Birthright citizenship

[paxamericana]

“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.”

The original intent was to exclude children born of foreign diplomat , native Americans, and children of Aliens who has allegiance to a foreign government like the undocumented migrants or pregnant tourist. 
 

It was meant for children of slaves who does not have allegiance to other countries. 
 

By the original intent it is clear cut children of undocumented parents say a Canadian who gives birth in the United States is not entitled to birth right citizenship.

Congress would need to amend the constitution to include children of foreign aliens.

Edited Thursday at 10:43 AM by paxamericana

[Hodad]

No. You can WISH that is what it meant or wish to amend the Constitution, but it was written and intended to do exactly what it's been doing for over a hundred years. 

[paxamericana]

25 minutes ago, Hodad said:

but it was written and intended to do exactly what it's been doing for over a hundred years. 

That’s a blatant lie. The Supreme Court later interpreted that way in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) .

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan introduced the citizenship clause language in 1866. He explicitly stated on the Senate floor that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to exclude:

    •    Children of foreign diplomats
    •    Members of Native American tribes (who were considered under separate tribal sovereignty)
    •    Children of aliens who owe allegiance to a foreign government
 

Senator Lyman Trumbull (chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) defined jurisdiction as meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else” — suggesting full, exclusive allegiance to the U.S. was required.

The Primary Purpose
The clause was chiefly designed to:

    •    Overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
    •    Guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved Black Americans, who were born in the U.S. with no other national allegiance

Freed slaves fit perfectly under either the broad or narrow reading — they had no foreign sovereign to whom they owed allegiance.

Edited Thursday at 11:21 AM by paxamericana

[John Stone]

A baby born in most U.S. territories becomes a U.S. citizen at birth. 

China-watchers estimate over 1000 Chinese companies offer so-called 'birth tourism' to the Mariana Islands other overseas territories and the US mainland. 

It's est. that millions of American-born babies are being raised in China by Chinese parents who have participated in birth tourism. 

The other 'pathway' to birthright citizenship is through permissive US surrogacy laws. 

Described as 'rent-a-womb' a surrogate American mother is contracted to carry the fertilized egg. The resulting child gains and maintains full rights of American citizenship through a dubious intervention of the 14th Amendment. 

 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, paxamericana said:

That’s a blatant lie. The Supreme Court later interpreted that way in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) .

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan introduced the citizenship clause language in 1866. He explicitly stated on the Senate floor that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to exclude:

    •    Children of foreign diplomats
    •    Members of Native American tribes (who were considered under separate tribal sovereignty)
    •    Children of aliens who owe allegiance to a foreign government
 

Senator Lyman Trumbull (chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) defined jurisdiction as meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else” — suggesting full, exclusive allegiance to the U.S. was required.

The Primary Purpose
The clause was chiefly designed to:

    •    Overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
    •    Guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved Black Americans, who were born in the U.S. with no other national allegiance

Freed slaves fit perfectly under either the broad or narrow reading — they had no foreign sovereign to whom they owed allegiance.

You're just repeating yourself. Let's see the quotes. 🙂

Howard:
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that is, that every person born within the limits 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..."

 

Turnbull:
Mr. WEST: I desire to know what meaning will be attached to these words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Is it to be understood that every person born in the United States is to be a citizen of the United States?

Mr. TRUMBULL: What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. We have had in this country from its foundation a large region of country within the territorial limits of the United States over which we do not pretend to exercise any civil or criminal jurisdiction, where wild tribes of Indians roam at pleasure, subject to their own laws and regulations, and we do not pretend to interfere with them.

Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.

 

 

Not that the laws of this land require an originalist interpretation, but even if you are of that bent, this is an open and shut case. That's why it's been interpreted as it has for over a century. You people try to actively misread the language of the law. That's the only way to contort yourself into that position. -- Just be honest and say you want an amendment, because inventing a cockamamie reading of the existing text is not going to work.

 

[User]

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

No. You can WISH that is what it meant or wish to amend the Constitution, but it was written and intended to do exactly what it's been doing for over a hundred years. 

