What does Subject to the Jurisdiction really mean

[Dhoppe]

The 14th Amendment has two conditions. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and 2. subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Subject is defined as; a person owing allegiance to and entitled to the protection of a sovereign state understanding this is paramount in the 14th amendment for several reasons.

1. If you are here legally as a resident, or green card holder you have taken an oath to this country to obtain this status, thus you have an allegiance to this country, therefore even though you are not a citizen any child born of you in the US , is a US citizen.
2. If you are a US citizen you have access to any US embassy in the world and have a legal right to US protection. As defined in the meaning above “protection of a sovereign state” To understand how this applies is basically simple. As a subject of the US, where ever you plant your feet in the universe is US territory so long as your feet occupy that space, (metaphorically) Thus as a US citizen you have the legal right to give birth to a US citizen regardless of where that child is born. Which means that it would not matter where John McCain or Barrack Obama was born only that the parents had the right to give birth to a US citizen.
3. If you denounce your citizenship and then give birth to a child, this child is not a US citizen. However if you give birth to a child then denounce your US citizenship, the child once they become legal age has the option to accept citizenship of the US as it was their right at birth and no other person can take that away. They may have to wait to become an adult to claim the right but it is still theirs.
   It is with this understanding that all people are equally treated and protected as well as equally and fairly denied. It does not take a court or a law maker to understand how the 15th amendment was written and how it should be applied. A simple test proves this right.

The Obama’s are on Vacation in China and Michelle is pregnant and for some reason she give birth early, and the Chines government claims the child is a Chines citizen thus is not able to return to the US. Does the US recognize this claim from China as lawful? Or is the Child a US citizen and returns to the US.

The simple answer is the latter.

[adroit]

Instead of your made up answer, I’ll consult the person who introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1866—the precursor to the 14th amendment.

Mr. TRUMBULL: …It is only those person 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.

So it has nothing to do with taking an oath of office. In fact, when asked whether the children born in the US to those who are NOT naturalized, he said:

Mr. TRUMBULL: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.

Additionally, his colleague from California:

Mr. Cowan: Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?

Mr. CONNESS: The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.

All children born in the US are US citizens. There were only three exceptions to this at the time of adopting the 14th. Children of:

1. Foreign diplomats
2. Indians on Indian land (made moot by the INA of 1924)
3. Occupying forces

QED.

[Snow96]

Along with this there is another portion where they have the same discussion of the Gypsy in Pennsylvania with the same results. Their children would be US citizens.

[Dhoppe]

[quote=“adroit, post:2, topic:32552”]
It is only those person who come completely within our jurisdiction [/quote]

UH… you didn’t get past the first sentence. “completely within our jurisdiction” not “within our jurisdiction” Completely is to separate those who are under the umbrella of our laws by being here and those who are bound by an allegiance and ONLY those people. Nor did I say anything at all about oath of office. To become a US citizen you do have to take Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America.

When you consult please read it over multiple times.

Now the Chinese case in California. please read again… A Child of a Chinese immigrant. you do understand that an immigrant is a person legally here. Thus the term illegal immigrant has meaning. I do not see where it says a Child of an illegal immigrant is a US citizen. The specific case

In the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. of legal aliens was entitled to “birthright citizenship” under the 14th Amendment. This was a 5–4 opinion which provoked the dissent of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who argued that, contrary to the reasoning of the majority’s holding, the 14th Amendment did not in fact adopt the common-law understanding of birthright citizenship.

There are no acceptations to this. Sorry.

[PocketAces]

You realize this means less voters for the Democrats right?

[Tilly_jow]

Obama, aware of similar attacks on his birth history, would NEVER take his wife on such a trip. He knows racist are just waiting to jump on his family again and would certainly turn down the Chinese invitation at that time.

[adroit]

@Dhoppe

Now the Chinese case in California. please read again… A Child of a Chinese immigrant. you do understand that an immigrant is a person legally here. Thus the term illegal immigrant has meaning. I do not see where it says a Child of an illegal immigrant is a US citizen. The specific case

No distinction was made between “legal” and “illegal.” Those here are completely under our jurisdiction. We have tried and executed illegal aliens for murder. You don’t get more under our jurisdiction than being executed. At the time the 14th was adopted, there were only three exceptions. Children of:

1. foreign diplomats
2. Indians on Indian lands
3. occupying forces

No other exceptions. And if one understands what it means to be under our jurisdiction (subject to our laws), you’d understand why those three are exceptions and nothing else.

