And again, it mattered at the time which is why it was specifically addressed and affirmed in subsequent court decisions.
The cases and articles were cited above.
The congressmen at the time explicitly said they were under our jurisdiction.
Mr. TRUMBULL: Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murderers and roberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in any just sense? They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them. It is only those person who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.
You don’t get subject to our laws more than being tried and executed.
You. Are. Wrong.
Read the cited articles and cases. Not going to keep chasing this dog around the tree endlessly.
What law is an illegal alien not subject to?
They are subject to the entire US legal code.
The only foreigners residing on US soil who are not subject to our jurisdiction are diplomats, their families, and occupying soldiers.
No, it did not. Citizenship does not confer allegiance. Allegiance is an emotion and citizenship is a legal status.
Are you claiming that a child born in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of the 14th Amendment?
And one more time, that was not the view at the time.
Birthright citizenship was not specifically conferred on the children of illegals until the sixties.
And yet you have, all day long.
If the child is born in the United States the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and is therefore a citizen of the United States. Period. It doesn’t matter if the child’s parents were born on the ■■■■■■■ moon and snuck into the country on a ■■■■■■■ unicorn.
Yes, it does seems that conservative appointed judges dissent more often then their counter parts.
Why is that?
Collective mentality versus individual?
One more time. The United States has never recognized dual citizenship and has never prohibited it or made giving up citizenship a requirement for “allegiance”.
Textualists.
That’s not how this works.
Illegal entry did not exist at the time of the 14th. At that time, jus soli was based on common law. ALL PERSONS born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. ALL.
A person born to illegal immigrants on US soil is completely under our jurisdiction. It’s absurd to say they aren’t. What laws are they not subject to? None. They are completely under our jurisdiction. Thus, they are citizens.
No judicial precedent disagrees with me.
The Congressional Record agrees with me.
Reality agrees with me.
One more time read the cited cases and articles.
The children of Indians born in the US on or off reservations were not even considered to be under our jurisdiction because the parents were members of tribal nations. It took a specific act of congress to confer citizenship on them.
That’s exactly how it worked right up until the courts overturned it.
Bull ■■■■■ The children born on US soil to Indians that left their reservations and resided in the US were citizens.
Until the 1920s, it was only the Indians that were still on Indian land that were not made citizens. Because Indian lands were considered quasi-nations.
Good Lord.
And thank you for screwing up the thread.
No they weren’t they were specifically excluded by the language of the 14th, and only later was citizenship conferred on them by statute.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-in-1924-all-indians-made-united-states-citizens/
I didn’t screw anything up, I merely replied and answered the questions asked.
If they overturn a state’s gun control law, correct or not, they are actually telling people how to live.
Indians on Indian lands. Indians residing on US soil apart from their tribe ARE SUBJECT TO OUR JURISDICTION.
Your argument makes no ■■■■■■■ sense in the context of Trumbull’s quote. Read it yourself: A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
He’s ■■■■■■■ talking about Indian’s on their land, making treaties with them, talking about tribal regulations.
Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murderers and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another?
This makes no sense if this applies to Indians residing on US soil apart from their tribe and reservation. Of course we have jurisdiction over such crimes on our soil.
Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court?
Of course they’d be able to sue a Navajoe Indian in court if they resided in the Us.
A person residing on US soil is subject to our jurisdiction.
Ugh, the quality of discussion has declined considerably more lately and that’s saying something.
What on earth could have caused the degradation? It’s as if a super dose of pedantry has been mainlined into the forum.
5 Likes