Yeah, show us the debates when this was being passed, where it was clearly meant to allow a pregnant woman, to illegally cross the border, plop her kid out 1 foot over the line before she could be deported, then have her kid automatically become an American citizen….

[Deluge]

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

No. You can WISH that is what it meant or wish to amend the Constitution, but it was written and intended to do exactly what it's been doing for over a hundred years. 

Wrong. 

ALWAYS wrong.  

The Naturalization Act of 1790 tells us that what we've been doing for the past 100+ years is wrong. SCOTUS needs to kill all of it and get us back to what the Founders envisioned. 

[paxamericana]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Like I said, a Canadian tourist who comes here to give birth still owes allegiance to a different country and has not formally been declared a subject of the united state;and therefore not eligible for birth right citizenship.

Edited Thursday at 04:10 PM by paxamericana

[John Stone]

15 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Like I said, a Canadian tourist who comes here to give birth still owes allegiance to a different country and has not formally been declared a subject of the united state;and therefore not eligible for birth right citizenship.

............. and that's even after u Kanucks become a U.S. territory. 🤪

 

Edited Thursday at 04:25 PM by John Stone

[Hodad]

30 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Like I said, a Canadian tourist who comes here to give birth still owes allegiance to a different country and has not formally been declared a subject of the united state;and therefore not eligible for birth right citizenship.

Did he not expand on that thought and add very clearly the explanation that the language addresses Native American sovereignty? He told you exactly what he meant. You just wish he had meant something different. 

The fact is that birthright citizenship goes back far, far past the writing of the amendment. Back to English common law. Birthright citizenship was already the law of the land at the time the amendment was written. If the intention had been to change that, they would have written a VERY different amendment, one not of inclusions, but of exclusions. 

But they didn't. Because they weren't trying to exclude. They were codifying inclusion of people who had previously been denied rights. 

[Deluge]

13 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Did he not expand on that thought and add very clearly the explanation that the language addresses Native American sovereignty? He told you exactly what he meant. You just wish he had meant something different. 

The fact is that birthright citizenship goes back far, far past the writing of the amendment. Back to English common law. Birthright citizenship was already the law of the land at the time the amendment was written. If the intention had been to change that, they would have written a VERY different amendment, one not of inclusions, but of exclusions. 

But they didn't. Because they weren't trying to exclude. They were codifying inclusion of people who had previously been denied rights. 

And non-citizens need to continue to be denied rights. If they don't like it then they can return their countries and have rights again. 

It's simple.  

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, paxamericana said:

That’s a blatant lie. The Supreme Court later interpreted that way in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) .

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan introduced the citizenship clause language in 1866. He explicitly stated on the Senate floor that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to exclude:

    •    Children of foreign diplomats
    •    Members of Native American tribes (who were considered under separate tribal sovereignty)
    •    Children of aliens who owe allegiance to a foreign government
 

Senator Lyman Trumbull (chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) defined jurisdiction as meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else” — suggesting full, exclusive allegiance to the U.S. was required.

The Primary Purpose
The clause was chiefly designed to:

    •    Overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
    •    Guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved Black Americans, who were born in the U.S. with no other national allegiance

Freed slaves fit perfectly under either the broad or narrow reading — they had no foreign sovereign to whom they owed allegiance.

You don't know the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

"All persons" present in the US are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" unless specifically EXCLUDED from it.

"Children of aliens" are NOT specifically excluded and face arrest/punishment for ANY CRIMES.

You need to stop LYING.

[paxamericana]

48 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You need to stop LYING.

Jurisdiction doesn’t mean culpability for crimes. It means allegiance.

[Hodad]

25 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Jurisdiction doesn’t mean culpability for crimes. It means allegiance.

You're mixed up. Jurisdiction is and always has meant subject to the laws of a particular government. -- That's literally why you see Howard define birthright citizenship as not inclusive of the children of diplomats--because diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the countries in which they reside. 
 

And that's also why you see Turnbull explain give the same explanation about Native Americans, whose nations within the United states were significantly exempted from the laws of the united states. 

