You have failed to answer my question about birth certificates. Can you list the states which indicate the citizenship status of the child? How can we determine the citizenship of the child if it’s not indicated on the birth certificate?
Strictly constitutionally speaking, the issuing of birth certificates is a state matter. Were the court to correctly conclude that the children of illegals were not granted the right to citizenship by virtue of their birth on US soil, it would once again be a state issue. Meaning individual states would be able to decide whether they wished to grant citizenship to such a child or not.
How can a State grant citizenship when that is already a delegated power of the Federal government, namely Congress?
From Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
If States can pick and choose who to grant citizenship to, how is that a uniform rule of naturalization as explicitly stated in the Constitution?
It’s like having an eo saying slavery is okay.
It’s stupid pandering to the dumb.
Allan
Wrong again.
Allan
That’s absolutely incorrect. The decision states to be subject to the jurisdiction means merely to be present in the country with only three exclusions.
You’re pretending it’s a narrow ruling, it’s not. You’re trying to invent an opinion that doesn’t exist. You’re pretending Slaughterhouse has anything to do with this, it doesn’t, and was called out in Wong Kim Ark as being incorrect in their opinion on the matter which had nothing to do with the actual matter at hand in that case.
1 Like
“Full and complete legal and political” jurisdiction is not the wording used in the 14th amendment and therefore it’s irrelevant.
There were people in the country who were not subject to our jurisidictio as has been pointed out numerous times. Those individuals are explicitly defined as foreign ministers, invading armies and some Native American tribes. That’s it. End of story.
1 Like
It is amply documented in legal precedent and the historical record… to mean subject to the laws of the United States.
How many have you counted so far?
Not a very creative deflection. Your question has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” .
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
Except it exemplifies the acceptance of all 50 states that a US birth indicates citizenship…
You might want to check out…
101.3 Creation of record of lawful permanent resident status for person born under diplomatic status in the United States.
(a) Person born to foreign diplomat—(1) Status of person. A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Such a person may be considered a lawful permanent resident at birth.
1 Like
Hmm, I seem to remember a recent President who issues an unconstitutional EO. The court slapped him silly. Who was it? Oh yes, Democrat, Obama, who thought he got to decide when congress was and wasn’t in session.
Of course, that was small potatoes in comparison to when he ordered the murder of US citizens without due process.
Who do you thinks bestows citizenship in the vast majority of cases right now? Were you issued a birth certificate by the feds or your state?
The federal government bestows citizenship in all cases.
It’s silly to discuss state citizenship vs federal citizenship. The distinction does not exist.
And those people were named in the Amendment, making the addition of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof superflous if they were the only ones that fell under that category. Now what has the court said about that in regard to valid constitutional construction? I am sure JownWK would be glad to fill you in.
When did the federal government grant you citizenship?
What is relevant with regard to the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the legislative intent as expressed by the 39th Congress.
And the fact is, TRUMBULL, who was in attendance during the framing of the 14th Amendment said:**
“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ 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 Amendment’s first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply 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 citizen…” 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:
“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.
Now, if you have some relevant documentation to shed light on the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which happens to be a qualifier for citizenship being bestowed upon children born on United States Soil, please feel free to post that documentation, rather than personal opinions.
JWK
Why don’t you post the text of the amendment and point out where they are named if you please.
I don’t know what your second question is getting at. If you do, please spill the beans. Don’t leave us all in suspense.
Are you reading a different 14th Amendment than the rest of us?
It doesn’t “name those people”.
You really shouldn’t use JohnWK as your appeal to authority here. He’s completely lost.
1 Like
