Any Constitutional scholars here can confirm the President's interpretation of 14A?

Why

I am a non practicing attorney but did my time. What Trump is saying is likely how SCOTUS will come down. If you review the historical writings and Congressional minutes it is clear the intention was to only have birthright citizenship for children of citizens and legal residents.

We shall see but based on the current court it's 90% going to hold up.

Constitutional Scholar here.. This image is a legit copy of the original printed statement found in the national Archives of the Author of the 14th amendment. He clearly says non citizen offspring are EXCLUDED

Attached: clause.jpg (800x450, 62K)

>laws are enacted by congress
>president interprets the laws a certain way
>there is confusion on whether the president's interpretation is correct
>scotus decides the interpretation of the law
wtf did America just remember how its government is supposed to work?

>illegal aliens
all persons in the country are under US jurisdiction, but not all are granted the same rights. the cutoff for many of those rights may not be explicitly defined, including birthright citizenship.

It's interesting how american democrats claim to defend the american constitution until it is proven that they are misinterpreting it, after which they switch to the opinion that it is an outdated document which ought to be written over.

Their physical presence and lack of diplomatic immunity.

>Any Constitutional scholars here can confirm the President's interpretation of 14A?
Straight from the authors mouth

Attached: Dqw7Z_-U0AA0Dih.jpg (705x1200, 326K)

And followup clarification

Attached: 14th discussion.jpg (848x1200, 487K)

How did a leaf get our flag?

If some low-iq central American goblina broke into your house and squirted a beanlet out of her sweaty, stinking chocha while she was inside, does that beanlet automatically become part of your household that you're now obligated to provide for and take care of?

So in effect Trump is arguing that illegal immigrants are not bound to America's laws, and neither are their children even if they are born within America's borders. The case already has precedent in the Supreme Court and not in Trump's favor. Trumpers should reconsider the idea of supporting complete ignorance of America's laws and systems when, sooner or later, they will have to deal with a Democrat in that same office. If you support what he's saying then push for a change in the Constitution, or at least don't push for acceding power to the President to completely falsify interpretations of standing amendments based off the backing of "many legal scholars". Especially when that President has an outstanding history of using "many people are saying..." as an obvious placeholder for "I got nothin, but I wanna believe it anyway."

Political jurisdiction is not legal jurisdiction, which is the crux of the debate.

Political jurisdiction = you are a citizen of X country

Legal jurisdiction = you are subject to and protected by a country's laws.

When it comes to court decisions like this about the constitution, don't the judges look at the original context of the amendment? In that case it should rule in favor of Trump because the amendment was written for Black slaves not for undesirables crossing the border.

Yes, and that's a good thing.

>all persons in the country are under US jurisdiction
wrong
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/#tab-opinion-1910373
>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), 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.

>The persons declared 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.

>Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana 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.

afaik jurisdiction is the power of governing authority over people or lands.
i don't understand your definition... can you link a website that explains what you mean?

Ty based and saved

Is this a legit legal distinction? Because as much as I want Trump to do it, the use of the word Jurisdiction in 14 is a problem. I.e., how can one simultaneously claim that an illegal alien is not subject to the jurisdiction of US law and also that they are criminals in violation of it?

If I go to another country and commit a crime, I can be tried and prosecuted in that country as a criminal who never necessarily becomes a citizen. The word "Jurisdiction" fucks Trump's reading of 14 up, I think. Unless what you're saying is true in which case we should amend the language to be clear.

Otherwise why don't we do what every other European country does and word it something like "citizenship is conferred to the progeny of citizens at birth." Which means your family must be citizens in order for you to be a citizen. This gets rid of diplomats having kids being a problem...

WRONG
law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329

This seems straight forward. What is there to even discuss here? How was there even an alternate interpretation?

Who's Mr Howard?

I remember reading somewhere it was discussed about the concept of ABSOLUTE jurisdiction, and not a jurisdiction shared with another nation.

Are you trolling?

>can you link a website that explains what you mean?

aka I'm too fucking stupid to work this out logically, please link to an authority figure that can tell me what to think. NPCs are real.

