# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  14th Amendment

## William R

Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nations geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.

Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Thus, subject to the jurisdiction does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.

http://www.nationalreview.com/birthr...y-constitution

I'm afraid Judge Nap is not very informed on this topic.  Or Fox News is pressuring him

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## William R

> Nice of National Review to spin the reading of the statement by placing an "[or]" where it would reinforce their interpretation. Unfortunately for National Review, it isn't up to them to interpret the Constitution and it's amendments. That falls to the bureaucratic institution we know as the Supreme Court; and it ruled on it in 1898 - and interpreted it contrary to National Review's intrepretation. The Justices (being 117 years closer to the writing of the amendment, and the culture of the day it was written and passed, than are National Review today) effectively took it to read:
> "foreigners, [pause] aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"
> 
> Of course they also took into account exchanges between other senators; such as the following which immediately followed Senator Howard's:


Did either Senator write the Amendment?? No! Did California have any Native Americans??  Yes!   Even though California had thousands o Native Americans who were born on American soil they did not become American citizens until Congress acted in 1924 I do believe.   "All persons  born or naturalized in the United States are citizens."  If that's what the author of the Amendment meant , everyone born here is a citizen then it would have stopped right there.  But it doesn't stop there.   



Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4

The Congress Shall Have Power To Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization.  


This is not even close.  A woman who runs across the border drops a kid should be sent back with her child. End of story

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## OReich

> Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”
> 
> Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/birthr...y-constitution
> 
> I'm afraid Judge Nap is not very informed on this topic.  Or Fox News is pressuring him


No, jurisdiction means subject to American laws or courts. That's what it means. I think you're misinterpreting their use of the word "allegiance" here. Almost all Indians were in Indian territories where US law did not apply. If an Indian in an Indian territory committed a crime, no US court could exercise jurisdiction over them. If an ambassador commits a crime, (I'm pretty sure) no US court can exercise jurisdiction over them, we could just expel them. The issue isn't that diplomats and Indians had separate allegiances, its that a US court literally could not exercise jurisdiction over them, "allegiance" was just their way of describing it. Indians were in Indian territory, they had allegiance to their own governments per our treaties with them, Indian law and jurisdiction applies to the Indians, not US law and jurisdiction. Are you saying a US court cannot exercise jurisdiction over an illegal immigrant and expel them?

----------


## William R

> No, jurisdiction means subject to American laws or courts. That's what it means. I think you're misinterpreting their use of the word "allegiance" here. Almost all Indians were in Indian territories where US law did not apply. If an Indian in an Indian territory committed a crime, no US court could exercise jurisdiction over them. If an ambassador commits a crime, (I'm pretty sure) no US court can exercise jurisdiction over them, we could just expel them. The issue isn't that diplomats and Indians had separate allegiances, its that a US court literally could not exercise jurisdiction over them, "allegiance" was just their way of describing it. Indians were in Indian territory, they had allegiance to their own governments per our treaties with them, Indian law and jurisdiction applies to the Indians, not US law and jurisdiction. Are you saying a US court cannot exercise jurisdiction over an illegal immigrant and expel them?



Think of it this way. When a British tourist visits the United States, he subjects himself to our laws as long as he remains within our borders. He must drive on the right side of the road, for example. He is subject to our partial, territorial jurisdiction, but he does not thereby subject himself to our complete, political jurisdiction. He does not get to vote, or serve on a jury; he cannot be drafted into our armed forces; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason if he takes up arms against us, because he owes us no allegiance. He is merely a temporary sojourner, to use the language employed by those who wrote the 14th Amendment, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the full and complete sense intended by that language in the 14th Amendment.

The same is true for those who are in this country illegally. They are subject to our laws by their presence within our borders, but they are not subject to the more complete jurisdiction envisioned by the 14th Amendment as a precondition for automatic citizenship. It is just silliness to contend, as the Journal does, that this is circular restrictionist logic that would prevent illegal immigrants from being prosecuted for committing crimes because they are not U.S. citizens.


John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former dean at Chapman University School of Law. He also serves as the director of the Claremont Institutes Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...14th-amendment

----------


## OReich

> Think of it this way. When a British tourist visits the United States, he subjects himself to our laws as long as he remains within our borders. He must drive on the right side of the road, for example. He is subject to our partial, territorial jurisdiction, but he does not thereby subject himself to our complete, political jurisdiction. He does not get to vote, or serve on a jury; he cannot be drafted into our armed forces; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason if he takes up arms against us, because he owes us no allegiance. He is merely a “temporary sojourner,” to use the language employed by those who wrote the 14th Amendment, and not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the full and complete sense intended by that language in the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The same is true for those who are in this country illegally. They are subject to our laws by their presence within our borders, but they are not subject to the more complete jurisdiction envisioned by the 14th Amendment as a precondition for automatic citizenship. It is just silliness to contend, as the Journal does, that this is “circular restrictionist logic” that would prevent illegal immigrants from being “prosecuted for committing crimes because they are not U.S. citizens.”
> 
> 
> John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former dean at Chapman University School of Law. He also serves as the director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
> 
> Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...14th-amendment


