14th Amendment

[ga anderson]

Just curious - have you read the entirety of the Congressional record on the amendment? (and the civil rights act which preceded it, and the 1898 Supreme Court decision).

I didn't say it was "all about Indians". But neither was it "all" about Freed Slaves.
One of the clauses dealt with limiting governmental participation by those who had engaged in insurrection.
Another dealt wit recognizing debt from activities involved in quelling the insurrection, while denying debt from activity supporting the insurrection.
But the clause dealing with citizenship and civil rights had to do with granting them to the freed slaves, while denying them to Natice Americans in the Indian Nations , and also maintaining the existing status quo for other categories of people (status quo as understood by those weilding the political power to pass the amendment).

Just sayin'

The quotation from my earlier post demonstrates the status quo which was understood.



Would that status quo regarding birthright citizenship have changed if there had been a welfare state at the time? Most probably; but the amendment was passed in the absense of such, and without a proviso to revisit it if a welfare state was to come into being.

Hello again Voluntarists,

First - Perhaps I misunderstood your intended meaning regarding the Indians reference. You said:
"OReich laid out what the language was all about ... Indians"
It certainly appears you referenced another persons comment; "OReich laid out what the language was all about..." - and then supplied your answer -
"... Indians"

As for your reading question;
No I have not read the entirety of the Congressional Globe regarding the 14th Amendment, but I have read much of it relative to the debated points, (both the Does and the Does not camps), concerning the Amendments intention for the use of "jurisdiction." I find valid points for both sides of the discussion, but firmly fall into the camp that says jurisdiction was not intended to mean only the realm of laws and courts.

Yes, I have read the entire Civil Rights Act of 1866. It is not a long document, or one that is difficult to understand.

The first section, the lead-off of the legislation, (which I believe is where typically the heart of most legislation is addressed) gets right to the point about who the Act was intended for:
"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, (my emphasis), excluding Indians not taxed..." - I believe this is relative to the 14th Amendment debate. And it is the only mention of Indians. Specifically Indians that are not addressed by the act.

Then relative to who the act was intended for, we find these qualifiers:
Section 1. "...citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude..."

Section 2. "...having at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude..." and so on. The 9 sections after the first are littered with similar phrasing - all related to freed slaves, (including referencing a Freedmens Bureau), and they all deal with enforcement and authorities for enforcement.

So am a bit surprised you would reference the act as supportive to your position. The wording in the Act does seem to be directed at freed slaves, (and refugees).

And yes, I have also read what I believe to be the entirety of the SCOTUS 1898 Wong Kim Ark case. As this case seems to be foundational for folks that say the 14th Amendment does apply to Anchor Babies. But from my perspective it is a very shaky foundation. I do agree that this case supports your position, but it was a decisively divided decision, (5-4), and the dissenting justices were scathing in their dissenting opinion. I believe that the specifics of the case were so particular to single incident that the court's decision was more one of endorsing an exception than one of general precedence and definition.

As to this:

"One of the clauses dealt with limiting governmental participation by those who had engaged in insurrection.
Another dealt wit recognizing debt from activities involved in quelling the insurrection, while denying debt from activity supporting the insurrection.
But the clause dealing with citizenship and civil rights had to do with granting them to the freed slaves, while denying them to Natice Americans in the Indian Nations , and also maintaining the existing status quo for other categories of people (status quo as understood by those weilding the political power to pass the amendment)."

Here you must referring to the 14th Amendment - and mixing-up your sources. The points about insurrection, rebellion, and related debts, are part of the Amendment, but; "But the clause dealing with citizenship and civil rights had to do with granting them to the freed slaves, while denying them to Natice Americans in the Indian Nations ..." is not in the 14th Amendment, not specifically in the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

Have you read the entirety of those that you asked me about?

