All kids born in the US are US citizen under the 14th amendment. The only accepted exceptions under the “jurisdiction” exclusion are
A. kids born in US territorial waters on alien warships
B. kids born into the families of foreign ambassadors and registered diplomatic staff
C. kids born to aliens which are part to an invasion force on territory occupied by said force
D. Native Indians in reservations living with their tribe (but they are citizens due to the 1924 Indian citizenship act)
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
claremont.org
gibsondunn.com
nytimes.com
law.cornell.edu
twitter.com
Keep trying, it’s going to the Supreme Court
>whether you like it or not
Sorry dude you're wrong on this.
>kids born into the families of foreign ambassadors and registered diplomatic staff
ids born into the families of foreign ambassadors and registered diplomatic staff
what is the functional difference between non citizen ambassadors and non citizen illegals? if a child born to two non citizen ambassadors isnt a citizen, why should one born to two illegals be one? especially given the fact the ambassadors were invited and here legally
(((Sorkin)))
Hmmm there's something about her that makes me doubt.
Good thing we have confirmed prolific rapist and drunk Judge Kavanaugh and Trumps SCOTUS will overturn it. Kill ALL jurist
>the US Constitution cannot be amended
>because the 14th AMENDMENT says so
It really isn’t. Trump is too pussy to even sign an executive order that reinterprets “subject to the jurisdiction of” in federal statute. Which is why the Scotus can’t and won’t decide anything.
Learn English you filthy shitskin
>Trump really cannot win the nomination
>Trump really cannot win the presidency
I keep hearing this crap over and over again, yet Trump really can.
Those "exclusions" are actually called precedents and they're exactly the reason why your whole argument stands on nothing but the shekels that brought you here.
>C. kids born to aliens which are part to an invasion force on territory occupied by said force
fits perfectly with what's happening here
but also you're wrong aside from all of that
there is no legal precedent that says the 14th applies to illegals
the whole point of the order is to force it in front of the supreme court which he has just stacked with his justices and they will rule on it in the direction he wants
Diplomats aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US. A diplomat could steal a car and couldn’t be tried in US court unless the foreign power he is from extradites that person by removing diplomatic immunity.
Illegal aliens don’t have diplomatic immunity, they are directly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
just want you to know that we differentiate between criminal and civil court
I don't know or care how your country works, but if a diplomat stole my car I could absolutely take legal action against them
they just wont face criminal charges, they WILL be deported though
creating a country with the idea of "anyone who born in this soil immediately is considered member" is incredible retarded at long term.
Thank god my shit third world country has very specifics conditions for naturalization on its constitution.
Despite her (((name))), her arguments are sound, albeit highly emotional and politically charged and biased by her own liberal opinion.
>The only accepted exceptions under the “jurisdiction” exclusion...
Fortunately, that list appears nowhere in the Constitution and is just a matter of custom.
Trump could sign an executive order saying that illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction, in much the same way that Bush was able to label foreign-born terror suspects as "enemy combatants" and indefinitely detain/torture them.
The US Constitution can be amended and the 14th amendment overturned, but Trump cannot do that by executive order.
>Keep trying, it’s going to the Supreme Court
>>whether you like it or not
this. it's a mechanism to kick it back to the court for interpretation under a friendly judiciary.
>Fortunately, that list appears nowhere in the Constitution and is just a matter of custom.
It was part of English common law, the US common law and has been upheld by the SCOTUS in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Diplomats aren’t under the jurisdiction of the US, neither under civil or criminal law. You could sue a diplomat in civil court and that court may hold in favor of you, but if he parked your car in the ambassy, there is nothing you could do with your court judgment absent the foreign power compelling the diplomat to release your 1965 Ford Mustang.
>there is no legal precedent that says the 14th applies to illegals
Just hundreds of years of practical application of birthright citizenship and a Supreme Court judgment which pretty much says so?
tell me more
So when children of diplomats are born in the U.S., they are born under the jurisdiction of their home countries, correct? So why would an illegal alien, who is not formally under the jurisdiction of the U.S., suddenly be able to have 'American' children?