[NebraskaFootball]

@adroit

@Dhoppe

Now the Chinese case in California. please read again… A Child of a Chinese immigrant. you do understand that an immigrant is a person legally here. Thus the term illegal immigrant has meaning. I do not see where it says a Child of an illegal immigrant is a US citizen. The specific case

No distinction was made between “legal” and “illegal.” Those here are completely under our jurisdiction. We have tried and executed illegal aliens for murder. You don’t get more under our jurisdiction than being executed. At the time the 14th was adopted, there were only three exceptions. Children of:

1. foreign diplomats
2. Indians on Indian lands
3. occupying forces

No other exceptions. And if one understands what it means to be under our jurisdiction (subject to our laws), you’d understand why those three are exceptions and nothing else.

Well done. Again. And it’s amazing how many times you have to smack people down with the facts around here. It’s proof that the echo chamber is strong and vocal in pushing their fallacies. Keep up the great work, smacking them around like a cat with a dead mouse!!

[wonderingrover]

@NebraskaFootball

@adroit

@Dhoppe

Now the Chinese case in California. please read again… A Child of a Chinese immigrant. you do understand that an immigrant is a person legally here. Thus the term illegal immigrant has meaning. I do not see where it says a Child of an illegal immigrant is a US citizen. The specific case

No distinction was made between “legal” and “illegal.” Those here are completely under our jurisdiction. We have tried and executed illegal aliens for murder. You don’t get more under our jurisdiction than being executed. At the time the 14th was adopted, there were only three exceptions. Children of:

1. foreign diplomats
2. Indians on Indian lands
3. occupying forces

No other exceptions. And if one understands what it means to be under our jurisdiction (subject to our laws), you’d understand why those three are exceptions and nothing else.

Well done. Again. And it’s amazing how many times you have to smack people down with the facts around here. It’s proof that the echo chamber is strong and vocal in pushing their fallacies. Keep up the great work, smacking them around like a cat with a dead mouse!!

It’s going to be really interesting if Trump does try this, and it ends up going to the Supreme Court. The SC will likely slap him down - and he will have nominated 2 of the people slapping him down to sit on the court.

[NebraskaFootball]

@wonderingrover

It’s going to be really interesting if Trump does try this, and it ends up going to the Supreme Court. The SC will likely slap him down - and he will have nominated 2 of the people slapping him down to sit on the court.

I’d be shocked if it were not a unanimous decision as well. Assuming it would be, it would be hilarious too. But I really doubt he pursues it. It was just fodder for the election. There are too many people with Constitutional knowledge that will tell him he will be made out to look a fool if he tries it.

[Dhoppe]

@adroit

@Dhoppe

Now the Chinese case in California. please read again… A Child of a Chinese immigrant. you do understand that an immigrant is a person legally here. Thus the term illegal immigrant has meaning. I do not see where it says a Child of an illegal immigrant is a US citizen. The specific case

No distinction was made between “legal” and “illegal.” Those here are completely under our jurisdiction. We have tried and executed illegal aliens for murder. You don’t get more under our jurisdiction than being executed. At the time the 14th was adopted, there were only three exceptions. Children of:

1. foreign diplomats
2. Indians on Indian lands
3. occupying forces

No other exceptions. And if one understands what it means to be under our jurisdiction (subject to our laws), you’d understand why those three are exceptions and nothing else.

They had legal access to the Mexican Consulate, the key word is LEGAL , which means we recognize their right to access the country of which they are a citizen of, of which their allegiance is to. They are not Subject to the United States, they have zero allegiance to the United States. They do not have legal access to American Embassy’s if they were as you claim to be, then they would.

Simple point, an illegal immigrant can not be charged with treason. Why? Answer is they have no allegiance to this nation, they can be charged as a spy. They are subject to Mexico’s jurisdiction. hence access to their embassy’s.

Further, your point about murder : Murder is not a Federal Law, its a state law, which does not fall under the jurisdiction of Federal Government. Hence why Mexico lost in court to try and stop the death penalty for a Mexican Citizen. As Mexico does not have the death penalty they tried to force Texas to not seek the death penalty. Which also proves your point wrong, The FACT that Mexico had a legal right to file suite in a US court to PROTECT a SUBJECT of MEXICO. Proves you 100% wrong. Mexico does not have the right to file suite in a US court to stop the execution of a US Citizen. Another point you fail to understand.

The problem with exceptions is people tend to forget why the “exception” was put in place.

1. Foreign diplomats _ have no duration with their VISA. They do not have an allegiance to the United States. (a green card holder does)

2. Indians on Indian Lands, Do not have an allegiance to the United States it is with their Tribe.

3. Occupying forces, Do not have an allegiance to the United States, it is with the nation they are from.

So really no exceptions to the Constitution at all, just defining the obvious. It is the same rule that applies to illegal aliens.

nice try, you can’t win your point you can only deny what is written

[Dhoppe]

@NebraskaFootball

@wonderingrover

It’s going to be really interesting if Trump does try this, and it ends up going to the Supreme Court. The SC will likely slap him down - and he will have nominated 2 of the people slapping him down to sit on the court.

