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 9 hours ago 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 8 hours ago 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 4 hours ago 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 3 hours ago 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.