If the U.S. has jurisdiction of Honduran people, why don't they bomb the Honduran government? Clearly, if all the 'Hondurans' are actually 'Americans,' then the 'Honduran' government is illegitimate, as it has no jurisdiction over 'Americans.'
You are making this bed. You will wake up to find yourself on Planet America. Under Trump. Have fun.
The 14th amendment States no state shall, it does not limit power of the executive to limit immigration
1
>Senator Howard, Republican of Michigan (drafter of the 14th amendment):
>(The 14th Amendment) 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.
2
>>Some will argue that the Supreme Court has already settled this issue, establishing birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this is wrong. The court has ruled only that children of legal residents are citizens. That doesn’t change the status of children born to people living here illegally.
3
>>Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”* Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
4
>This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the 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.
5
>In addition, Howard seemed to make a glaring omission — he failed to mention Indians. He was forced to clarify his omission when challenged by Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin who queried whether the “Senator from Michigan does not intend by this amendment to include the Indians”; he thereupon proposed to add the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 “excluding Indians not taxed.” Howard vigorously opposed the amendment, remarking that “Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.”
6
>Practically, birthright citizenship is, as Erler put it, “a great magnet for illegal immigration.” This magnet attracts not just millions of the world’s poor but also increasingly affluent immigrants. “Maternity hotels” for pregnant Chinese tourists advertise openly in Southern California and elsewhere. Fly to the United States to have your baby, and its silly government will give him or her American citizenship!
7
>The origins of this language are a bit hazy, but it must be recalled that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to correct the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) and recognize citizenship for the newly-freed slaves (but not members of Indian tribes living on reservations). The language of the Citizenship Clause derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators (the 39th Congress) who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” (Emphasis added.) Foreign nationals resident in the United States, and children who become citizens of a foreign country at birth (by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) would obviously be excluded from this definition.
8
>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.
9
>The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The oft-cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) involved the offspring of a Chinese couple present in the United States legally. And the frequently cited language from Plyler v. Doe (1982)—a 5 to 4 decision written by the activist Justice William Brennan, hardly a strong authority—is dicta contained in a footnote! Automatic birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal immigrants is an anomaly; the United States and Canada are the only developed countries in the world to recognize it. No European country does. American voters overwhelmingly oppose birthright citizenship, by almost 2 to 1 according to a recent Rasmussen poll.
>hundreds of years
~150 years is not multiple hundreds you retard, neck yourself
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.
This is how this is read. Notice the commas make this quite explicit.
The US was founded as a white nation, its jurisdiction is white people. By any sensible reading of the constitution, only whites can be citizens.
whatever trump says is always just a stunt calculated to steer the media narrative away from whatever and to what he wants, its pure bullshit, but media keeps falling for it
check out Bill Maher names the nazi:
Traitors arent citizens either.
Trumbull and Howard seem to have been of different opinions. But I think the Amendment as such can be easily taken to exclude the children of illegal aliens because 1) Trumbull plainly stated the definition of "within the jurisdiction thereof", and Howard explicitly came out and said that the children of illegal aliens were not citizens. They were the main sponsors of the Amendment.
claremont.org
B is the exact situation as a anchor baby how that has not been a court ruling is ridiculous
The “foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors” relates not to generic “foreigners” but to foreigners who belong to the familes of amabassadors. Howard was an inclusionist, who also argued that Indians are US citizens (remember, Republicans were Democrats and Democrats Republicans until the late 1950s).
Hiward said your quote in a Senate debate and his speech was written down by scribes and the commas added by them.
Read the whole controversy back then here. gibsondunn.com
Birthright citizenship comes from English common law and has existed ever since the American colonies were formally Crown colonies. And the principle of birthright citizenship continued in the US after it gained independence, something explained in US v. Wong Kim Ark at length. There are dozen of court cases explaining this. Birthright citizenship has existed for hundreds of years.
Wrong.
So how can someone be naturalized without being subject to the jurisdiction of the US?