I answered this in the identical thread, I'll just repeat the fact that your concept of "full and complete" jurisdiction or "complete, political jurisdiction" is 100% made up, it appears no where on the planet, and it also doesn't appear in the 14th amendment. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to enforce laws over a person. That's it. Not the power to draft, not the power to prosecute for specifically treason, it has nothing to do with voting at all (women couldn't vote at all and were still totally under our jurisdiction). Your categories of "partial, territorial jurisdiction" and "complete, political jurisdiction" are entirely invented and have nothing to do with the law. You're just making up your own definition of jurisdiction. I don't mean to condescend at all, because you make a great, honest argument about a really stupid loophole in the constitution, but jurisdiction is what it is, its the power of the state to enforce its laws over a person, that's it.

----------


## William R

> I answered this in the identical thread, I'll just repeat the fact that your concept of "full and complete" jurisdiction or "complete, political jurisdiction" is 100% made up, it appears no where on the planet, and it also doesn't appear in the 14th amendment. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to enforce laws over a person. That's it. Not the power to draft, not the power to prosecute for specifically treason, it has nothing to do with voting at all (women couldn't vote at all and were still totally under our jurisdiction). Your categories of "partial, territorial jurisdiction" and "complete, political jurisdiction" are entirely invented and have nothing to do with the law. You're just making up your own definition of jurisdiction. I don't mean to condescend at all, because you make a great, honest argument about a really stupid loophole in the constitution, but jurisdiction is what it is, its the power of the state to enforce its laws over a person, that's it.



That's not political jurisdiction or allegiance.  Sorry, but that's what the 14th amendment is about.   You have no argument.

----------


## OReich

> That's not political jurisdiction or allegiance.  Sorry, but that's what the 14th amendment is about.   You have no argument.


Wtf is political jurisdiction? Not only is that not in the US constitution, its not ANYWHERE, you made it up. I'm talking about the constitution, you're talking about something you made up. Jurisdiction is the power of a state to exercise its laws over a person, period. You have no response to this argument other than to completely invent legal concepts that have no history of precedent whatsoever. There is no such thing as "partial territorial jurisdiction," "complete, political jurisdiction" or "full and complete jurisdiction." There's just jurisdiction. To handle a case or dispute, a court needs territorial jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the physical area where it took place) AND personal jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the person, based on physical presence in the court's area of territorial jurisdiction), AND constitutionally or statutorily granted jurisdiction over the type of law or dispute being handles (like an immigration court has jurisdiction over immigrant matters, a criminal court has jurisdiction over criminal law, etc.) Those three dimensions add up to jurisdiction, there is no "partial" jurisdiction.

You can keep talking about your "political jurisdiction" and "allegiance" all you want, but those are your inventions only, and have nothing to do with the legal concept of jurisdiction. Really, where did you read about "political jurisdiction?" Provide a source. Did you read about these terms you're using here, or are you just inventing it yourself?

----------


## William R

> Wtf is political jurisdiction? Not only is that not in the US constitution, its not ANYWHERE, you made it up. I'm talking about the constitution, you're talking about something you made up. Jurisdiction is the power of a state to exercise its laws over a person, period. You have no response to this argument other than to completely invent legal concepts that have no history of precedent whatsoever. There is no such thing as "partial territorial jurisdiction," "complete, political jurisdiction" or "full and complete jurisdiction." There's just jurisdiction. To handle a case or dispute, a court needs territorial jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the physical area where it took place) AND personal jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the person, based on physical presence in the court's area of territorial jurisdiction), AND constitutionally or statutorily granted jurisdiction over the type of law or dispute being handles (like an immigration court has jurisdiction over immigrant matters, a criminal court has jurisdiction over criminal law, etc.) Those three dimensions add up to jurisdiction, there is no "partial" jurisdiction.
> 
> You can keep talking about your "political jurisdiction" and "allegiance" all you want, but those are your inventions only, and have nothing to do with the legal concept of jurisdiction. Really, where did you read about "political jurisdiction?" Provide a source. Did you read about these terms you're using here, or are you just inventing it yourself?


The record of the debate in 1866 is illuminating. When Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant, he responded: That means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means. (Emphasis added.) Only U.S. citizens owe complete allegiance to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its jurisdiction in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted into the armed forces of the United States, or prosecuted for treason if they take up arms against it.

Senator Howard agreed with Trumbulls explanation, saying:

    I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, . . . ; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

This exchange supports very strongly the conclusion that the Citizenship Clause was intended to mean the same as the Civil Rights Act of 1866excluding children born in the United States to foreign nationals (that is, to resident aliens).

----------


## William R

> The record of the debate in 1866 is illuminating. When Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant, he responded: That means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means. (Emphasis added.) Only U.S. citizens owe complete allegiance to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its jurisdiction in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted into the armed forces of the United States, or prosecuted for treason if they take up arms against it.
> 
> Senator Howard agreed with Trumbulls explanation, saying:
> 
>     I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, . . . ; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
> 
> This exchange supports very strongly the conclusion that the Citizenship Clause was intended to mean the same as the Civil Rights Act of 1866excluding children born in the United States to foreign nationals (that is, to resident aliens).



Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means

Dual citizenship should be ended in this country.  Jorge Ramos a dual citizen but make no mistake his first loyalty is to Mexico.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## William R

> ... so, since women cannot be drafted, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the full and complete sense intended by that language in the 14th Amendment?



Up till August 18, 1920 women couldn't even vote  Women did serve in all our wars though.  They made great spies

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...202679/?no-ist

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

Women, particularly landholding widows, could vote going all the way back to the colonial times.  It was just a decision to be made by state law rather than a federal mandate that sex not be a reason to keep someone from the franchise.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## William R

> That would still imply, by the standard set by National Review (can't be drafted), that women were not under the jurisdiction of the United States - neither before nor after 18AUG1920. And let us not forget about men younger than the minimum draft age nor older than the maximum draft age - they also would not be under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> 
> Which, I suppose, is wonderful for the United States, but it was done on a voluntary basis rather than through edict of law as in a draft. It really has no bearing on your appeal to the military draft as a basis of being under the jurisdiction of the United States. Applying that basis universally, for instance, would imply that anyone capable of being a great spy could claim to be under the jurisdiction of the United States. Likewise, if a woman was not a great spy, then she would not be under the jurisdiction of the United States. 
> 
> The people within the United States who are not under the jurisdiction is the same now as it was at the time teh 14th was debated and passed - namely diplomatic contingents from foreign nations. There was one other difference between then and now and that related to the "Indian Nations"; indpendent nations within the US borders. You could draw a similarity between the Indians then and the illegal immigrants of today if the illegals of today had territories within the borders of the United States which were recognized by treaty between them and the United States.
> 
> Just curious: have you read the Congressional proceedings on the matter or only the digested (read: spun) excerpts that places like National Review provide?


I'm not spinning anything.  Just providing historical facts.  The 14 amendment was about one thing and one thing only.  Freed slaves.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## William R

> If you're getting your "facts" from National Review then your regurgitating their spin. Read through the Congressional transcripts regarding the civil rights act and the amendment (which codified the civil rights act into a form that was more difficult to rescind). And go through the 1898 Supreme Court decision.
> 
> 
> Not so. Only two sections dealt with freed slaves, and the congressional debate over both of those sections dealth not just with conferring rights upon freed slaves, but of denying those rights to Native Americans while maintaining the status quo for everyone else. And as debate between Trumbull and Cowan demonstrates, the status quo consisted of birthright citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> ... which is precisely what the Supreme Court held to be the case in 1898.



During Congressional debate of the Citizenship Clause it was made clear that the drafters did not intend automatic birthright citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. Senator Jacob Howard, a drafter of the 14th Amendment, in floor debate said of the Clause:

“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.”[1]

Senator Howard also made clear that simply being born in the U.S. was not enough to be a citizen when he opposed an amendment to specifically exclude Native Americans from the Citizenship Clause. He said, “Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Notice the reasoning deployed, Native Americans maintain their tribal relations so they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Senator Edgar Cowan said, “It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power

----------


## OReich

> During Congressional debate of the Citizenship Clause it was made clear that the drafters did not intend automatic birthright citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. Senator Jacob Howard, a drafter of the 14th Amendment, in floor debate said of the Clause:
> 
> “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.”[1]
> 
> Senator Howard also made clear that simply being born in the U.S. was not enough to be a citizen when he opposed an amendment to specifically exclude Native Americans from the Citizenship Clause. He said, “Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
> 
> Notice the reasoning deployed, Native Americans maintain their tribal relations so they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Senator Edgar Cowan said, “It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power


Okay, you may have a pt when it comes to their comments on foreigners, but the comments about Indians have nothing whatsoever to do with foreigners or illegal foreigners. When they spoke about Indians, they weren't talking about Indians comingling with Americans in American cities and states, they were talking about Indians who were literally in Indian territories with separate laws and courts, thus they weren't under US jurisdiction, they were like an occupied territory of the US. So "Indians" didn't mean ppl walking around who we didn't have jurisdiction over simply because they're from a foreign land, they were specifically referring to Indians *in Indian territory, not under US laws or governance.* The Indian analogy does not apply at all to foreigners. A Chinese person living in California, thus being governed by US law and under US jurisdiction, is NOT analogous to an Indian in Indian territories who were governed by Indian laws and under Indian jurisdiction. Its two totally different situations.

And this is why I'm worried that all these quotes in general are about Indians, that's clearly the context around all of this. Again, you cannot draw a connection between the Indians that were all in Indian territory, and a Chinese person living in California under US laws. The Indian in Indian territory is literally not under our jurisdiction. The Indian wasn't simply from some foreign land, nor did thy just have some other citizenship, they were literally governed by Indian laws and courts, NOT US laws and courts. That is clearly what they're talking about there. You're ignoring the context around these statements, Indians were not foreigners walking around US cities, they were in their own territories with their own jurisdiction based on treaties.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm afraid Judge Nap is not very informed on this topic.  Or Fox News is pressuring him


I've noticed before that Napolitano is not much of an expert on the Constitution and also tends toward a living document view of it. But what exactly did he say about the 14th Amendment? Do you have a quote?

----------


## OReich

> I've noticed before that Napolitano is not much of an expert on the Constitution and also tends toward a living document view of it. But what exactly did he say about the 14th Amendment? Do you have a quote?


Napolitano does not believe in a living constitution, we shouldn't use that word as a catch-all for anything we disagree with. I have some 'unusual' views about the constitution that don't conform to the liberty movement or to the usual constitutional argument; for instance, I think gender equality and therefore gay marriage is guaranteed under the 14th amendment. I could be wrong, its an ambiguous issue, but that doesn't mean I believe in a living constitution, it means that's my interpretation of the constitution. Its not some bull$#@! fantasy where I insert my views like liberals and neocons. Napolitano is a genius and he's honest; if he disagrees with all other strict constructionists/originalists on some issue, its not because he's just reading w/e he wants into the constitution, its because the constitution is legitimately ambiguous at times.

----------


## erowe1

> Napolitano does not believe in a living constitution, we shouldn't use that word as a catch-all for anything we disagree with.


I don't use it that way.

----------


## OReich

> I don't use it that way.


Then what did Napolitano say that makes him believe in a living constitution?

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## erowe1

> Then what did Napolitano say that makes him believe in a living constitution?


Various things over the years that I've noticed. For example, he claims that the exclusionary rule and the requirement to read Miranda rights are in the Constitution. They're only there because some court legislated them from the bench. In some of his stuff on the PATRIOT Act I've seen him make claims about something being in the Constitution that's flat out not there, like saying that the 4th Amendment says that only judges can issue warrants, for example.

I also don't see why you call him a genius. He's never struck me as one. He's a TV personality first and foremost.

----------


## OReich

> Various things over the years that I've noticed. For example, he claims that the exclusionary rule and the requirement to read Miranda rights are in the Constitution. They're only there because some court legislated them from the bench. In some of his stuff on the PATRIOT Act I've seen him make claims about something being in the Constitution that's flat out not there, like saying that the 4th Amendment says that only judges can issue warrants, for example.
> 
> I also don't see why you call him a genius. He's never struck me as one. He's a TV personality first and foremost.


First of all, I disagree with the exclusionary rule being in the constitution (though its a great policy), but Napolitano's belief in is still not living constitutonalism, its not some "changing with the times, things were different back then" bull$#@!. Its a very rational legal argument: before the exclusionary rule *we had no right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures was dead text on a page.* Cops were arresting and searching ppl left and right with zero limits or impediment or consequences. When you see a rule as important as this being totally ignored, its rational for a judge to impose some kind of penalty in order to enforce it, and this was literally the only thing they could come up with. I don't agree with this, but its not some dishonest "oh, but things were different back then, so I'm going to insert some rule that I want here, and I'll say that its the modern equivalent of what the drafters were thinking." The exclusionary rule was a cure for 200 yrs of ignoring the search and seizure rule, and it is right now the only reason a cop cannot break down your door and arrest you for no reason. It adds real meaning and enforcement to what was previously a dead rule. There's a difference between being wrong, and living constitutionalism. The exclusionary rule isn't just some policy that ppl want that has no basis in the constitution, its the only reason we have an actual, real right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

And Napolitano is correct that only a judge can issue a warrant, that's part of the definition of a warrant, the constitution doesn't need to spell this out. The whole pt of a warrant is that its an "order" to arrest or search someone, though in practice its actually permission being granted to arrest or search someone. If someone other than a judge could issue a warrant, it would be absurd and meaningless. It would be like a mayor or a cop saying "I'd like to arrest this man, and I hereby issue a warrant to myself to do it." The whole pt of a warrant is checks and balances. If any govt officer other than a judge could issue a warrant, then it wouldn't be a warrant, it would just be a government officer arresting someone without any oversight whatsoever.

Just to be clear, living constitutionalism is the belief that the constitution's meaning changes with the times, or at least that's what its adherents say. In practice, its an excuse to insert w/e policy you want, by *lying* that your personal policy position is somehow the objective, modern equivalent of the constitution, which is stupid for 80 different reasons. However wrong Napolitano is about the exclusionary rule, its not living constitutionalism. Ppl who believe in the exclusionary rule would also insist that it should have been the rule 200 yrs ago, not that its some modern update to the constitution. This is a big deal to me, because its the difference between saying "Napolitano is wrong" and "Napolitano is a progressive socialist who $#@!s on the constitution and pretends that it says w/e he wants it to say." Adding teeth to the search and seizure rule isn't ruining the constitution and replacing it with w/e political system you want, its an honest attempt to enforce the constitution, it just happens to be the wrong way to do it. Its some other incorrect constitutional philosophy,* "make up an enforcement mechanism"-ism*, but its not living constitutionalism.