The 14th Amendment was written to confirm that freed slaves are citizens. How is anyone trying to say it is carte blanche for invading spics? How is this a debate that needs to be had? What the fuck

See to my point--this phrasing apparently includes "any person within the United States," not specifically citizens. The word Jurisdiction is a loophole, and unfortunately revoking birthright citizenship is not covered in 14. We need to amend 14 to stipulate citizenship to the progeny of citizens

Tucker tucked the ceo of HIAS last year:
youtube.com/watch?v=wLyfrJ4uPkc

HIAS is the Jewish "non-profit" that gets about 100 million US$ per year in US tax dollars to resettle migrants. The ceo makes nearly $400k a yr and execs under him make $180k-300k total comp for only 35 hours a week of work. This is one of the leading non-profits pushing for de facto open borders.

Their public tax forms: hias.org/sites/default/files/2016_hias_form_990_public_inspection_copy-_signed_final.pdf

>How was there even an alternate interpretation?
It is a (((mystery)))

...

my question is: to what country the little shit belong?

Does an invading solider have diplomatic immunity?

>Who's Mr Howard?
Senator Jacob M. Howard, author of the citizen clause

Foreigners are not subjects of the nation.
He's correct.

the parents home country retard

I’m guessing the dual citizenships in congress will die to stop this...

I would love to see a detailed demographic breakdown of anchor babies from the last 60 years...

Let’s see some baby statistics, government. Put up or shut up

Not according to the way 14 is worded unfoetunately

If it doesn't retroactively fuck millions of illegal bean machines then who fucking cares

ok, friend, i'm saying your definition is fucking stupid and no authority in their right mind would agree with you. congrats on "thinking for yourself" though.

Have you actually read the 14th? Based on this comment I'd guess that you have not.

law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.101
>This part is separate from, and independent of, the other parts of this chapter with the exception of part 501 of this chapter, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and license application and other procedures of which apply to this part.

The definition you linked is for the purposes of Cuban asset regulation.

third post best post

Attached: 1532315044380.gif (177x210, 2.12M)

You see the issue though, right? The link to Cornell Law's compilation of rulings on the subject specifically states that "Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States" does indeed extend to "any persons within the United States" at all (which is how we prosecute aliens who commit crimes, obviously).

Again as much as I'd like Trump to do it, 14 is not capable of revoking birthright citizenship in its current form, by a strict reading of the constitution. We would have to play progressive games and ignore this contradiction to read it loosely and get what we want in this case. I'd rather just amend the language in 14 to not have this problem and THEN use it to get rid of fucking anchor babies cleanly.

>Let me just stack the SCOTUS right quick
>Now let's bring every controversial case to the supreme court that is now stacked in my favor

Damn, this dude knows how to play ball and get shit done. The left were right to fear him because he is going to systematically tear them a new ass hole, or should I say rear hole?

I'd say the same m8. Highlight my posts and square up

why? wasn't born on my soil, says the parent's home country.

>How was there even an alternate interpretation?

Attached: 1531390433735.jpg (250x250, 7K)

The word "jurisdiction" is not a loophole, it ensured that redskins were not citizens.

That law isnt the constitution dipstick

what if we don't know their home country? they all look and sound the same.

He is right.

The problem is going to be getting the bill passed in the first place. If it does get passed, it will certainly be upheld by SCOTUS.

So how can someone be in violation of US law, and also not fall under US jurisdiction at the same time? It's a contradiction, and one that the left will exploit if Trump goes forward without fixing the language in 14 first to extend citizenship only to the progeny of citizens

>zguv retard running his mouth in the thread

He doesn't, local law technically still applies to him.

Which addresses the problem I am describing how? Great rhetoric though

>Constitutional scholars
>here
>an imbecile president thinks he can amend an amendment with an executive order

Attached: 1521744971126.jpg (600x600, 57K)

Yiu said to fix it we would need to amend the 14th you fucking retard
>how can a diplomat be in violation of us law and also not fall under us jurisdiction
Entry level international law you fucking sperg

I genuinely don't think you grasp the concept of 'jurisdiction' (true speech).

The punishment for a non-subject is removal from the jurisdiction. The only way for a non-citizen to be punished in the jurisdiction of a nation-state to which that person is not subject is if the originating state does not step up to claim that person as a citizen. That person is then stateless.

...

That’s not America’s problem that’s their parents problem

The liberals are mad because obama used all his underhanded credits to payoff Muslims and flood the streets with drugs...

Trump is using his to ram jack the foundations

>
>So how can someone be in violation of US law, and also not fall under US jurisdiction at the same time?
So in your mind non-citizens can come over here and violate the law at will?

Let's ask the Supreme Court!

Strict reading of 14a says that you must be both in the united states and subject to jusrisdiction. Because it lists them separately, we know they are not the same thing. Cornell's list of rulings means diddly shit, a ruling is not constitutional text. SCOTUS can and will say that 14a does not apply to anchor babies becausd they do not satisfy the second half of the statement.