>who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States
read this you are talkin about an oral statement in the Senate with commas set by scribes recording the debate,
Howard was a great proponent of the English common law idea of birthright citizenship and also argued all American Indians should be US citizens. Several US Senators were opposed to Howard and argued Chinamen and gypsies shouldn’t get birthright citizenship, but those senators lost the vote.
see Stop trying to twist words around.
Children born to citizens of another country owe their allegiance to the country their parents are born to by extension of their parents allegiance.
Citizenship is not servitude and one must enter into it fully aware of what it entails, not just by being born within the jurisdiction of a government
Diplomats get visas that state how US jurisdiction applies to them. All visas have this information on them. Illegals do not get visas, so they are not under the jurisdiction of the US.
As far as our law is concerned illegal aliens don't exist. The only reason they aren't just killed or deported is because of bleeding heart whites.
>The oft-cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) involved the offspring of a Chinese couple present in the United States legally.
>involved the offspring of a Chinese couple present in the United States legally
>Chinese couple present in the United States legally
>LEGALLY
>supreme court judgement
This whole issue has never been brought to the supreme court because its pretty obvious how it will be interpreted. This is one of the reasons the supreme court picks matter so much to both sides.
He never claims it would apply to foreigners
>it doesn't count because I want to interpret it differently
Oh so you are a jew. Explains why you can't seem to understand this simple issue.
And the case never says anything about the “legal” presence of the parents simply because that concept didn’t exist at the birth of Wong Kim Ark. It always speaks of residence and domicile, sometimes the justices just say “domicile” and sometimes just “residency” and sometimes both, What they never ever say is “legal”, that doesn’t come to mind because the concept didn’t exist. What existed at the time Wong Kim Ark was decided is controls at the border (when people tried to disembark from ships), but these controls didn’t make people “illegal immigrants” but merely physically prevented them from disembarking, There was no ICE at the time.
There was a thorough debate that is recorded outlining how the 14th amendment was enacted for US slaves to gain citizenship, it did NOT apply to Indians or Foreign Aliens because they are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they owe allegiance to their tribe or Foreign Government
Read Wong Kim Ark. It’s clear as day.
We have originalists on the court now. Going by the actual Jacob Howard transcript, they will NOT be granted citizenship and ALL anchor babies will be in jeopardy as the 14th was never intended to apply to children of illegal aliens, only the children of lawful immigrants.
Everyone in the Senate acknowledged thagit applied to kids born to non-citizens aka foreigners. That was the whole point. Negroes weren’t regarded as citizens in all states, so the only way to ensure all states would accept negroes US citizens was by stating so in the constitution. And the 14th amendment can only confer birthright citizenship to negroes if kids of non-citizens born in the US are US citizens.
The case has nothing to do with Foreign Aliens. The parents were legal residents, regardless of how the court phrased it.
It was assumed the parents were legal residents and thus citizens of the US then went on to make opinions.
You can't come to those same conclusions when you are faced with the fact that the parents are NOT citizens of the US and owe their allegiance to Foreign Government
This is the crux of the whole argument - legal citizens with legal children.
The discussion of “illegal aliens” has never been had. All babies of foreigners born in the US with the 4 exceptions mentioned in the OP are US cirizens. There has never been a different interpretation.
He can it is called he slows down all people whom where born of illegal seeing as how that department falls into his jurisdiction.
What you are doing is taking a supreme court case decision with opinions and overriding what the actual intent of the law was in the own words of the people who actually drafted the legislation.
You are arguing illogically
I wanna know if it would be retroactive. I don't want to live in a non-white shithole.
It's not illogical. It's a bad faith argument. They take whatever you say, even if it is for a position you oppose, and make you a supporter after you are dead. You don't get to explain yourself, and your name gives them credentials. That's how it works. If the people who wrote this legislation were alive today, they would've shot all the niggers and gypsies so no one would have to deal with this current insanity.
Negroes weren’t regarded as citizens in all states, so the only way to ensure all states would accept negroes US citizens was by stating so in the constitution
Yeah I know. That is why the 14th was passed.