 

It's not the meaning of jurisdiction that has drifted--that's rock solid. The word "allegiance" is being used in an archaic legal context. You are thinking of it in a modern sense--something like loyalty. Whereas it was being used in a legal context to mean something more like "duty" -- a duty to abide by the laws of a specific jurisdiction. 

Blackstone
Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien, or stranger born, for so long time as he continues within the king's dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local temporary only: and that for this reason, evidently founded upon the nature of government; that allegiance is a debt due from the subject, upon an implied contract with the prince, that so long as the one affords protection, so long the other will demean himself faithfully. As therefore the prince is always under a constant tie to protect his natural-born subjects, at all times and in all countries, for this reason their allegiance due to him is equally universal and permanent. But, on the other hand, as the prince affords his protection to an alien, only during his residence in this realm, the allegiance of an alien is confined (in point of time) to the duration of such his residence, and (in point of locality) to the dominions of the British empire.
 

 

It's not an accident that our current reading of the law confers birthright citizenship. It's not a mistake or a misreading or a distortion. The original authors made the intent explicitly clear. The court interpreted it faithfully. Again, you can wish it were otherwise, but there's more than enough clear evidence in this thread alone for a rational person to take the information in and revise their thinking. You should take advantage of the opportunity. 

 

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

You're mixed up. Jurisdiction is and always has meant subject to the laws of a particular government.

No, If “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” just meant physically present in the U.S., it adds nothing to “born in the United States.” The phrase only does real work if it means something more — i.e., allegiance.

The word “jurisdiction” was borrowed from international law of the era, where it carried allegiance connotations

Edited Thursday at 10:25 PM by paxamericana

[Hodad]

23 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

No, If “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” just meant physically present in the U.S., it adds nothing to “born in the United States.” The phrase only does real work if it means something more — i.e., allegiance.

The word “jurisdiction” was borrowed from international law of the era, where it carried allegiance connotations

Nope. Remember the quotes and explanations from just a few posts ago. 

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" is to provide carve outs for people born here but literally not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, i.e. the children of foreign diplomats and Native Americans (which at that time were citizens of their nations but not of the US).

That's plainly stated. 

And please read the Blackstone passage, in which he explains what "allegiance" meant in that legal context. Blackstone is what the authors were trained on. You have the relationship between the words backward. Jurisdiction is exactly as it is today. 

[eyeball]

Birthright citizenship?

LMAO!

From where I'm sitting I'm still where I was born, exactly over the center of Earth, I haven't gone anywhere.

Us Earthlings were here first. Y'all feel free to get your silly countries off our planet.

Thanks.

[paxamericana]

46 minutes ago, eyeball said:

From where I'm sitting I'm still where I was born, exactly over the center of Earth, I haven't gone anywhere.

No you’re a 51ster come this fall

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Jurisdiction doesn’t mean culpability for crimes. It means allegiance.

Sorry but you don't get to make up your own definitions. LMAO

Quote

jurisdiction

Jurisdiction can be defined as:

1. Power of a court to adjudicate cases and issue orders; or
2. Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power.

 

59 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

No you’re a 51ster come this fall

You're insane.

[Deluge]

23 hours ago, robosmith said:

You don't know the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

"All persons" present in the US are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" unless specifically EXCLUDED from it.

"Children of aliens" are NOT specifically excluded and face arrest/punishment for ANY CRIMES.

You need to stop LYING.

Yup, as a foreigner, you would be subject to the jurisdiction of the US, so don't be an a$$hole and break our laws or you will be subject to fines, imprisonment, or deportation under US jurisdiction. 

Aliens beget aliens, so baby aliens stay aliens until they can be deported with their alien parents. 

[Deluge]

13 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Yup, as a foreigner, you would be subject to the jurisdiction of the US, so don't be an a$$hole and break our laws or you will be subject to fines, imprisonment, or deportation under US jurisdiction. 

Aliens beget aliens, so baby aliens stay aliens until they can be deported with their alien parents. 

In other words, Illegal aliens need to be:

Fined and deported

Or 

Imprisoned and then deported

Or

Just deported

All under the jurisdiction thereof.