----------


## ga anderson

> I answered this in the identical thread, I'll just repeat the fact that your concept of "full and complete" jurisdiction or "complete, political jurisdiction" is 100% made up, it appears no where on the planet, and it also doesn't appear in the 14th amendment. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to enforce laws over a person. That's it. Not the power to draft, not the power to prosecute for specifically treason, it has nothing to do with voting at all (women couldn't vote at all and were still totally under our jurisdiction). Your categories of "partial, territorial jurisdiction" and "complete, political jurisdiction" are entirely invented and have nothing to do with the law. You're just making up your own definition of jurisdiction. I don't mean to condescend at all, because you make a great, honest argument about a really stupid loophole in the constitution, but jurisdiction is what it is, its the power of the state to enforce its laws over a person, that's it.


I may be misunderstanding your response as applying to the exact phrasing of "...full and complete" jurisdiction or "complete, political jurisdiction..." so this addition may not be applicable, but....

Yes, such definitions and explanations of the jurisdiction phrase have occurred. Several times in SCOTUS statements. Here is just one from the 1884 _Elk v. Wilkins_ case when the Court defined the jurisdictional requirement of the Citizenship Clause as requiring a person to be:
_“…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."_  (you can find this in the records of the _Elk v. Wilkins_ case, 112 U.S. 102)

Similar phrasing was seen again in the 1898 _Wong Kim Ark_ case where as part of the dissenting opinion the following court writing was offered:
_“To be ‘completely subject’ to the political jurisdiction of the United  States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political  jurisdiction of any other government."
_Although not a declaration that this was the court's definition, it was a response to that written qualifier of a definition.


Your acceptance that _"...Jurisdiction is the power of the court to enforce laws over a person."_ Is merely an opinion, (although a shared one), not a legal finality. At this point in time there is as much fodder for one definition as there is for the other. 

Multiple SCOTUS writings, in both majority and minority opinions have been presented as proof of one position or the other, with the _Wong Kim Ark_ case being cited as the most unambiguous. But... the _Wong Kim Ark_ case was a 5-4 split court, and the dissenting opinions were scathing in their forcefulness that the majority decision was an incorrect one. 

Declaring your accepted definition to be the only correct one is a risky position to take.

Of course if it is the "100%" in the phrase you deny exists... then there may be some more reading to do.

GA

----------


## ga anderson

Greetings Voluntarist,
I think you will find that the 14th Amendment was _not_ all about Indians, (although the SCOTUS case _Elk v. Wilkins_ was all about Indians)_,_ the documented impetus for the 14th Amendment was all about... Freed Slaves, (or Black Freemen if you prefer)


Just sayin' 

GA

----------


## OReich

> Greetings Voluntarist,
> I think you will find that the 14th Amendment was _not_ all about Indians, (although the SCOTUS case _Elk v. Wilkins_ was all about Indians)_,_ the documented impetus for the 14th Amendment was all about... Freed Slaves, (or Black Freemen if you prefer)
> 
> 
> Just sayin' 
> 
> GA


So you're not interpreting the constitution based on its text. The rule is the rule. Are you saying that the 2nd amendment only protects muskets, or that the 1st amendment only protects ideas ppl had back then? The 14th amendment says anyone born under US jurisdiction is a US citizen. The text is not ambiguous. And it is NOT my opinion that jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear a case over a legal dispute, that is the definition of jurisdiction. The issues are whether we only have "partial jurisdiction" over foreigners (and illegal foreigners specifically), and then whether such "partial jurisdiction" would not satisfy the "under US jurisdiction" language in the 14th amendment. Even if we only have partial jurisdiction, that's still jurisdiction. If they wanted the rule to require "full complete jurisdiction" (if "full and complete jurisdiction" and "partial jurisdiction" are even actual legal concepts), they would have said so. They simply said "under US jurisdiction.

And I'm not saying "under US jurisdiction" has no meaning, it has a very clear purpose: to include soldiers and diplomats abroad, and to exclude Indians (since they were in Indian territories, under Indian jurisdiction per treaties), diplomats, and foreign soldiers (belligerent or not).

And again, you cannot use a case thats about Indians, or quotes from Senators talking about Indians, and turn that into an empirical rule about illegal immigrants. *Indians were in Indian territory with their own laws, their govts had jurisdiction over Indians, not the US govt.* Whereas if a Chinese immigrant, legal or illegal, is walking around California, they are under US jurisdiction. Unless they happen to be in an Indian territory; then they would be under Indian jurisdiction, per our treaties with said Indians.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## ga anderson

> Just curious - have you read the entirety of the Congressional record on the amendment? (and the civil rights act which preceded it, and the 1898 Supreme Court decision).
> 
> I didn't say it was "all about Indians". But neither was it "all" about Freed Slaves.
> One of the clauses dealt with limiting governmental participation by those who had engaged in insurrection.
> Another dealt wit recognizing debt from activities involved in quelling the insurrection, while denying debt from activity supporting the insurrection.
> But the clause dealing with citizenship and civil rights had to do with granting them to the freed slaves, while denying them to Natice Americans in the Indian Nations , and also maintaining the existing status quo for other categories of people (status quo as understood by those weilding the political power to pass the amendment). 
> 
> Just sayin'
> 
> ...



