I dont think the writers of the 14th envisioned a time when a political party would throw the borders open and allow mass access to our system and country

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

If you visit London, do you become a subject of the crown, or are you temporarily subject to their laws?

The qualifier was known to exclude foreign dignitaries children and Indians following the amendment's ratification, meaning that "subject" refers to "allegiance" rather than mere presence.

Leaving out part of a sentence because you don't understand it doesn't grant you "honesty by ignorance." Spreading lies is spreading lies.

---

I left it out because it seems clear that anyone in the US is subject to our laws while they are here.

Obviously, I should have included it.

In "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)". The Supreme Court considered this very question quite deeply and determined that in that particular case, anyway, that having been born in the United States, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen even though his parents were not citizens.

Much of their argument seems to be based on the original intent.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I dont think the writers of the 14th envisioned a time when a political party would throw the borders open and allow mass access to our system and country

---

I have no objections to amending the Constitution to limit this, but I do feel that is what is needed.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

If you visit London, do you become a subject of the crown, or are you temporarily subject to their laws?

The qualifier was known to exclude foreign dignitaries children and Indians following the amendment's ratification, meaning that "subject" refers to "allegiance" rather than mere presence.

Leaving out part of a sentence because you don't understand it doesn't grant you "honesty by ignorance." Spreading lies is spreading lies.

---

You call eric76 a liar for not including "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", but then you split "subject" and "jurisdiction" to support your preferred landing spot, so one could say you're lying just as much.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was written to exclude foreign dignitaries and "Indians not taxed", but how does that system exclude those groups? Well, that's because, absent some treaty between the US and the foreign government or Indian tribe, the US has NO jurisdiction over those individuals in any manner. A foreign dignitary murders somebody in America? The police have no jurisdiction to detain them, the only recourse the US has is to make them persona non grata and kick them out. Similarly, all the treaties with the tribes the US has signed expressly grants the US government jurisdiction over the tribal members for crimes (see McGirt v. Oklahoma for a longer discussion of how that impacts state jurisdiction).

So, if you are making the claim that illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, then you're saying that they are not subject to the criminal laws of the US, which I don't think is what you're saying, but I could be wrong.

By the way, some time ago I read an article on people without a country and it said that there are some countries that only grant citizenship to children born in that country to parents who are citizens born within the country. So to be a citizen, you had to be born in the country with one or both parents being citizens.

I have absolutely no idea which countries that would be, though.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I dont think the writers of the 14th envisioned a time when a political party would throw the borders open and allow mass access to our system and country

---

That was essentially the status quo at the time of the 14th Amendment. If you could get here, you could get in.

The constructs of "immigration" as we understand it now developed post-14th Amendment.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I dont think the writers of the 14th envisioned a time when a political party would throw the borders open and allow mass access to our system and country

---

That was essentially the status quo at the time of the 14th Amendment. If you could get here, you could get in.

The concept of "immigration" as we understand it now developed post-14th Amendment.

---

But thats what I mean. They couldn't envision our issues today and their language isn't sufficient. Its only clear to me they were attempting to solve the slavery problem and the indigenous problem amo f a couple others.

It seems this amendment was meant to solve a very specific problem, not be the foundation for broad mass immigration

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I dont think the writers of the 14th envisioned a time when a political party would throw the borders open and allow mass access to our system and country

---

That was essentially the status quo at the time of the 14th Amendment. If you could get here, you could get in.

The constructs of "immigration" as we understand it now developed post-14th Amendment.

---

This only applied if you were white. The Naturalization Act of 1790 explicitly limited immigration to "free white persons", so to say that the 14th Amendment was drafted in a time of unfettered immigration is to misstate the facts.

jacketman03 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I dont think the writers of the 14th envisioned a time when a political party would throw the borders open and allow mass access to our system and country

---

That was essentially the status quo at the time of the 14th Amendment. If you could get here, you could get in.

The constructs of "immigration" as we understand it now developed post-14th Amendment.

