14

Say it with me Jow Forums
>ALL PERSONS BORN

Attached: 14thamendmentposter4.jpg (1650x2550, 821K)

Say it with me Jow Forums
>AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF,
>BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE,
>A FUCKING COMMA

The Talmud has been used on the constitution for so long that it’s become a confusing mess.

niggers tongue my anus

FUCK YOU

Attached: IMG_0406_1024x1024.jpg (1024x1024, 323K)

>University of San Fransisco
Funny that they're trying to cite law as their argument when their communist state has repeatedly gone against law.

>>ALL PERSONS BORN

Wrong, the authors of the amendment made it perfectly clear that it was pertaining to Slaves. The amendment did NOT pertain to foreigners that had a child in the US.

Context matters ShareBlue shill

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "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."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Attached: 14th-1.jpg (400x1877, 1.01M)

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11, 16 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.