Trump Declares He Will End Birthright Citizenship

And to that:

Senator Lyman Trumbull, commenting on the 14th Amendment, May 1866:

“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. Can you sue a Navajoe [sic] Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."

Senator Reverdy Johnson responded:

“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 that has brought the matter before us — shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizens as between himself and the United States , and 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 to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

Fat Donald Birth Right Citizenship Nullification promise unfulfilled DAY 106

Trumbull was talking about Indians on Indian lands. They aren’t subject to our jurisdiction because they are quasi-nations and thus sovereign.

No one is asserting we have jurisdiction over the entire planet. Being subject to our jurisdiction is to be subject to our laws, our authority. The only exemptions to people not subject to our jurisdiction on our soil are diplomats and their families (and occupying forces, but that’s a niche case, obviously). Full stop.

That means that the Supreme Court would rule that she is a “citizen” because HER parents were "lawful, permanent (legally domiciled) residents of the U.S., too. “Citizen” isn’t enough to be eligible for the presidency. The Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born citizen”, one born on U.S. soil to parents who are themselves, citizens (not foreign nationals who are just here legally domiciled). Had her parents already become citizens, before she was born, then she would have been a natural born citizen and eligible to be potus or vp. Her birth circumstances were the same as Kim Wong Ark, born on U.S. soil to parents who were legally domiciled foreign nationals, not citizens.

Jurisdiction meaning allegiance, not just “obeying our laws”. Those people here illegally, of course, are subject to obeying our laws, which they already broke by being here illegally, but they still owe their allegiance to whatever nation they are citizens of and so does their child.

His point about Indians was that they are a citizens of a sovereign nation, just as the French or the Mexicans are. But then, you already knew that.

No, that’s not his point. You’re still not getting it.

Other citizenship is irrelevant. Indians living on the reservation were not subject to the laws of the United States, and therefore not under US jurisdiction.

It’s been almost five months, has fat donald signed his executive order to end birthright citizenship yet?

The left always brings up that case, forgetting the difference between legally domiciled in the US, and illegally trespassing within US borders, in violation of our immigration laws, or even as a foreign citizen traveling on a temporary visiting visa.

US legal jurisdiction is different for US citizens, than it is for foreign citizens visiting the US for pleasure or business, and different from these people than it is for illegal aliens caught sneaking into the US, and it’s different still, for foreign citizens granted temporary, or permanent US residency status.

We did not have jurisdiction over the people of the Navajo Nation because they were not US citizens, they were citizens of a foreign nation. No different than a person of any foreign nation.

Navajo Nation people still needed to obey our laws, when in our cities and not on their lands, but that did not mean we had complete jurisdiction over them, only over their conduct.

This is still incorrect, and will remain incorrect no matter how many times you repeat it.

At the time Wong Kim Ark was decided, there was no legal distinction between “legal residents”, “illegal tresspassers” or “temporary visas”.

Immigration status is irrelevant to the Wong Kim Ark decision.

No, his point was while they are on their lands, we don’t have jurisdiction over them.

1 Like

When they are on our soil, we have complete jurisdiction over them. We have executed illegal immigrants. You don’t get more subject to our jurisdiction than that.

Kamala not naturalized hence a natural born citizen.

Parents citizenship has no bearing on whether a person is a natural born citizen or not.

Allan

As I stated, if you are going to provide quotes, at least provide a notation to those specific quotes. Others reading the thread may want to see the context in which those quotes were made and follow the thought line.

In regard to your unsubstantiated assertion, that 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”, let me assure you, you are very much misinformed, and would have realized your error had you read the documentation I have provided.

The truth is, the objective of the 39th Congress was to make Blacks citizens, and children born to them would thus be citizens upon birth because their parents were Citizens of the United States. See IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) “That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt."

Also see: Elk v. Wilkins (1884) where the Court clearly states:

”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”

In regard to your comment about 150 years, the fact 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.

Finally, unlike your unsubstantiated opinions and assertions, I provide documentation and facts.

JWK

Karl Marx popularized the word “capitalism” __ a word unknown to our founders’ __ to attack the free market system our founders created. Why do so many talking heads refer to our system as “capitalism” rather than a free market system which our founders created?

And we will continue to disagree, because unlike you, I do not believe for a minute, that our Founders or the people who wrote and signed the 14th Amendment ever wanted to create or endorse Russian “get an American anchor baby” vacation packages. Nor did they wish to reward anchor babies to women who sneak across our borders in violation of our immigration laws and pop out a baby before immigration authorities could catch and deport them. Lastly, they never envisioned that these anchor babies would use chain migration to bring over their families.

Oh a lot of people believe otherwise…

That they never envision it means nothing to the language of the 14th.

Its clear and unequivocal. ALL people born in the US (with rare exceptions) are citizens.

If Trump and you dont like it. there is an amendment process. good luck

Allan