---

This only applied if you were white. The Naturalization Act of 1790 explicitly limited immigration to "free white persons", so to say that the 14th Amendment was drafted in a time of unfettered immigration is to misstate the facts.

---

The Naturalization Acts spoke to naturalization, not entry to the country.

Immigration was pretty well unregulated until the 1870s except to the extent it was effected by laws regulating ships.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I dont think the writers of the 14th envisioned a time when a political party would throw the borders open and allow mass access to our system and country

---

That was essentially the status quo at the time of the 14th Amendment. If you could get here, you could get in.

The concept of "immigration" as we understand it now developed post-14th Amendment.

---

But thats what I mean. They couldn't envision our issues today and their language isn't sufficient. Its only clear to me they were attempting to solve the slavery problem and the indigenous problem amo f a couple others.

It seems this amendment was meant to solve a very specific problem, not be the foundation for broad mass immigration

---

The 14th Amendment addresses citizenship, not immigration.

I was just saying at the time, immigration was essentially unregulated, in response to your comment about "borders open" and "mass access."

Similarly, the 14th Amendment doesn't prescribe who can be or cannot be naturalized. It just states naturalization is a basis for citizenship.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

No, itd be like daca i suppose for the time being.

Congress would have to act. I could envision something along the lines of those here now whom gained citizenship in such a way have nothing changed but those about gain citizenship that way would only get the citizenship of their parents.

Or, maybe some form kf mass asylum is given to people who were born here but parents were illegal.

Its a tough situation but one that must be resolved. We, as a nation, cannot sustain both birthright citizenship and open borders (every time the dems are in charge).

---

Agreed.

Regardless of which way the court goes it's time to have a definitive answer once and for all.

Don't gaslight us that an "untaxed Indian" walking the streets of Kansas City in 1880 would have been treated as some sacrosanct legal untouchable.

Easy questions: is an illegal subject to be called in a hypothetical draft?

And if it meant as little as you imply, then why include it at all?

I criticized a lie by omission, whereas you distort backward from your desired interpretation and accuse me of doing what you are.

Bird Poo said:

---

Interestingly, birthright citizenship is a Western Hemisphere thing. Europe, Australia, and Asia don't allow it. Hell, even Africa doesn't allow it.

---

It is due to white guilt and white man's burden.

A deadly cocktail.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Don't gaslight us that an "untaxed Indian" walking the streets of Kansas City in 1880 would have been treated as some sacrosanct legal untouchable.

Easy questions: is an illegal subject to be called in a hypothetical draft?

And if it meant as little as you imply, then why include it at all?

I criticized a lie by omission, whereas you distort backward from your desired interpretation and accuse me of doing what you are.

---

Your "untaxed Indian" walking the streets of Kansas City in 1880 would not be some legal untouchable due to the treat between his tribe and the is granting the US jurisdiction over him, as I covered in my initial response.

The Selective Service Act annually does require illegal immigrants to register, so yes, an illegal immigrant would be subject to a hypothetical draft, whereas the child of a foreign diplomat would not be.

In the words of the person who wrote the "subject to the jurisdiction" language, it was used to include every person other than the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, but I'm sure you know what he meant better than he did, right?

Selective service registration =/= draft. You're a vital step short. (By similar logic we also require thieves to declare theft "income" to the IRS)

Regardless, you've already agreed that there are limitations to the amendment's coverage beyond "human born within these borders." And yet, you conclude that the language REQUIRES a gift of national membership to foreign nationals who are here in violation of our law which it withholds from their countrymen who are present legally on official purpose.

Your attempt to claim the high ground of earliest interpretation is hollow for the very reasons you cite: this doesn't extend to foreign nationals.

If you get hung up on the foreign dignitary part: let's just declare all illegals as undocumented dignitaries and land in the same place: birthright citizenship is for the children of Americans (citizens and permanent legal residents).

No Spin Ag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Yes, from what I have read, theres not been a case dealing specifically with children born to those here illegally.

I think theres a pathway to establishing thay children born to parents here illegally are not inherently citizens.