It definitely would seem straight forward to someone who only read one page of a lengthy document transcribing the entire conversation. That senator is talking about ambassadors. One senator later adds on TOP of that, that he is afraid this granting of citizenship to anyone born in the US will leave states unable to expel undesirable races from their territory. That senator is promptly smacked down and told to stop pissing his pants over foreigners when its obvious that any child born to a foreigner living under America's laws is under the jurisdiction of America. This goes without argument. They spend most of the time arguing about how the amendment would apply to Indians, about how far America's jurisdiction applies to Indians, and about the nature of what citizenship is.

Jus soli is retarded and unused for a reason, they are progeny of a country's citizens and for most countries that makes them a citizen

So they are under US jurisdiction then, regardless of my mistake?
>removal from jurisdiction
Again, so you're saying they were subject to our jurisdiction to begin with? Then 14 applies by a strict reading. 14 is fucked.

>all persons in the country are under US jurisdiction
why do non-law fags always wanna talk about law? you're fucking embarrassing

No, and because that is the case 14 doesn't work the way this thread wants it to--is my point. I'm glad you agree

Too fucking bad. They'll take the kids or take a missile to their capital building

Birth tourism is a thing. Shitskins literally come to the US right before 9months to shit out a baby on a tourist visa. This shit has to end.

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.

Look at the bit where it states "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
This merely states that if for example an illegal is to be deported, it must be done by the very letter of the law. No opinions, no feels, just the law and that's it.
But then the amendment goes on to extend the same protections to "any person within its jurisdiction", aka the "subjects". The citizens.

Now why, if the subjects are the same as the foreigners, would the amendment make a distinction between the two by granting them due process seperately?
Because foreigners are not subjects, and because they are not subjects, their children do not "inherit" birthright citizenship.
And that's the whole point of this debate.

Again how can I be inside the US and not subject to its jurisdiction? I can't just come in here as a non citizen and commit crimes without fear of prosecution because I am still in the US jurisdiction regardless of my citizenship status

Common sense.

Absolutely not what I said. You need to read Vattel if you want any hope of understanding how far off the track you actually are. The Law of Nations is one of the guiding books that gave us the Constitution and one cannot be a constitutional scholar without having read it with the intent to understand it.

The us had jurisdiction over the land and it can choose whether or not to subject certain individuals to its law. Persons not chosen are in violation of the nations sovereignty and can be removed

It's like the invitee tresspasser doctrine in tort law

Would an invading foreign military be subject to our law?

Orange man bad!
Open borders they are so peaceful
I'm with her!

>The link to Cornell Law's compilation of rulings on the subject specifically states that "Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States" does indeed extend to "any persons within the United States" at all (which is how we prosecute aliens who commit crimes, obviously).

Which is retarded and should be overturned.
If that principle were applied consistently, then an invading army would be granted the same legal protections as any American, and their actions would need to be classified as domestic crimes putting them under the jurisdiction of US law enforcement. If they are under the jurisdiction of US law enforcement then they would need to be accorded all the same rights as regular criminals under our legal system, requiring police to arrest them and bring them to court for trial. Furthermore the US military would not be allowed to deploy against them as this would be using the US military to enforce laws on American soil

It's nonsensical.

I'm making a fairly simple observation and so far no one has been able to explain to me how someone can be inside the US and also not within the jurisdiction of its laws. I appreciate your reading recommendation as I'm not a constitutional scholar (I'm an architect), but you should still be able to correct the contradiction I'm highlighting within the confines of this thread I think

Criminal and political jurisdiction are not the same thing. When a mexican citizen enters america illegally, they are still a mexican citizen.

Attached: WhenAmericafell.png (1148x571, 219K)

If we win the war yeah; what were the Nuremberg trials? What are crimes of war laws? They're the victors laws extending over the invading military forces. So yes.

No one in any country who is not a citizen thereof is 'subject' to the laws of that nation-state in the same manner as a citizen and, again, until you read Vattel you won't understand how that works.

No
see
>The persons declared 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.

I agree it's retarded and should be changed immediately. That's my point.

>someone should explain to me a concept I am incapable of understanding
Leave it to the lawfags you fuckwit

Link me to this distinction I am not familiar with it's legal precedent.

It says get the fuck out of my country.

Cases regarding foreign children as citizens has already been litigated
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark