That’s silly. all you have to do is read the laws they passed in the CRA, just a couple years earlier, to get the context behind their meaning.
Why do you think they changed the language, in those few years between the CRA and the 14th Amendment?
You wouldn’t owe back taxes in IL because IL tax law doesn’t apply to your activity while you’re not living in IL. It’s not because You’re not subject to the jurisdiction of IL while you’re in their state, it’s because the text of the law doesn’t apply to you while you’re not in their state.
We wouldn’t revoke a France citizens passport because it’s a French document. That doesn’t make sense. We don’t demand they pay back taxes because they did not earn any income while living here. And you better believe non-citizens males between 18-26 are required to register for selective service while they reside here.
Non-diplomats are under our complete jurisdiction while they reside on our soil. Full stop.
Citizenship is not some magical and ephemeral quality. It is a legal relationship defined by law for each country.
US citizenship does not protect you from the laws of countries you visit. It does not grant magical rights that can’t be violated, and does not protect you from the government of any country you visit.
If you visit a country, and that country decides that anyone within their borders is a citizen - then in the eyes of that country, you are a citizen. They can “impose” whatever they want on you.
The only thing that other country can’t do is take away your US citizenship, because that is a relationship between you and the United States, and other countries have no power to change it.
Yes.
In fact, the only reason that diplomats are not under our jurisdiction is because we’ve passed laws to that effect.
1 Like
We are talking about the meaning of “jurisdiction” as it appears in the amendment.
For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.(my emphasis) see : Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
1st column halfway down
“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.”
Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.
“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” …he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”
And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments 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 so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
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.
People really need to learn the history of the 14th amendment before commenting on this. 14A contains the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. This combined with the 1866 debate of how this would affect American Indians made it very clear that only people subject completely to the jurisdiction of the United States (which non-citizens certainly are not) are eligible for birthright citizenship.
I’m not going to repeat myself endlessly, I’ll leave that to you. You are utterly misreading all of those statements, as you well know.
Feel free to scroll up a few hundred posts to read my responses to the previous times youve cut and pasted that block of text.
I can assure you that I almost certainly know more of the history of the 14th Amendment than you do.
You are wrong. It’s that simple.
Native Americans living on Reservations (at the time the 14th was written) were not under the jurisdiction of thr United States because they were themselves sovereign, and not subject to the laws of the United States. Non-diplomat aliens within the borders of the United States are subject to our laws, so therefore they are under our jurisdiction.
1 Like
You are absolutely correct. I am one of the few who have actually read the day to day debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment, and the preponderance of evidence, some of which I provided above, establishes a child born to a foreign national while on American soil is not bestowed American citizenship upon birth.
The simple truth is, 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 touched upon 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.
And 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.”
JWK
Yet we have decades and decades of precedence contradicting your position…
What court decision are you referring to? The Court has never ruled on this issue. 
JWK
Yes they have. Wong Kim Ark.
That’s why the court hasn’t ruled on it since then - and that’s why birthright citizenship has been the reality for the last 100 years (in fact, it goes back much farther than that).
Additionally - while the court has not directly addressed the question of birthright citizenship since Wong Kim Ark, they have, in dicta, acknowledged the legal reality of birthright citizenship in hundreds of cases.
This is hilarious, given that multiple senators explicitly dispute this in those very debates:
1 Like
Abiter dictum. And besides, the context of that paragraph is “Before [the 14th amendment’s] adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States”.
What is really "hilarious" is, you ignore a preponderance of evidence I have provided establishing legislative intent; ignore Supreme Court rulings I have provided confirming what I have stated; and you rely upon a couple of passing comments, one of which confirms the alleged person making the comment was not even sure of the naturalization law.
Finally, if you are going to provide quotes, at least provide a notation to those specific quotes.
JWK
And “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, it’s constitutional meaning
We are led to believe that if a foreigner enters our country illegally and gives birth to a child, that child, because of the 14th Amendment, becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. As we shall see, that is one of the biggest myths alleged concerning the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. Let us look at some documented facts.
In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:
“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 in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court affirms the Court’s opinion in the Slaughter-House cases:
”Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country”
'”This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, 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”
So why would the Court indicate the wording in the 14th Amendment which declares “and subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from citizenship “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“?
The answer is to be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, which framed and debated the 14th Amendment. For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.(my emphasis) see: Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
1st column halfway down
“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.”
Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.
“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” …he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”
And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments 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 so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
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 ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Wait, you said you’ve read the debates of the CRA and the 14th amendment, why do you need notations? You should recognize those quote quite easily.
The preponderance of evidence is that the senators who pushed for the CRA and 14th quite explicitly said those born to immigrant, non-citizens on our soil would be granted citizenship. Additionally, for 150 years since then, people born to immigrant, non-citizens on our soil have been granted citizenship.
So, I’ll take their comments and 150 years of citizens who were born of immigrant, non-citizens as a preponderance of evidence any day over your opinions.
We only have jurisdiction as it applies to them obeying our laws governing their conduct as visiting guests.We do not have jurisdiction thereof over the entire planet, if we did, then that phrase would have been meaningless.
Just read the CRA of 1866 that was signed into law a few years before the 14th amendment.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was clearly trying to confer citizenship to any slave born on our shores, but did not confer citizenship if the parents were citizens of a foreign country.
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude…
The 14th amendment was written only two years later, and it too was trying to ensure citizenship to slaves, no matter which state they were born in. It conferred citizenship only to the children born to people who were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA, which is just another way of saying they cannot be "subject to any foreign power."
We can argue this all day, but in the end, a woman violating our immigration laws, either by sneaking across our borders or overstaying a visa, and giving birth to a child, should not be rewarded with a US citizen, who can file for chain migration. Our laws should not allow children born to illegal aliens be gifted with a US citizenship, anymore than Russian tourists on an anchor baby vacation package, should be.
If you actually believe that. Then an amendment to the constitution is necessary to revoke that part of the 14th amendment to which you object.
An executive order simply wont do.
Allan