AND EVERYONE at the time recognized Indians and Foreign Aliens as NOT CITIZENS and the legislation has ZERO intention on making the offspring of those groups CITIZENS by simply birthing offspring within the territory of the US because they OWE ALLEGIANCE to FOREIGN COUNTRIES or TRIBES
>The parents were legal residents, regardless of how the court phrased it.
There were no “illegal aliens” in 1850. The concept didn’t exist. So you are saying that illegal aliens somehow aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”. You better come up with a really good argument why the 4 exclusions acknowledged by the SCOTUS to be the accepted English common law exclusions should be vastly expanded by excluding kids whose parents entered the US illegally.
There are also really curious things that happen if you start with this exclusion. If a baby is born to an alleged illegal parent and left at hospital and it cannot be ascertained if the parent was illegal or not, is the kid a US citizen or not? What if a kid has been a US citizenship holder and voter and it is 30yrs after his birth determined that his parents crossed US borders illegally, is he not a US citizen now?
And lastly, why does “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” not include kids born to illegal residents? What part of the jurisdiction does NOT apply to them? Also, what about tourists on a valid visum, they aren’t illegal residents are they now?
Because Amendments have never been challenged?
>If the people who wrote this legislation were alive today, they would've shot all the niggers and gypsies so no one would have to deal with this current insanity.
this is the somewhat sad situation. That if the Founding Fathers were alive today there would be a massacre
>and overriding what the actual intent of the law was
As said by the senators at the time the 14th amendment was passed, the principle intend was to make sure negroes born on US soil are treated as citizens in all states (as you may know, just a few years before 1867, several states denied negroes born in the US were citizens).
Too late, you already do. A law cannot deprive people of citizenship retroactively, likely courts would say an executive order that gives guidance on how to interpret statue (the 14th amendment is enshrined in federal statute) can also not retroactively deprive people of US citizenship already confered by legal act valid at the time.
What do you mean? No, constitutional amendments have never been challenged. One has been overturned (the 19th with the 21st) and other parts of the constitution changed. The constitution and its amendments have only once been seriously challenged, in 1861 to 1865 by the Confederacy.
It's not a new law it's a reinterpretation of an amendment.
>So you are saying that illegal aliens somehow aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”
Look it has two parts: All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof
If you believe the second part: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means that you reside or are under US law it is redundant because the first part of the sentence cant be true without having US laws apply to you. US laws apply to anyone within the US.
You can't claim that the second qualifier is also the first one.
This is well summed up by explaining how someone in the US can be here, but can not be drafted into the military or prosecuted for treason.
Read the Senate debate of the time. While less politically correct horseshit than today, they were surprisingly a lot about “kumbaya, negroes and Asiatics and gypsies are the same as Germanics” even back then.
Essentially, subject to the jurisdiction of the US means that person has ZERO allegiance to any other country. A child born in the US to Foreign Aliens has Allegiance to a Foreign Country.
they actually could, but they wont, there would be ungodly amounts of rioting over that
It’s a reinterpretation of a federal law. US federal statute §1401... law.cornell.edu
The 14th amendment is word for word enshrined in §1401 (a). So, technically any interpretation of that by executive order would refer to a federal statute.
>The “foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors” relates not to generic “foreigners” but to foreigners who belong to the familes of amabassadors.
False and already debunked.
>The charge is that the added “or” completely changes the meaning. The intent, it is said, is to exclude from citizenship only those “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
>But if that is what was meant, the language would have to read “who are foreigners OR aliens who belong …” To get to the meaning insisted upon, one must not merely add “or” after foreigners, one must also delete both commas. Getting rid of just the first one will not do.
>But that’s not what’s in the text. What is there is a list missing its final conjunction. Apples, oranges, bananas. Remembering my high school English, I simply added one for the reader. Apples, oranges, [or] bananas.