However, you did make one point I heartily agree with;
"Would that status quo regarding birthright citizenship have changed if there had been a welfare state at the time? Most probably..."
(Uh, excepting agreement with the "Status quo" part)

GA

[OReich]

Hello again Voluntarists,

First - Perhaps I misunderstood your intended meaning regarding the Indians reference. You said:
"OReich laid out what the language was all about ... Indians"
It certainly appears you referenced another persons comment; "OReich laid out what the language was all about..." - and then supplied your answer -
"... Indians"

As for your reading question;
No I have not read the entirety of the Congressional Globe regarding the 14th Amendment, but I have read much of it relative to the debated points, (both the Does and the Does not camps), concerning the Amendments intention for the use of "jurisdiction." I find valid points for both sides of the discussion, but firmly fall into the camp that says jurisdiction was not intended to mean only the realm of laws and courts.

Yes, I have read the entire Civil Rights Act of 1866. It is not a long document, or one that is difficult to understand.

The first section, the lead-off of the legislation, (which I believe is where typically the heart of most legislation is addressed) gets right to the point about who the Act was intended for:
"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, (my emphasis), excluding Indians not taxed..." - I believe this is relative to the 14th Amendment debate. And it is the only mention of Indians. Specifically Indians that are not addressed by the act.

Then relative to who the act was intended for, we find these qualifiers:
Section 1. "...citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude..."

Section 2. "...having at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude..." and so on. The 9 sections after the first are littered with similar phrasing - all related to freed slaves, (including referencing a Freedmens Bureau), and they all deal with enforcement and authorities for enforcement.

So am a bit surprised you would reference the act as supportive to your position. The wording in the Act does seem to be directed at freed slaves, (and refugees).

And yes, I have also read what I believe to be the entirety of the SCOTUS 1898 Wong Kim Ark case. As this case seems to be foundational for folks that say the 14th Amendment does apply to Anchor Babies. But from my perspective it is a very shaky foundation. I do agree that this case supports your position, but it was a decisively divided decision, (5-4), and the dissenting justices were scathing in their dissenting opinion. I believe that the specifics of the case were so particular to single incident that the court's decision was more one of endorsing an exception than one of general precedence and definition.

As to this:

"One of the clauses dealt with limiting governmental participation by those who had engaged in insurrection.
Another dealt wit recognizing debt from activities involved in quelling the insurrection, while denying debt from activity supporting the insurrection.
But the clause dealing with citizenship and civil rights had to do with granting them to the freed slaves, while denying them to Natice Americans in the Indian Nations , and also maintaining the existing status quo for other categories of people (status quo as understood by those weilding the political power to pass the amendment)."

Here you must referring to the 14th Amendment - and mixing-up your sources. The points about insurrection, rebellion, and related debts, are part of the Amendment, but; "But the clause dealing with citizenship and civil rights had to do with granting them to the freed slaves, while denying them to Natice Americans in the Indian Nations ..." is not in the 14th Amendment, not specifically in the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

Have you read the entirety of those that you asked me about?

However, you did make one point I heartily agree with;
"Would that status quo regarding birthright citizenship have changed if there had been a welfare state at the time? Most probably..."
(Uh, excepting agreement with the "Status quo" part)

GA

Yeah, the Supreme Court Wong Kim Ark case is explicitly inapplicable to illegal immigrants: "Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

This doesn't declare that illegal immigrants cannot drop anchor babies, because that wasn't the dispute the court was facing, so they weren't allowed to rule on it. (What matters is the precedent of the ruling, and the words justifying that ruling, any other language about a situation not being ruled upon is just advisory language.) But the court made it extremely clear that they were ONLY talking about legal immigrants in that ruling.

[ga anderson]

So you're not interpreting the constitution based on its text. The rule is the rule. Are you saying that the 2nd amendment only protects muskets, or that the 1st amendment only protects ideas ppl had back then? The 14th amendment says anyone born under US jurisdiction is a US citizen. The text is not ambiguous. And it is NOT my opinion that jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear a case over a legal dispute, that is the definition of jurisdiction. The issues are whether we only have "partial jurisdiction" over foreigners (and illegal foreigners specifically), and then whether such "partial jurisdiction" would not satisfy the "under US jurisdiction" language in the 14th amendment. Even if we only have partial jurisdiction, that's still jurisdiction. If they wanted the rule to require "full complete jurisdiction" (if "full and complete jurisdiction" and "partial jurisdiction" are even actual legal concepts), they would have said so. They simply said "under US jurisdiction.