I’d be shocked if it were not a unanimous decision as well. Assuming it would be, it would be hilarious too. But I really doubt he pursues it. It was just fodder for the election. There are too many people with Constitutional knowledge that will tell him he will be made out to look a fool if he tries it.

be sure not to be grounded, there is no legal argument to side with you. Trump is just enforcing that which is written in the Constitution.

[NebraskaFootball]

@Dhoppe

be sure not to be grounded, there is no legal argument to side with you. Trump is just enforcing that which is written in the Constitution.

By issuing an Executive Order that seeks to repeal a portion of the ratified 14th Amendment? And you say that my argument is the one lacking legality? I suppose it is opposite day in your world today.

And Trump is doing no such thing. He has not issued an EO to partially repeal the 14th. Nor will he. This is just more campaign rhetoric and lies from the Master, to try and rile up the cult to GOTV. Like so many other lies from him, that the cult mindlessly believe.

[Nemesis]

@Dhoppe

The 14th Amendment has two conditions. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and 2. subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Subject is defined as; a person owing allegiance to and entitled to the protection of a sovereign state understanding this is paramount in the 14th amendment for several reasons.

1. If you are here legally as a resident, or green card holder you have taken an oath to this country to obtain this status, thus you have an allegiance to this country, therefore even though you are not a citizen any child born of you in the US , is a US citizen.
2. If you are a US citizen you have access to any US embassy in the world and have a legal right to US protection. As defined in the meaning above “protection of a sovereign state” To understand how this applies is basically simple. As a subject of the US, where ever you plant your feet in the universe is US territory so long as your feet occupy that space, (metaphorically) Thus as a US citizen you have the legal right to give birth to a US citizen regardless of where that child is born. Which means that it would not matter where John McCain or Barrack Obama was born only that the parents had the right to give birth to a US citizen.
3. If you denounce your citizenship and then give birth to a child, this child is not a US citizen. However if you give birth to a child then denounce your US citizenship, the child once they become legal age has the option to accept citizenship of the US as it was their right at birth and no other person can take that away. They may have to wait to become an adult to claim the right but it is still theirs.
   It is with this understanding that all people are equally treated and protected as well as equally and fairly denied. It does not take a court or a law maker to understand how the 15th amendment was written and how it should be applied. A simple test proves this right.

The Obama’s are on Vacation in China and Michelle is pregnant and for some reason she give birth early, and the Chines government claims the child is a Chines citizen thus is not able to return to the US. Does the US recognize this claim from China as lawful? Or is the Child a US citizen and returns to the US.

The simple answer is the latter.

I love those that use google and then try and pass themselves off as some sort of constitutional or legal expert. I see you pick and choose your google results.

[Eclipze]

If you can be convicted of a crime under the jurisdiction of the US, then you are inherently subject to the jusrisdiction of the US. Seems logical to me.

[Dhoppe]

@NebraskaFootball

@Dhoppe

be sure not to be grounded, there is no legal argument to side with you. Trump is just enforcing that which is written in the Constitution.

By issuing an Executive Order that seeks to repeal a portion of the ratified 14th Amendment? And you say that my argument is the one lacking legality? I suppose it is opposite day in your world today.

And Trump is doing no such thing. He has not issued an EO to partially repeal the 14th. Nor will he. This is just more campaign rhetoric and lies from the Master, to try and rile up the cult to GOTV. Like so many other lies from him, that the cult mindlessly believe.

Yes your argument is lacking legality. Your premise is false. there is no change to the 14th amendment. only enforcement of the words written.

You can’t draft an illegal immigrant , why is that? Because Draft is Federal and they are not subject to the nation. You can’t prosecute an illegal immigrant for treason Why? Please explain or accept that you are wrong.

[Dhoppe]

@Eclipze

If you can be convicted of a crime under the jurisdiction of the US, then you are inherently subject to the jusrisdiction of the US. Seems logical to me.

Good, Can an illegal immigrant be convicted of treason. Yes or No.

[Guvnah]

@Nemesis

I love those that use google and then try and pass themselves off as some sort of constitutional or legal expert. I see you pick and choose your google results.

Picking and choosing happens on both sides. Using your argument to dismiss a set of results is, in itself, picking and choosing.

Just saying.

[Guvnah]

I see nothing wrong with clarifying a phrase that has such diverse interpretations.

I would have no problem settling on allowing birthright citizenship for children of parents who are here legally, and denying it to children of parents who are here illegally.

[Eclipze]

Does subject to the jurisdiction of require an allegiance?