Trump Declares He Will End Birthright Citizenship

All I have is her birth certificate, is that all I need? It doesn’t have anything about citizenship… Just the normal stuff like place of birth, etc.

Are you now suggesting, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) didn’t understand grammar or Senator Howard’s position?

“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“.

Let us not forget that Sen. Trumbull declare: “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 ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.“

Sen. Howard then followed up by stating, “ the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

:roll_eyes:

JWK

I’m trying to describe the type of jurisdiction a nation has over its citizens. I guess I’m not using the correct term for a citizen of a sovereign nation.

No matter which nation you travel to, you are always an American citizen. The foreign country you visit does not have complete jurisdiction over your person, They cannot force you to pay back taxes, can’t draft you into their military, can’t force you to follow some of the laws which govern the lives of their citizens. Because they do not have the type of jurisdiction over you, as a citizen of another sovereign nation.

Jus soli isn’t going anywhere.

Whew! Here I was all panicked about how I was going to prove my citizenship… On my fathers side we go back to a time when there were no birth certificates or anything… I could be an illegal alien for all I know without jus soli…

Don’t be silly.

It needs to go away. Our current immigration process and interpretations have essentially taken away control of US citizenship from the citizens of this country.

It’s insane to think the drafters of the CRA or 14th amendment two years later, intended to impart the power of US citizenship to Russian tourist agents, selling “make an American anchor baby” vacation packages. Or citizens of another country, violating immigration laws, be sneaking across our borders, to pop out a kid before immigration authorities could catch and deport them.

Yes. But only because Trump often doesn’t follow through with his promises.

It’s not going anywhere unless the constitution is amended.

Baring that. Anchor babies are here to stay.

Just like the dreamers.

Allan

Our Constitution is our Supreme Law of the Land, and it places a qualification upon the principle of Jus soli . That qualification requires “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

JWK

How can I prove that my parents were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US when I was born? When they were born? Neither of my parents or grandparents ever went through a naturalization process… Have I been living a lie my entire my life?

It’s not going anywhere.

I’m going to the store to pick up eggs, milk, butter, and lots of bacon or sausage.

List or compound sentence describing 1 item?

That is a list.

So is the other.

:rofl:

No, it’s not. Read the record, the context makes it very clear.

No, it’s not. The equivalent in your example would be: I’m going to the grocery store to get greens, lettuce, belonging to the romaine family. I’m only going to get romaine lettuce.

The idea that it is a list is absurd in every way. First, there’s no difference between foreigners and aliens. Why would they need to be listed separately?

Second, why would Howard need to mention foreign ambassadors? He already said “foreigners” without any qualifiers. It’d be super odd to specifically mention ambassadors (why would he do that?) if he didn’t think any foreigners were subject to our jurisdiction within the context of the 14th.

Lastly, and most importantly, if Howard’s statement is to be taken as a list, it means that the 14th wouldn’t apply to ANY foreigners. However, Senator Trumbull explicitly says that children born here to NON NATURALIZED immigrants were US citizens. Senator Conness equally said as much with regard to children born to immigrants in California were US citizens per the CRA of 1866 and the senate was now working to make that part of the constitution via the 14th.

Howard’s “list” is no list at all. He’s saying it doesn’t apply to foreigners (i.e. aliens) who belong to families of ambassadors… it’s a single class of people. Children born to foreign ambassadors. And the reason is obvious. Diplomatic immunity. Foreign ambassadors are not subject to our jurisdiction.

We already went over this. You are wrong.

The Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) was fully aware of Senator Howard’s position:

“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“.

And let us not forget that Sen. Trumbull declare: “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 ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.“

Sen. Howard then followed up by stating, “ the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

:roll_eyes:

JWK

Did Wong Kim Ark’s parents have any foreign allegiance?

:roll_eyes:

We have already gone over this. I have no way of knowing and neither do you. And, “allegiance” is not mentioned in the Court’s decision. Stop being obtuse.

JWK