And I'm not saying "under US jurisdiction" has no meaning, it has a very clear purpose: to include soldiers and diplomats abroad, and to exclude Indians (since they were in Indian territories, under Indian jurisdiction per treaties), diplomats, and foreign soldiers (belligerent or not).

And again, you cannot use a case thats about Indians, or quotes from Senators talking about Indians, and turn that into an empirical rule about illegal immigrants. Indians were in Indian territory with their own laws, their govts had jurisdiction over Indians, not the US govt. Whereas if a Chinese immigrant, legal or illegal, is walking around California, they are under US jurisdiction. Unless they happen to be in an Indian territory; then they would be under Indian jurisdiction, per our treaties with said Indians.

Perhaps a little clarity is in order.
I think the 14th Amendment, as written, means exactly what you say it does. I think the "jurisdiction" in the clause should be interpreted just as you say it should.

But, I also think...

The current and correct interpretation of "jurisdiction," (geographical/legal), was not the intended one. I don't think circumstances of the time informed the Amendment's authors that more clarity was needed for the term.

That the primary impetus for the 14th Amendment was the 1866 Civil Rights Act - which was `all about' feed slaves. I think there is ample period record and documentation that this was/is true.

That our Congress does have the authority to codify or make statutory rules regarding the 14th Amendment without needing a Constitutional Amendment.

So there you go. As currently interpreted I think you are right. But I do not think I am wrong because my conversations have not been about current interpretations or any ambiguity in the Amendment. My conversations have been about the end result not being as intended for changing times. As Voluntarist said, had they known anything about a "welfare" state condition that would evolve ahead of them, I believe they certainly would have been more precise in their use of the word jurisdiction. My arguments about historical context and period records are based on the amendment author's statements, and subsequent SCOTUS cases, (which have batted the ball onto both sides of the net).

My point is that although the 14th Amendment does give legal birthright citizenship to Anchor babies - my readings clearly inform me that result was not the author's intent.

I hope you are having as good a day as I am. I enjoy these types of conversations.

GA

[William R]

Perhaps a little clarity is in order.
I think the 14th Amendment, as written, means exactly what you say it does. I think the "jurisdiction" in the clause should be interpreted just as you say it should.

But, I also think...

The current and correct interpretation of "jurisdiction," (geographical/legal), was not the intended one. I don't think circumstances of the time informed the Amendment's authors that more clarity was needed for the term.

That the primary impetus for the 14th Amendment was the 1866 Civil Rights Act - which was `all about' feed slaves. I think there is ample period record and documentation that this was/is true.

That our Congress does have the authority to codify or make statutory rules regarding the 14th Amendment without needing a Constitutional Amendment.

So there you go. As currently interpreted I think you are right. But I do not think I am wrong because my conversations have not been about current interpretations or any ambiguity in the Amendment. My conversations have been about the end result not being as intended for changing times. As Voluntarist said, had they known anything about a "welfare" state condition that would evolve ahead of them, I believe they certainly would have been more precise in their use of the word jurisdiction. My arguments about historical context and period records are based on the amendment author's statements, and subsequent SCOTUS cases, (which have batted the ball onto both sides of the net).

My point is that although the 14th Amendment does give legal birthright citizenship to Anchor babies - my readings clearly inform me that result was not the author's intent.

I hope you are having as good a day as I am. I enjoy these types of conversations.

GA

Tourist are under our jurisdiction when they're stateside. But they're not under our political jurisdiction. They can't vote, be charged with treason drive on the wrong side of the road etc etc. Same with illegal aliens. That's what the authors of the 14th amendment meantI. No birthright citizenship just because a foreigner drops a kid while they're in the country. Crazy to think otherwise.

[OReich]

Perhaps a little clarity is in order.
I think the 14th Amendment, as written, means exactly what you say it does. I think the "jurisdiction" in the clause should be interpreted just as you say it should.

But, I also think...

The current and correct interpretation of "jurisdiction," (geographical/legal), was not the intended one. I don't think circumstances of the time informed the Amendment's authors that more clarity was needed for the term.

That the primary impetus for the 14th Amendment was the 1866 Civil Rights Act - which was `all about' feed slaves. I think there is ample period record and documentation that this was/is true.

