Reply With Quote
Silence is golden.
... the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on anyone who manages to get born here, what is the purpose of the second part of the opening sentence? "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."?
I mean if your mother manages to cross the border and give birth to you on U. S. soil, why is there a qualifier that you be subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
To me, and most thinking people, this is a constraint on who can be born here AND become a citizen. If not, why bother putting that language in the amendment?
We know why Senator Howard (the author) included the language but, that's not good enough for you who believe birth on U.S. soil, alone, confers citizenship. So, let's hear it. Why is the language there. Why not just leave it off and say, if you're born here, you're a citizen, as you all seem to believe?
Silence is golden.
Funny how you guys fight so hard to nitpick the 14th Amendment but have no problem going all in on the 2nd amendment on one little phrase of "right to bear arms".
Morons
That above "right" keeps you fellows on the curb, otherwise, you'd be on the front stoop.
The founders, Blake,,,they knew just as sure as the turnin' of the earth, son.
everyone residing in the US except for foreign ambassadors are subject to US law. that includes people born here.
the idea that the 14th Amendment contains magic words that invalidate the plain meaning that's been followed -- even taught in law schools -- for 160 years, is dumb.
...we're gonna see, son. Just be grateful you got the Barrett chick doubting her pootie..."Oh, I don't know. I'm fraught with doubt now. Oh, me. Oh, my."
& that Roberts is just waitin' for a hard break Left outta her.
High level foreign diplomats were and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. You probably remember the concept of diplomatic immunity from the classic legal drama Lethal Weapon 2.
We also used to consider native American tribes as sovereign nations and their members were also not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States on their reservations.
That's it.
If you think no non-American citizen is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America then you believe no illegal alien can be prosecuted for any crime committed in the US in any regular criminal court in the US.
Is this what you believe?
Yes or no.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 02-11-2025 at 10:42 AM.
What do you think jurisdiction means, dude?
"Learn this one weird trick that will keep the yellows and browns from replacing you!"
From where do you get this nugget?
Never said they were magic. The author, Senator Howard, explained the phrase but, foreign ambassadors weren't the only exception to "birthright citizenship" intended. And, the courts have never decided on birthright citizenship for illegal aliens -- in all of the past 160 years. Now, it will finally get decided, I hope.
Ask yourself this, Winehole; why are the children of foreign ambassadors excepted from birthright citizenship?
Hint: It's for the same reason illegal aliens are excepted from birthright citizenship.
Because, of course, it would be stupid to grant citizenship to an individual that owes allegiance to a foreign power or who does not [through (a) legally present parent(s)] profess allegiance to the United States of America.
Lol Lethal Weapon 2. Riggs didn't care about the South African diplomatic immunity, probably just like Mel in real life.
Ask yourself this, Winehole; why are the children of foreign ambassadors excepted from birthright citizenship?
Hint: It's for the same reason illegal aliens are excepted from birthright citizenship.
Because, of course, it would be stupid to grant citizenship to an individual that owes allegiance to a foreign power or who does not [through (a) legally present parent(s)] profess allegiance to the United States of America.
I mean you could've at least tried to hide this with ellipses or something.
Why? He specifically excludes foreigners and aliens.
I mean you could've at least tried to hide this with ellipses or something.
no
He specifically excludes "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States" -- you should have tried ellipses there too.
"Aliens" is just renaming "foreigners" -- not introducing another group of people. They're one and the same.
The phrase in red is the specificity.
You really can't read.
Commas are important to comprehension. Those are 3 separate and distinct exclusions:
He specifically excludes "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States" -- you should have tried ellipses there too.
"Aliens" is just renaming "foreigners" -- not introducing another group of people. They're one and the same.
The phrase in red is the specificity.
You really can't read.
Persons born in the United States who are foreigners
Persons born in the United States who are aliens
Persons born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States
no
How are foreigners different from aliens?
This [being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States] 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
What is the meaning of "who" in this sentence?
Cool, what's your understanding of the difference between foreigner and alien
All aliens are foreigners but not all foreigners are aliens. In the context of the 14th Amendment, a foreigner refers to someone who owes allegiance to another country, while an alien is a non-citizen residing within U.S. jurisdiction.
How are foreigners different from aliens?
People not subject to U. S. Jurisdiction. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Where are these terms defined?
Why couldn't they just be included in the actual amendment?
So those are neither foreigners nor aliens?People not subject to U. S. Jurisdiction. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Or could they be both?
You're really twisting yourself in knots. I mean you have to assume the Senator had a stroke or was drunk to leave out the word "and" in the sentence you're trying to create.
It's just easier to accept he was talking about one class of people, as had been the understanding for decades. I can show you an 1830 SCOTUS decision if you're actually interested in the law.
Why didn't it just say if you're born here, you're a citizen?
Because the exceptions were already part of common law and Supreme Court precedent. To leave them out of a cons utional amendment would've changed those entirely.
Would you support deporting Barron Trump - melania's "anchor baby"
?
, the citizenship of Trump's entire lineage would have to be proved from the time they got off the boat. Fruit from the poisonous tree and all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