Hello again Voluntarists,

First - Perhaps I misunderstood your intended meaning regarding the _Indians_ reference. You said:
_"OReich laid out what the language was all about ... Indians_"
It  certainly appears you referenced another persons comment; "OReich laid  out what the language was all about..." - and then supplied your answer -
_"... Indians"

_As for your reading question_;
_No  I have not read the entirety of the Congressional Globe regarding the  14th Amendment, but I have read much of it relative to the debated  points, (both the _Does_ and the _Does not_ camps), concerning the Amendments intention for the use of "jurisdiction." I  find valid points for both sides of the discussion, but firmly fall  into the camp that says jurisdiction was not intended to mean only the  realm of laws and courts.

 Yes, I have read the entire Civil Rights Act of 1866. It is not a long document, or one that is difficult to understand. 

The  first section, the lead-off of the legislation, (which I believe is  where typically the heart of most legislation is addressed) gets right  to the point about who the Act was intended for:
_"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,_ (my emphasis),_ excluding Indians not taxed..."_  - I believe this is relative to the 14th Amendment debate. And it is  the only mention of Indians. Specifically Indians that are not addressed  by the act.

Then relative to who the act was intended for, we find these qualifiers:
Section 1. _"...citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude..."_ 

Section 2. _"...having at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude..." _ and  so on. The 9 sections after the first are littered with similar  phrasing - all related to freed slaves, (including referencing a _Freedmens Bureau_), and they all deal with enforcement and authorities for enforcement.

So   am a bit surprised you would reference the act as supportive to your  position. The wording in the Act does seem to be directed at freed  slaves, (and refugees).

And yes, I have also read what I believe to be the entirety of the SCOTUS 1898 _Wong Kim Ark_ case. As this case seems to be foundational for folks that say the 14th Amendment does apply to _Anchor Babies._ But  from my perspective it is a very shaky foundation. I do agree that this  case supports your position, but it was a decisively divided decision,  (5-4), and the dissenting justices were scathing in their dissenting  opinion.   I believe that the specifics of the case were so particular  to single incident that the court's decision was more one of endorsing  an  exception than one of general precedence and definition.

As to this:

_"One of the clauses dealt with limiting governmental participation by those who had engaged in insurrection.
Another dealt wit recognizing debt from activities involved in quelling  the insurrection, while denying debt from activity supporting the  insurrection.
But the clause dealing with citizenship and civil rights had to do with  granting them to the freed slaves, while denying them to Natice  Americans in the Indian Nations , and also maintaining the existing  status quo for other categories of people (status quo as understood by  those weilding the political power to pass the amendment)._"

Here  you must referring to the 14th Amendment -  and mixing-up your sources.  The points about insurrection, rebellion, and related debts, are part  of the Amendment, but; _"But the clause dealing with citizenship and civil rights had to do with  granting them to the freed slaves, while denying them to Natice  Americans in the Indian Nations ..."_ is not in the 14th Amendment, not specifically in the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

Have _you_ read the entirety of those that you asked me about?

However, you did make one point I heartily agree with; 
_"Would that status quo regarding birthright citizenship have changed if  there had been a welfare state at the time? Most probably..." 
_(Uh, excepting agreement with the "Status quo" part)

GA

----------


## OReich

> Hello again Voluntarists,
> 
> First - Perhaps I misunderstood your intended meaning regarding the _Indians_ reference. You said:
> _"OReich laid out what the language was all about ... Indians_"
> It  certainly appears you referenced another persons comment; "OReich laid  out what the language was all about..." - and then supplied your answer -
> _"... Indians"
> 
> _As for your reading question_;
> _No  I have not read the entirety of the Congressional Globe regarding the  14th Amendment, but I have read much of it relative to the debated  points, (both the _Does_ and the _Does not_ camps), concerning the Amendments intention for the use of "jurisdiction." I  find valid points for both sides of the discussion, but firmly fall  into the camp that says jurisdiction was not intended to mean only the  realm of laws and courts.
> ...


Yeah, the Supreme Court _Wong Kim Ark_ case is explicitly inapplicable to illegal immigrants: "Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States *so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here*, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

This doesn't declare that illegal immigrants cannot drop anchor babies, because that wasn't the dispute the court was facing, so they weren't allowed to rule on it. (What matters is the precedent of the ruling, and the words justifying that ruling, any other language about a situation not being ruled upon is just advisory language.) But the court made it extremely clear that they were ONLY talking about legal immigrants in that ruling.

----------


## ga anderson

> So you're not interpreting the constitution based on its text. The rule is the rule. Are you saying that the 2nd amendment only protects muskets, or that the 1st amendment only protects ideas ppl had back then? The 14th amendment says anyone born under US jurisdiction is a US citizen. The text is not ambiguous. And it is NOT my opinion that jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear a case over a legal dispute, that is the definition of jurisdiction. The issues are whether we only have "partial jurisdiction" over foreigners (and illegal foreigners specifically), and then whether such "partial jurisdiction" would not satisfy the "under US jurisdiction" language in the 14th amendment. Even if we only have partial jurisdiction, that's still jurisdiction. If they wanted the rule to require "full complete jurisdiction" (if "full and complete jurisdiction" and "partial jurisdiction" are even actual legal concepts), they would have said so. They simply said "under US jurisdiction.
> 
> And I'm not saying "under US jurisdiction" has no meaning, it has a very clear purpose: to include soldiers and diplomats abroad, and to exclude Indians (since they were in Indian territories, under Indian jurisdiction per treaties), diplomats, and foreign soldiers (belligerent or not).
> 
> And again, you cannot use a case thats about Indians, or quotes from Senators talking about Indians, and turn that into an empirical rule about illegal immigrants. *Indians were in Indian territory with their own laws, their govts had jurisdiction over Indians, not the US govt.* Whereas if a Chinese immigrant, legal or illegal, is walking around California, they are under US jurisdiction. Unless they happen to be in an Indian territory; then they would be under Indian jurisdiction, per our treaties with said Indians.


Perhaps a little clarity is in order.
I think the 14th Amendment, as written, means exactly what you say it does. I think the "jurisdiction" in the clause should be interpreted just as you say it should.

But, I also think...

The current and correct interpretation of "jurisdiction," (geographical/legal), was not the intended one. I don't think circumstances of the time informed the Amendment's authors that more clarity was needed for the term.

That the primary impetus for the 14th Amendment was the 1866 Civil Rights Act - which was `all about' feed slaves. I think there is ample period record and documentation that this was/is true.

That our Congress does have the authority to codify or make statutory rules regarding the 14th Amendment _without_ needing a Constitutional Amendment.

So there you go. As currently interpreted I think you are right. But I do not think I am wrong because my conversations have not been about current interpretations or any ambiguity in the Amendment. My conversations have been about the end result not being as intended for changing times. As Voluntarist said, had they known anything about a "welfare" state condition that would evolve ahead of them, I believe they certainly would have been more precise in their use of the word jurisdiction. My arguments about historical context and period records are based on the amendment author's statements, and subsequent SCOTUS cases, (which have batted the ball onto both sides of the net).

My point is that although the 14th Amendment does give legal birthright citizenship to Anchor babies - my readings clearly inform me that result was not the author's intent.

I hope you are having as good a day as I am. I enjoy these types of conversations.

GA

----------


## William R

> Perhaps a little clarity is in order.
> I think the 14th Amendment, as written, means exactly what you say it does. I think the "jurisdiction" in the clause should be interpreted just as you say it should.
> 
> But, I also think...
> 
> The current and correct interpretation of "jurisdiction," (geographical/legal), was not the intended one. I don't think circumstances of the time informed the Amendment's authors that more clarity was needed for the term.
> 
> That the primary impetus for the 14th Amendment was the 1866 Civil Rights Act - which was `all about' feed slaves. I think there is ample period record and documentation that this was/is true.
> 
> ...


Tourist are under our jurisdiction when they're stateside.  But they're not under our political jurisdiction.  They can't vote, be charged with treason drive on the wrong side of the road  etc etc.  Same with illegal aliens.  That's what the authors of the 14th amendment meantI.  No birthright citizenship just because a foreigner drops a kid while they're in the country.  Crazy to think otherwise.

----------


## OReich

> Perhaps a little clarity is in order.
> I think the 14th Amendment, as written, means exactly what you say it does. I think the "jurisdiction" in the clause should be interpreted just as you say it should.
> 
> But, I also think...
> 
> The current and correct interpretation of "jurisdiction," (geographical/legal), was not the intended one. I don't think circumstances of the time informed the Amendment's authors that more clarity was needed for the term.
> 
> That the primary impetus for the 14th Amendment was the 1866 Civil Rights Act - which was `all about' feed slaves. I think there is ample period record and documentation that this was/is true.
> 
> ...


Yeah I agree, there are a million unintended consequences in this, especially with entitlements. Its common sense, liberals should be able to see this conflict of values between mass immigration (which I'm not totally oppose to) and entitlements, but if they understood cost/benefit analysis then they wouldn't be liberals.




> Tourist are under our jurisdiction when they're stateside.  But they're not under our political jurisdiction.  They can't vote, be charged with treason drive on the wrong side of the road  etc etc.  Same with illegal aliens.  That's what the authors of the 14th amendment meantI.  No birthright citizenship just because a foreigner drops a kid while they're in the country.  Crazy to think otherwise.