That our Congress does have the authority to codify or make statutory rules regarding the 14th Amendment without needing a Constitutional Amendment.

So there you go. As currently interpreted I think you are right. But I do not think I am wrong because my conversations have not been about current interpretations or any ambiguity in the Amendment. My conversations have been about the end result not being as intended for changing times. As Voluntarist said, had they known anything about a "welfare" state condition that would evolve ahead of them, I believe they certainly would have been more precise in their use of the word jurisdiction. My arguments about historical context and period records are based on the amendment author's statements, and subsequent SCOTUS cases, (which have batted the ball onto both sides of the net).

My point is that although the 14th Amendment does give legal birthright citizenship to Anchor babies - my readings clearly inform me that result was not the author's intent.

I hope you are having as good a day as I am. I enjoy these types of conversations.

GA

Yeah I agree, there are a million unintended consequences in this, especially with entitlements. Its common sense, liberals should be able to see this conflict of values between mass immigration (which I'm not totally oppose to) and entitlements, but if they understood cost/benefit analysis then they wouldn't be liberals.

Tourist are under our jurisdiction when they're stateside. But they're not under our political jurisdiction. They can't vote, be charged with treason drive on the wrong side of the road etc etc. Same with illegal aliens. That's what the authors of the 14th amendment meantI. No birthright citizenship just because a foreigner drops a kid while they're in the country. Crazy to think otherwise.

Okay, you're again talking about "political jurisdiction" even though it does not appear in the fourteenth amendment, you just declare that this is what they meant even though it never says this. You then quote Senators who are talking about Indians, who are a totally different situation. So not only can you not show that the concept of "political jurisdiction" even exists, you also cannot show that this is what the fourteenth amendment refers to, because it does not say that. You take quotes about Indians who were in Indian territory under explicitly separate jurisdiction. When they said "Indians aren't under our jurisdiction because they have separate allegiance," they meant Indians were literally in Indian territory under Indian govt, laws and jurisdiction, and giving their allegiance to that Indian government. They were not talking about foreigners walking around US territory, who were in fact under the jurisdiction of the US.

[ga anderson]

Tourist are under our jurisdiction when they're stateside. But they're not under our political jurisdiction. They can't vote, be charged with treason drive on the wrong side of the road etc etc. Same with illegal aliens. That's what the authors of the 14th amendment meantI. No birthright citizenship just because a foreigner drops a kid while they're in the country. Crazy to think otherwise.

William R, I agree with you about what was "meant," but that is not what was written, and until the Amendment is clarified Birthright Citizenship is a Constitutional right.

GA

[Zippyjuan]

"Juris" refers to the law- not politics. One does not need to have the right to vote to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Citizenship is required to be able to vote but the inverse is no necessarily true- you can be a citizen but not a voter. If somebody is under your jurisdiction, they must follow your laws.

noun

the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
"federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case"
synonyms: authority, control, power, dominion, rule, administration, command, sway, leadership, sovereignty, hegemony
"an area under French jurisdiction"

the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments.
"the claim will be within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal"

a system of law courts; a judicature.
plural noun: jurisdictions
"in some jurisdictions there is a mandatory death sentence for murder"

Ambassadors are not subject to US laws based on international agreements. The Native American tribes were considered under their own laws and were also not considered under US Jurisdiction until the law on that was changed.

Is a tourist or immigrant subject to US laws?

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.

[William R]

William R, I agree with you about what was "meant," but that is not what was written, and until the Amendment is clarified Birthright Citizenship is a Constitutional right.

GA

Sorry but that's not what's written. By being in the United States they are subject to our jurisdiction. Our laws. But they're not under our political jurisdiction. That's why they excluded diplomats and indians. Well the same holds true with illegal aliens.


I can't stand the woman but no one makes a better case than Ann Coulter

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/19/no...t-citizenship/

Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is America’s most-cited federal judge — and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”



The Constitution Still Doesn’t Grant Birthright Citizenship

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/27/th...t-citizenship/

[ga anderson]

Sorry but that's not what's written. By being in the United States they are subject to our jurisdiction. Our laws. But they're not under our political jurisdiction. That's why they excluded diplomats and indians. Well the same holds true with illegal aliens.


I can't stand the woman but no one makes a better case than Ann Coulter

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/19/no...t-citizenship/

Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is America’s most-cited federal judge — and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”



The Constitution Still Doesn’t Grant Birthright Citizenship

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/27/th...t-citizenship/

Don't be sorry William R., just show me where in the 14th Amendment it says "political" jurisdiction. Or show me a majority SCOTUS opinion that says that. We could throw authoritative links at each other all day long, but much smarter and more knowledgeable minds than mine, (I would say yours too, but I don't know you), have been at this debate for a long time - and we still have anchor babies.

I agree the 14th intended something else, but it doesn't say something else, and I am doubtful you can produce a more legitimate affirmation of your interpretation than the actual text of the Amendment.

ps. If the Amendment does not say what it appears to say in plain text, then why does your expert "most cited" judge add; "But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.”?

GA

[Zippyjuan]

Laws always have more impact beyond their initial intent. Courts look at what the law actually says more than what the original intent was. They can take intent into consideration but what is binding is the letter of the law. If the law does not do what it intended, it needs to be re-written or to be abided by as written. Slaves are nowhere mentioned in the amendment. Nor is any other group of people other than to exempt "those not subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States".

[acesfull]

If two illegal aliens give birth on American soil to a child, the question would be, is the new born child a US citizen, since the two adult parents are in fact illegal, does being illegal make the new born also illegal? Hence since said parents are illegal by definition, all their acts in this country are illegal and should be rendered "null and void"... I am not saying that the G should take possession of the illegal child, I am only suggesting that Mom. Dad and baby should be sent back to where they came.
This topic is a real slippery slop... However two illegals cannot produce a "legal"... And no one wants to fit the bill for the child if the parents are departed... WE have enough of our own children to take care of...
My .02
Acesfull

[Zippyjuan]

Hence since said parents are illegal by definition, all their acts in this country are illegal

So if an illegal immigrant goes to the grocery store and buys food, that is an illegal act? Can they be arrested for "shopping illegally"? Do we need to start checking immigration status at the grocery to be sure nobody is breaking the law?

If a bank robber has a kid is the kid considered illegal? He committed an illegal act and aren't all his actions after that illegal?



What about children of legal immigrants? Say a tourist or student? They are in the country legally. Their kids are automatic citizens? What about if a citizen and a non- citizen have a baby? Citizen or not?

[William R]

Don't be sorry William R., just show me where in the 14th Amendment it says "political" jurisdiction. Or show me a majority SCOTUS opinion that says that. We could throw authoritative links at each other all day long, but much smarter and more knowledgeable minds than mine, (I would say yours too, but I don't know you), have been at this debate for a long time - and we still have anchor babies.

I agree the 14th intended something else, but it doesn't say something else, and I am doubtful you can produce a more legitimate affirmation of your interpretation than the actual text of the Amendment.

ps. If the Amendment does not say what it appears to say in plain text, then why does your expert "most cited" judge add; "But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.”?

GA

You show me where it says anyone born here is a citizen.

[OReich]

Sorry but that's not what's written. By being in the United States they are subject to our jurisdiction. Our laws. But they're not under our political jurisdiction. That's why they excluded diplomats and indians. Well the same holds true with illegal aliens.

"Political jurisdiction" does not exist. Anyone walking through the borders of the US is under US jurisdiction, except diplomats and foreign soldiers (because they're in our country for the very purpose of serving their own country, not as an individual), and Indians (because of specific treaties where Indians were in their own territories, with their own courts and laws, and hence it was their own jurisdiction). Your sources which talk about "complete" and "full" jurisdiction are referring to the governance of Indian territories. The Supreme Court held in Wong Kim Ark that the 14th amendment gives citizenship to anyone born here when their foreign parents were legally here, even temporarily; this means that your concept of "political jurisdiction" or "full jurisdiction" for permanent residents doesn't exist. Anyone legally within our borders is 100% within our jurisdiction, fully and completely, there is no difference between jurisdiction and political jurisdiction. Your quotes which show otherwise are instead referring to the governance of Indian territories under Indian jurisdiction, not US jurisdiction. I'm not saying Wong Kim Ark would at all apply to illegal immigrants, the court specifically said it wasn't ruling on them. But, the ruling demonstrates that (according to those five justices) there is no such thing as "political jurisdiction," unless that's just jurisdiction. Political jurisdiction and full/complete jurisdiction do not exist, AND do not appear in the 14th amendment. Your quotes which are supposed to show the existence of those terms are actually talking about Indian jurisdiction over Indian territories.

[William R]

The Civil Rights Act included a definition for national citizenship, to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1884, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.

That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth. They’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.

So why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth? Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners. Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires. Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.


JRichard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is America’s most-cited federal judge — and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”


Facts are facts and the facts are the 14th amendment doesn't grant automatic birthright citizenship. Never has. This is one of the biggest scams the government has ever pulled on the American people.

The above quotes are from articles I've linked to on this thread and another one.

[OReich]

The Civil Rights Act included a definition for national citizenship, to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1884, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.

That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth. They’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.

So why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth? Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners. Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires. Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.


JRichard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is America’s most-cited federal judge — and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”


Facts are facts and the facts are the 14th amendment doesn't grant automatic birthright citizenship. Never has. This is one of the biggest scams the government has ever pulled on the American people.

The above quotes are from articles I've linked to on this thread and another one.

The Elk v. Wiggins did NOT say anything about foreigners walking through US territory, it was about Indians. Again you cite a case/quote about Indians and say its about foreigners. The Indians were in their own jurisdiction, the court explained this. Not only did the Supreme Court NOT say anything about foreigners (other than diplomats/soldiers), but the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark then said that a temporary, legal foreigner could drop an anchor baby. They didn't say illegals could drop an anchor baby, they didn't rule on that, but they did rule that anyone legally here, even a temporary foreigner, could drop an anchor baby. So again, you're misinterpreting language that is exclusive to Indians and diplomats/soldiers, and projecting that onto foreigners and illegal foreigners.

And the Civil Rights Act wasn't the 14th amendment. So no, you can't use one law to enforce the 14th amendment to say that's all it was about. And, Elk v. Wilkens, which you cite to show that the CRA's language should be used to understand the 14th amendment, is the case you're misinterpreting, it was about Indians. Again and again, you take quotes about Indians or diplomats/soldiers and generelize that into a broader category that doesn't exist. The Supreme Court even ruled after Elk v. Wilkens, in Wong Kim Ark, that temporary (legal) foreigners could drop anchor babies, and so your repeated notion foreigners were not under our jurisdiction is just false. Your quotes from Senators and the Supreme Court are all taken out of context from discussions involving Indians, and you're ignoring the later Supreme Court case that DID rule that temporary, legal foreigners could drop anchor babies.

I met Posner, he's a smart guy, he was nominated (or almost nominated?) for the US Supreme Court but admitted in testimony that he smoked weed since college. Cuz apparently everyone in college did it.

[William R]

"Not only did the Supreme Court NOT say anything about foreigners (other than diplomats/soldiers),.

They didn't say anything because millions of people weren't breaking into the country back then. You're a clown But they feared an invasion from a foreign government and that's why they included soldiers. During the Civil War Lincoln feared that France would enter the war on behalf of the Confederacy. Well today we are experiencing an invasion from south of the border. 2/3rds of Mexicans think Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California belong to Mexico. Mexico is deliberately sending its citizens North. Replace soldier with illegal aliens.


IF an Indian and his Squaw left the Indian territories and had a kid in Boston the child would not have been granted citizenship. Because the parents were not American citizens.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[TommyJeff]

I'm talking about the constitution, you're talking about something you made up. Jurisdiction is the power of a state to exercise its laws over a person, period.

This isnt true at all.
Just because that's how the term is used today, doesn't mean that's how the term was used in the past. Your dramatic use of the word period is unnecessary and your statement people to that term period, is false.
This is from wiki "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".
Period. Lol

[TommyJeff]

Facts are facts and the facts are the 14th amendment doesn't grant automatic birthright citizenship. Never has.

this is absolutely correct. But there was no need to cloud up these facts with Supreme Court opinions. The courts don't make law. Just stick with the facts about the law congress passed.