>It is necessary to note that this quote (and most of those that follow) come from the Congressional Globe, an ancestor to the Congressional Record, which records Congressional debates. Unless otherwise noted, all the quotes that follow are from the Globe’s account of the Senate the debate on the 14th Amendment, May 30th, 1866. They do not purport to be exact transcripts, especially with regard to punctuation. So to be certain we really know what Senator Howard was trying to say, we have to read the whole debate and place his comment in context.
>Senator Trumbull says that “subject to the jurisdiction” means: "not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.*"
>Senator Trumbull does not say “Not owing allegiance to a foreign government for whom one serves as an ambassador or minister.” He plainly says “anybody else,” i.e., any foreign nation or tribe whatsoever. To hammer the point home, he continues: “and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” To be “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” is to owe allegiance to no other country or tribe.
>The word “complete” is important. The authors of the amendment affirmed that all persons present in U.S. territory are subject to U.S. law; that is, both obligated to obey it and entitled to its protection for person and property. This is the partial jurisdiction that any sovereign state claims over aliens on its soil. But, they continued, that does not entitle anyone to citizenship. Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania clarifies:
>"If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word."
>Senator Howard further clarified the meaning of the jurisdiction clause, endorsing the interpretation of Senator Trumbull:
>"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, 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, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power 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."
Honestly this whole situation can be summed up by explaining how Leftists have ZERO understanding of LOGIC and DEDUCTION. They don't understand inclusive and exclusive, they don't understand commas, they don't understand and/or.
They redefine and rephrase arguments to fit their agendas.
>Quite obviously—and by definition—the “constitutional power of the United States” is not “coextensive” with foreign nations. Also by definition, the “same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now” cannot apply to foreigners. To claim otherwise is to claim that U.S. law applies to foreigners even when they are residing in their own countries! It is to claim, in effect, that U.S. law rules the world. Which is absurd.
>Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland added yet another supportive, clarifying comment: "Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."
>He says the amendment defines citizens as “all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power.” Not merely not the children of ambassadors, but “not subject to some foreign power.” They also must be “born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”
>This is well summed up by explaining how someone in the US can be here, but can not be drafted into the military or prosecuted for treason.
Those only apply to citizens, not all people in the US, you dummy. And hell, women can't be drafted either, that doesn't mean they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
>To further clarify the meaning of the proposed amendment, Senator Johnson read the first clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed earlier in the same year by the same Congress. That law’s first clause reads: "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens."
>If we need further proof of what this language means and was intended to mean, we have this from Representative John Bingham of Ohio, who has been called “the father of the 14th Amendment.” In an earlier debate, explaining to the House the purpose and meaning of the citizenship clause of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, he said:
>"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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."
>“[O]f parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.” Again, not just to a foreign embassy, but to “any foreign sovereignty.”
>Therefore, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clearly means exactly what Senator Trumbull said it means: “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” A foreigner clearly owes allegiance to somebody else: the country in which he is a citizen or subject.
the supreme court has never ruled on the other jurisdictional restrictions
so how can it be the law of the land?
i'm sure it will swiftly be sent to the SC for a decision
Does it even matter at this point? 20million+ illegals living in the country, way back in 2008 they were having 8% off the children born, it's probably 20% by now. Year after year these hispanics are pumping out 100's of 1000's of babies, maybe in the millions yearly by now. How could this tide possibly be turned back? That's millions more "citizen" mexicans of illegal immigrant parents, who realistically owe their true allegiance too their families and their culture not the country.
>Objectors to my argument cite the question of Indians, not realizing that it undermines rather than strengthens their case. I quote one of my critics in full to avoid—probably futilely—being again accused of lying:
>"Diplomats and their children had immunity under international law; American Indian tribes were governed by treaties and treated as separate sovereigns. Every other individual born in the U.S.—to citizens and foreigners alike—is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the federal government. Over and over again during floor debate, the drafters and supporters of the 14th Amendment explained that they intended these two groups—and only these groups—to be excluded from birthright citizenship.”"
>But the very quote from Senator Howard this same critic misused to call me a liar undercuts this assertion. Look at it again: "This [citizenship guarantee] 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."
