause was written to limit the judiciary's power, and the equal protection clause was written to limit the executive's power; but each of the clauses are open-ended and overlapping in their language. They wanted each of those three clauses to be effective against all branches, they wanted to cover all their bases. Everything in the 14th amendment is overkill to make sure no discriminatory laws could possibly survive a challenge. Hence, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to encompass our diplomats in foreign nations, and members of the armed services not currently in the US. It also, conversely, keeps out diplomats and soldiers of foreign nations currently in the US, since they're NOT under our jurisdiction by the exact same logic.

So when I look at "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," it has a plain, obvious, logical purpose. I'd like to see if ppl other than those senators actually used the word "jurisdiction" in the way they describe it, where jurisdiction was considered "limited" and "partial" as to foreign nationals. That implies that a US court has limited jurisdiction over a foreigner simply due to treaties with other countries, but this is absurd. We had partial jurisdiction as to Indians and diplomats/soldiers, that as it. Our country had 100% jurisdiction over anyone walking on our land, with the exception of special rules for Indians/diplomats/soldiers, which were based on specific treaties saying they carried their foreign jurisdiction/sovereignty with them. The fact that a few senators in 1866 said that we did not have jurisdiction over foreigners isn't enough for me, because senators aren't gods or geniuses. I want to see what the definition of jurisdiction back then really was, and two senators isn't enough for me. Two senators in 1866 have as much intelligence as two senators in 2015, and you have congressmen misusing legal terms all the time.

My last reply to you on this subject. Birthright citizenship is one of the biggest scams the government has pulled on the American people. The idea a woman can run across the border drop a kid and bingo just like that gets access to my wallet.

I applaud Trump for bringing this up!! He's a breath of fresh air. Rand campaigned on it in 2010. Ron made it an issue 2007-08 and again 2011-12. Trump has a much bigger platform to bark from though. Trust me this cuts across political lines. Also Trump is right about Mexico. They're pushing their people north so they won't have to take care of them.