why leave of the rest of the sentence?
and I don’t think we even had any immigration laws in 1869. basically it was open borders. If you could get here, you could stay here and eventually become a citizen if you wanted to. Which makes me wonder… when was the first naturalization law past? because everyone before that was a citizen pretty much just because they were here.
I don’t understand your question.
In case it matter I was
I was not trying to pretend any part of any sentence doesn’t exist.
I was trying to bring attention to the fact that “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does exist
According to one school of thought “that juristiction part is should be ignored. Just pretend that part does not exist . Anyone and everyone born here is a citizen.”
I think that the burden of proof is on them. If someone want us to ignore part of the constitutuon they must first explain why we can ignore some parts and not others.
following from MS Copilot (not terrible, but don’t bet the rent on its accuracy
“The first immigration case considered by the U.S. Supreme Court was Ozawa v. United States in 1922. The case involved Takao Ozawa, a Japanese immigrant who had lived in the United States for 20 years and applied for citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that Ozawa was ineligible for naturalization because he was not considered “white” under the Naturalization Act of 1790”
It’s not going to happen. It requires an amendment.
It’s not at all vague. It’s clear as a bell.
It’s not 1869.
That’s the reality of it.
Our court today ignores parts of the Constitution and adds parts wherever it sees fit.
14th amendment?
Ignore the part about “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” pretend the only part that exists is “all persons born here.”
Interstate Commerce Clause? (Art 1 Sec 18)?*
Pretend that interstate commerce means eveything and anything anytime and anywhere outside of bedrooms and doctors offices.
“make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?
Pretend it means “must always and everywhere recognize the establishment of religions.” Treat them differently than all other assemblies. Discriminate for and against them according to the latest politcal winds.
born and . . . . what?
born and . . . subject to what?
Should we ignore those words?
Can we ignore parts about guns and slaves too?
What are the rules for ignoring parts of the constitution?
It would not be “ignoring the Constitution.” The Constitution is clear.
Yes if says if you are born or naturalized here
you also meet one other criteria then you are a citizen.
He’s an ass. What profound good did he do for Kalifornia? “Ahnuhld’s” biggest accomplishment IMO was the first Predator movie.
All clear. It won’t work. Y’all need to get past it.
Jus soli is the law.
He certainly acts like it. “Fundamentally Change America” and yes, he did as his surrogate administration did also.
But to your point, wasn’t the birther thingy settled with a birth certificate from a hospital in Hawaii?
I’m still conflicted with that “Barry Soetoro” moniker BHO went with for so many years. Who was this guy really?
Then we shoyld amend th consitution.
Meanwhile I want th courts to enfroce the part about guns, the part about slaves and the part about “and subject to the jurisdictin thereof.”
(all of them)
But I’ll make a compromise.
If you post here a general rule for deciding when we can just ignore parts of the Constitution I’ll consider it.
Name a context other than diplomatic immunity or perhaps a SOFA-type deal that a person on US soil is not subject to US jurisdiction.
I’ll admit I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed so when I read something that I don’t completely understand I do research. So I discovered yes, there are provisions within the US Constitution that protects slavery.
https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/09/17/constitutions-biggest-flaw-protecting-slavery/#:~:text=Article%204%2C%20Section%202%2C%20contains,to%20his%20or%20her%20owner.
Very conflicting considering slavery was abolished in the 19th century. I wonder if modern day slavery involving illegal invaders would stand a court case?
I’m curious what part of the 2A are you referencing?
Sure. If we don’t automatically call them a citizen?
Then they are not required to register for the draft and not eligible for, federal jobs, for certain handouts, (drivers licenses?) and jury duty.
Come on man! You aren’t even trying. And now you’ve switched.
There are two conditions in the 14th.
1 is not in doubt. Neither is 2.
They ARE citizens. Per the Constitution.
They are citizens if they meet two conditions.