>Notice what’s missing there? Do you see “Indian tribes”? I don’t.
>If Indians are one of “only” two groups not entitled to birthright citizenship, then they should be there, right? There are only two ways to read the above quote. The first is that Indians are included among “every other class of persons,” in which case they are citizens under the 14th amendment. But the alleged refutation of my argument absolutely depends on Indians being one of “only” two groups who are not entitled to birthright citizenship. If they are to be counted among “every other class of persons,” then they are citizens whose children are entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment.
It's irresistible bait for the 9th Circuit, they won't be able to help themselves.
>The other possibility is that Senator Howard regards Indians as belonging to the class “foreigners, aliens.” Otherwise, Indians are not on Senator Howard’s list, a list which the Senator himself says is exhaustive.
>Indeed, we know this is the answer because Senator Howard told us. A bit later in the same debate, he explicitly categorizes Indians as foreigners: "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations."
>The argument against me hinges reading the earlier quote as inextricably linking the clause “foreigners, aliens” to the next clause, which reads “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” In other words, this line of attack demands that the quote be interpreted to mean that the only “foreigners” and “aliens” meant are the relatives of ambassadors and ministers. But that absolutely cannot be if Indians are among the “only” two groups not entitled to birthright citizenship. If that is the case, then they must have been counted as another subset of “foreigners”—which Senator Howard explicitly affirms. If Indians are among the class “foreigners, aliens” then clearly those two words were not meant to specify only the relatives of ambassadors and ministers but other foreigners as well—which the other quotes I cited explicitly affirm. The only way around this point is to torture the text even further and assert that Indians are not merely the only foreigners meant, but also that the only Indians who don’t get birthright citizenship are the relatives of Indian ambassadors.
>Senator Howard continues by noting that the fact that “we make treaties” with another people is, in and of itself, proof that “they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them.” We, of course, make treaties with foreign nations as well as with Indian tribes. Indeed, as the Senator had already explained, we make treaties with Indian tribes because we treat them as foreign nations.
>In sum, to sustain the line of attack being used against me, one must insist on three things. First that only the first quote from Senator Howard is authoritative in interpreting the 14th Amendment. Second, that the quote means only what my critics say it means and is open to no other possible interpretation. Third, that all the other quotes cited which clearly state that the framers of the Amendment equated “subject to the jurisdiction” with “not owing allegiance to anybody else” are somehow irrelevant. Even though they were spoken in the same debate—some of them to express agreement with Senator Howard!
>>The word “complete” is important. The authors of the amendment affirmed that all persons present in U.S. territory are subject to U.S. law; that is, both obligated to obey it and entitled to its protection for person and property. This is the partial jurisdiction that any sovereign state claims over aliens on its soil. But, they continued, that does not entitle anyone to citizenship. Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania clarifies:
>>"If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word."
THIS
EXACTLY
What if he can apply pic related?
When I heard President Trump suggest revoking birth-right citizenship I was excited too, but then when you actually think about it. You will realize it's too late, the damage is done. Millions of illegal's pumping out babies daily, without MASS-deportations limiting birth-right citizenship for newly arrived illegal aliens would barely make a dent.
Diplomat can get PNG'd by the US government and be forced to leave the country though...
they want us to believe that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that they can be sued in U.S. courts, lol. that's literally the argument they've gone over to making.
you need to read Michael Anton's stuff. he has been debunking Garrett Epps and all other birthright citizenship retards.
>Those only apply to citizens, not all people in the US
That is exactly the point. And women who are citizens can be tried for treason so my statement still holds.
You're missing the whole point. It is OBVIOUS that by being in the US you are subject to the US laws. It is further CLARIFIED that you must be Subject to the jurisdiction of the US. This clarification means that you must hold complete allegiance to the US, which Foreign Aliens or Indians do not.
Like 40 years
>That's millions more "citizen" mexicans of illegal immigrant parents, who realistically owe their true allegiance too their families and their culture not the country.
We shall see but I say he can and you are wrong,
