Because I’m not coming at this from a position of ignorance. I know Trump lies constantly. I know he lied about doing away with Birthright Citizenship via fiat.
I know, too, that the phone program referred to as “Obama Phone” started under Reagan and was expanded to include cell phones under Bush.
I am income ineligible for the program.
Thanks!
But I am not about to contact him since he declared me his enemy back in December of 2016.
Really? Have you actually studied the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment? I have, and those debates tell me that citizenship was never intended to be bestowed on children born to aliens while on American soil who owe allegiance to their homeland.
Why do you think foreigners who become naturalized citizens must take our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, before becoming naturalized citizens?
“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.”
JWK
There is no surer way to weaken, subdue, demoralize and then conquer a prosperous and freedom loving people than by allowing and encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries to invade that country, and make the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such invaders.
Really.
You are one of the few “legal scholars” who have come that conclusion in the intervening years… Like many things in law, when one finds oneself on an island, that is often the result of being a castaway…
Actually the key part they are ignoring is the word “subject”, which in the context used is synonymous with subjugation.
A person in violation of our laws is not in subjugation to them. Quite the opposite in fact.
You are confusing “subject” meaning “subjected to”, and “subject” meaning “in subjugation to”.
Everyone within our borders is subjected to our laws. Not all of them are in subjugation to them.
You are making up meanings.
“Subjugation” means to make something a “subject”.
Your argument has no basis in law, and as far as i can see, no basis in semantics either.
So an American who commits murder forfeits his citizenship?
He’s trying to argue that “subject to” should be read as “in compliance with”.
This is the new American Right.
I know…I’m testing out whether he truly believes this.
With “conservatives” like some here and trumpists, who needs Dickie Spencer?
I’m not confusing anything. My jurisprudence is sound while yours is…nonexistent.
Now that birthright citizenship is gone, how do I prove I’m a citizen?
How sweet of you to post an unsubstantiated opinion.
The simple truth is, and one you seem to ignore, our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.
One of the few times the Court did approached answering this question was in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) . The Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”
A couple years later, in in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) , all the Court’s members expressed “doubts” that citizenship was granted, by the terms of our constitution, to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and the Court did so after expressly pointing out that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country.
That is one reason why I keep pointing out how an immigrant officially and legally declares “allegiance” to our country. They do it by taking our country’s Oath of Allegiance:
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.”
Instead of posting opinions, at least support those opinions with evidence.
JWK
There is no surer way to weaken, subdue, demoralize and then conquer a prosperous and freedom loving people than by allowing and encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries to invade that country, and make the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such invaders.
It’s almost like there has been no question of the meaning in over 100 years… hmmmmmm
You cannot be anymore wrong.You are confusing limited jurisdiction, as in being able to require acceptable personal behavior, while a foreign citizen is visiting the US.
Even between the various 50 states, within the USA, states do not have complete jurisdiction over a resident from another state. You do have to respect their laws, but you are not a resident of that state. I’m a Wisconsin resident, if I crossover into the state of Illinois they cannot pull my car over and demand I pay back taxes, or demand I pay IL to register my car, because they do not have that type of jurisdiction over me.
If a citizen of France visits the US, we cannot revoke their passport, demand they pay back taxes, or draft them into the US military, etc… They are citizens of France, we do not have jurisdiction over them, but only as it pertains to their conduct as a visiting guest.
You are making up definitions of “jurisdiction” that have no basis in law.
“Under the jurisdiction of” means “subject to the laws of”.
A French citizen is subject to all of the laws of the United States if they visit here. Any exemptions or laws that don’t apply come from the text of the law, not from jurisdiction.
On the contrary, there are different degrees of jurisdiction, being a citizen of the USA does grant you certain rights, which the host government of the nation you are visiting are not allowed to infringe upon. Unless you are trying to make the case that citizenship is a meaningless notion, and any nation you visit can revoke you passport and declare you a citizen of their country, and impose its will on you however it pleases.
You argument fails utterly, so you resort to ignoring common sense. It’s a sad way for you to hold onto your losing argument.
You have repeated this numerous times already in this thread. But that doesn’t make it magically come true.
We are not talking about “common sense”. We are talking about the law - and your argument has absolutely no basis in law.
