Absolutely not true.
You are spot on! What âsubject to the jurisdictionâ thereof meant is amply documented in the debates of the 39th Congress, and that is why detractors constantly avoid discussing the expressed legislative intent of the 14th Amendment as stated during its framing. Instead, they bring up irrelevant nonsense like Wong Kim Ark which happens to be, in my mind, nothing more than an intentional obfuscation and deflection.
JWK
And yet here they still are being issued birth certificates EVERY freaking day⌠I have not seen ONE birth certificate issued by ANY state that notes the citizenship status of the birth. Why would that be?
Wong Kim Ark is the controlling precedent.
Iâll just point out that when they wrote the 14th amendment, they couldnât distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants because at that time there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant.
Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant!
In Wong Kim Ark the 14th Amendmentâs qualifier requiring â and subject to the jurisdiction thereofâ is asserted to have been fulfilled as follows as stated by the Court.
(1)Wong Kim Arkâs parents were in our country legally;
(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Arkâs birth.
After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Arkâs question of citizenship :
âFor the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.â
Aside from that , the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not addresses if a child born to an alien, who has entered the United States illegally, is considered a citizen.
The Supreme Court had earlier discussed the meaning of the 14th amendmentâs citizenship clause in the Slaughterhouse cases and noted, â[t]he phrase, âsubject to its jurisdictionâ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.â
I wonder why Wong Kim Ark is repeatedly brought up in the thread when it is totally irrelevant to whether or not a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant becomes a citizen upon birth. Perhaps it is brought up as a distraction and to avoid the actual, and documented legislative intent of âand subject to the jurisdiction thereofâ as expressed in the debates of the 39th Congress.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSâN v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
But there was such things are foreigners who did not owe allegiance to the United States and were not subject to the full and complete legal and political jurisdiction of the United States. Who had by the way, already fought a war, in part due to an objection to birthright citizenship. See impressment and the war of 1812.
But they did create a qualifier for children born on American soil. And that qualifier demands they be ____ âsubject to the jurisdictionâ of the United States. And what does the phrase mean as stated during the Amendments framing?
In regard to the expressed legislative intent of the 14th Amendment the fact is, TRUMBULL, who was in attendance during the framing of the 14th Amendment said:**
âThe provision is, that âall persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.â That means âsubject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.â . . . âWhat do we mean by âsubject to the jurisdiction of the United States?â Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.â __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down.
And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendmentâs first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as âsimply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizenâŚâ Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.
And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:
âThat its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdictionâ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United Statesâ.
JWK
Do birth certificates issued by ANY state indicate the citizenship status of the child? Are birth certificates issued for births in the United States? If the citizenship status is not indicated, under your theory, how would one determine the citizenship status of that child?
I donât dispute the constitution is not being followed currently. That needs to be corrected. No child born to illegals should be granted a US birth certificate, that they are being granted does not change the original intent of the constitution.
Itâs quite amuing
Know what amuses me? Each and every additional Republican that were motivated to go to the polls today after being reminded Democrats are all for anchor babies.
1 Like
Letâs see, all 50 states for decades and decades have not been following the constitution OR you have it wrong⌠hmmmmm
I never thought Iâd live to see the day when so many living in the United States would take great joy in seeing and encouraging the borders of the United States to be invaded by the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled and criminal populations of other countries, while American Citizens suffer the devastating consequences of such an invasion. Perhaps, many of those who participate in this activity are not American citizens, or are part of a Fifth Column movement determined to destroy America from within.
JWK
There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving country than by importing the worldâs poverty stricken and criminal populations into that country and making the countryâs existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.
Blah, blah, blah⌠I fully support amending the constitution to remove birthright citizenship and will campaign in support of such an amendment. What I will NOT support, is changing the constitution through executive order or even legislation. We have a process outlined very clearly to amend the constitution.
If that is the case, you should actually support such an EO, the court will undoubtedly have a chance to weigh in and rule explicitly of the issue. I donât see how that should upset anyone who actually supports ending it.
Lol. He will lose.
Allan
And the question of whether the court will rule denying them citizenship with anything less than a constitutional amendment will be answered once and for all. If someone truly opposes it, they have nothing to lose from such an EO.
2 Likes
Your post indicates you do not support and defend our existing constitution which commands children born on United States soil, to be granted citizenship at birth, be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Why? Why do you wish to amend this qualifying provision?
And why do you not support our president fulfilling his obligations?
The president, by the terms of the Constitution, does have authority, and is obligated to, take care that the Laws [which includes the 14th Amendment] be faithfully executed. In fact, he is obligated to repel invasions, and making certain the 14th Amendment is adhered to, which requires only those children born on American soil who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are granted citizenship at birth.
And let us not forget what our Supreme Court has already stated with regard to the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment:
âThis section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are âall persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.â 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. 94 (1884)
The fact is, âsubject to the jurisdiction thereofâ as found in the 14th Amendment, is designed to deny citizenship to a child born to a foreign national who enters our country and gives birth, unless the mother has been naturalized and takes our countries âOath of Allegianceâ. Doing so, makes that person âsubject to the Jurisdictionâ of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Haven taken the above oath, one becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
Why do you reject the above mentioned existing constitutional provisions?
JWK
There is nothing to answer⌠Itâs already been answered⌠Who in the DOJ will defend this?