---

One of the many reasons I do noeasy.

using Wong Kim Ark case is due to the dearth of immigration laws when it was decided. And there were few immigration laws when the 14th was drafted and passed that the subject would not have occurred to them. And the US was still growing adding new states and territories so immigration was viewed much more favorably.

It is not anathema to being a strict constructionist to factor in those considerations. Do I think SCOTUS goes that far? Not really but it is always a possibility. I never thought Roe would be overturned either.

---

Roe being overturned hasn't really stopped abortions from happening though, and in that vein, if the courts give a president the ability to alter or remove citizenship for a certain group, would another president be able just to undo what Trump does if given the chance? Like the back and forth with EOs?

---

Removing citizenship won't happen as just about anyone affected would be rendered stateless. Stopping the future granting of citizenship could. If the city rules against birthright citizenship, it would not be something that could be undone with an EO. They would invalidate the entire idea of birthright citizenship through a new interpretation of the 14th amendment. The EO is just to trigger the case.

---

Interesting.

So, like abortions, would people just be able to go to places that would give them citizenship?

---

It's nothing like abortion because that was made into a State issue. US Citizenship is not up to the States. You can already go somewhere else that will give you citizenship and become a dual citizen and/or renounce your citizenship, but you cannot be stripped of citizenship that would leave you stateless. Anyone who is now a citizen cannot be unmade a citizen unless they committed acts of fraud or omission when applying for citizenship.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

If you get hung up on the foreign dignitary part: let's just declare all illegals as undocumented dignitaries and land in the same place: birthright citizenship is for the children of Americans (citizens and permanent legal residents).

---

And here's you have just created the doctrine of illegal immigrant immunity, which I don't think you are actually wanting to do.

My stance is that the words mean what they say. If you want to change it, there's a process to do that, but it's not by executive order.

jacketman03 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

If you visit London, do you become a subject of the crown, or are you temporarily subject to their laws?

The qualifier was known to exclude foreign dignitaries children and Indians following the amendment's ratification, meaning that "subject" refers to "allegiance" rather than mere presence.

Leaving out part of a sentence because you don't understand it doesn't grant you "honesty by ignorance." Spreading lies is spreading lies.

---

You call eric76 a liar for not including "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", but then you split "subject" and "jurisdiction" to support your preferred landing spot, so one could say you're lying just as much.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was written to exclude foreign dignitaries and "Indians not taxed", but how does that system exclude those groups? Well, that's because, absent some treaty between the US and the foreign government or Indian tribe, the US has NO jurisdiction over those individuals in any manner. A foreign dignitary murders somebody in America? The police have no jurisdiction to detain them, the only recourse the US has is to make them persona non grata and kick them out. Similarly, all the treaties with the tribes the US has signed expressly grants the US government jurisdiction over the tribal members for crimes (see McGirt v. Oklahoma for a longer discussion of how that impacts state jurisdiction).

So, if you are making the claim that illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, then you're saying that they are not subject to the criminal laws of the US, which I don't think is what you're saying, but I could be wrong.

---

Not exactly true. We can ask the host country to waive the immunity. We could also simply try them if we wanted. Political immunity is governed by international convention, but it is also voluntary. Every country agrees to it and abides by it because it is mutually beneficial, but that doesn't mean a country cannot abandon that convention and prosecute and/or punish a diplomat if it decides the crime is worth the political sacrifice.

jacketman03 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

If you get hung up on the foreign dignitary part: let's just declare all illegals as undocumented dignitaries and land in the same place: birthright citizenship is for the children of Americans (citizens and permanent legal residents).

---

And here's you have just created the doctrine of illegal immigrant immunity, which I don't think you are actually wanting to do.

My stance is that the words mean what they say. If you want to change it, there's a process to do that, but it's not by executive order.

---

And my stance is that the words mean what they say regardless of the lower court creep following Wong Kim Ark and that for the purpose of citizenship; illegals are subjects of the jurisdiction of their home nations. No legal change needed to consider them outside of the jurisdiction (insofar as the 14th amendment is concerned).