Duh…
not SCOTUS, means nothing.
Allan
Yes. Their citizenship is conveyed at birth just like mine was.
I agree. But the conversation was about Amending the Constitution such that they would not be US citizens.
And what has our SCOTUS stated with regard to the meaning of “. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”?
"The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”___ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884)
You and I both know that will never happen.
never answered, plain words.
Allan
The plain text reads “… and subject to the jurisdiction thereof …”
they are only accepted as citizens, whether they are or not a court will decide.
yes exactly plain words for the last 152 years and counting……
Allan
Your math is a little off but glad you agree.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with the conversation.
No, they are citizens.
It has everything to do with it.
and maybe they will even remain so. The court will decide, not you, not me.
1868 to 2024 to be exact.
thats how long we have had jus soli.
millions of citizens born in the United States and automatic citizens.
no worries about linage, parents citizenship or any other mumbo jumbo you wish to throw in the pot.
born in the US equals US citizens for over 150 years.
Allan (birthright United States citizen)
With the qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof… ", as the words were understood by those who framed the 14th Amendment and helped to ratify it.
SCOTUS said jus soli occurred with Wong Kim Ark. (born of chinese nationals parents in the United States)
SCOTUS > legislative intent.
Allan
The opinion in Wong Kim Ark is old hat, 1898. The latest exposition on jus soli is found in Tuaua v. United States, No. 13-5272 (D.C. Cir. 2015),
The Court, in 2015, expounds upon jus soli as follows:
"And even assuming the framers intended the Citizenship Clause to constitutionally codify jus soli principles, birthright citizenship does not simply follow the flag. Since its conception jus soli has incorporated a requirement of allegiance to the sovereign. To the extent jus soli is adopted into the Fourteenth Amendment, the concept of allegiance is manifested by the Citizenship Clause’s mandate that birthright citizens not merely be born within the territorial boundaries of the United States but also “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 1; see Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655, 18 S.Ct. 456 (“The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection… Children, born in England, of aliens, were natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.”).
Appellants would find any allegiance requirement of no moment because, as non-citizen nationals, American Samoans already “owe permanent allegiance to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22); see also Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. at 155 (“[A]llegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is; and allegiance by birth, is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.”). Yet, within the context of the Citizenship Clause, “[t]he evident meaning of the … words [“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”] is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643 (1884)(emphasis added).
the child of legal immigrants legally residing in the US.
1 Like
No it doesn’t. The conversation was about what could occur if the rules were changed, not about the probability of succeeding in making the change.