Okay, you're again talking about "political jurisdiction" even though it does not appear in the fourteenth amendment, you just declare that this is what they meant even though it never says this. You then quote Senators who are talking about Indians, who are a totally different situation.* So not only can you not show that the concept of "political jurisdiction" even exists, you also cannot show that this is what the fourteenth amendment refers to, because it does not say that.* You take quotes about Indians who were in Indian territory under explicitly separate jurisdiction. When they said "Indians aren't under our jurisdiction because they have separate allegiance," they meant Indians were literally in Indian territory under Indian govt, laws and jurisdiction, and giving their allegiance to that Indian government. They were not talking about foreigners walking around US territory, who were in fact under the jurisdiction of the US.

----------


## ga anderson

> Tourist are under our jurisdiction when they're stateside.  But they're not under our political jurisdiction.  They can't vote, be charged with treason drive on the wrong side of the road  etc etc.  Same with illegal aliens.  That's what the authors of the 14th amendment meantI.  No birthright citizenship just because a foreigner drops a kid while they're in the country.  Crazy to think otherwise.


William R, I agree with you about what was _"meant,"_ but that is not what was written, and until the Amendment is clarified Birthright Citizenship is a Constitutional right.

GA

----------


## Zippyjuan

"Juris" refers to the law- not politics.  One does not need to have the right to vote to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Citizenship is required to be able to vote but the inverse is no necessarily true- you can be a citizen but not a voter.  If somebody is under your jurisdiction, they must follow your laws.  




> noun
> 
> *the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.*
> "federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case"
> synonyms:	authority, control, power, dominion, rule, administration, command, sway, leadership, sovereignty, hegemony
> "an area under French jurisdiction"
> 
> *the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments.*
> "the claim will be within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal"
> ...


Ambassadors are not subject to US laws based on international agreements.   The Native American tribes were considered under their own laws and were also not considered under US Jurisdiction until the law on that was changed. 

Is a tourist or immigrant subject to US laws?   




> Section 1.
> 
> *All persons* born or naturalized in the United States, *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States* and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

----------


## William R

> William R, I agree with you about what was _"meant,"_ but that is not what was written, and until the Amendment is clarified Birthright Citizenship is a Constitutional right.
> 
> GA


Sorry but that's not what's written.   By being in the United States they are subject to our jurisdiction.  Our laws.  But they're not under our political jurisdiction.   That's why they excluded diplomats and indians.   Well the same holds true with illegal aliens. 


I can't stand the woman but no one makes a better case than Ann Coulter 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/19/no...t-citizenship/

Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is Americas most-cited federal judge  and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, adding that Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it passed a law to put an end to the nonsense.



The Constitution Still Doesnt Grant Birthright Citizenship

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/27/th...t-citizenship/

----------


## ga anderson

> Sorry but that's not what's written.   By being in the United States they are subject to our jurisdiction.  Our laws.  But they're not under our political jurisdiction.   That's why they excluded diplomats and indians.   Well the same holds true with illegal aliens. 
> 
> 
> I can't stand the woman but no one makes a better case than Ann Coulter 
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/19/no...t-citizenship/
> 
> Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is America’s most-cited federal judge — and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”
> 
> ...



Don't be sorry William R., just show me where in the 14th Amendment it says "political" jurisdiction. Or show me a majority SCOTUS opinion that says that. We could throw authoritative links at each other all day long, but much smarter and more knowledgeable minds than mine, (I would say yours too, but I don't know you), have been at this debate for a long time - and we still have anchor babies.

I agree the 14th intended something else, but it doesn't say something else, and I am doubtful you can produce a more legitimate affirmation of your interpretation than the actual text of the Amendment.

_ps. If the Amendment does not say what it appears to say in plain text, then why does your expert "most cited" judge add; "But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.”__?_

GA

----------


## Zippyjuan

Laws always have more impact beyond their initial intent.  Courts look at what the law actually says more than what the original intent was. They can take intent into consideration but what is binding is the letter of the law.  If the law does not do what it intended, it needs to be re-written or to be abided by as written. Slaves are nowhere mentioned in the amendment. Nor is any other group of people other than to exempt "those not subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States".

----------


## acesfull

If two illegal aliens give birth on American soil to a child, the question would be, is the new born child a US citizen, since the two adult parents are in fact illegal, does being illegal make the new born also illegal?  Hence since said parents are illegal by definition, all their acts in this country are illegal and should be rendered "null and void"... I am not saying that the G should take possession of the illegal child, I am only suggesting that Mom. Dad and baby should be sent back to where they came. 
This topic is a real slippery slop... However two illegals cannot produce a "legal"... And no one wants to fit the bill for the child if the parents are departed...  WE have enough of our own children to take care of...  
My .02
Acesfull

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Hence since said parents are illegal by definition, *all their acts in this country are illegal*


So if an illegal immigrant goes to the grocery store and buys food, that is an illegal act? Can they be arrested for "shopping illegally"?  Do we need to start checking immigration status at the grocery to be sure nobody is breaking the law?

If a bank robber has a kid is the kid considered illegal?  He committed an illegal act and aren't all his actions after that illegal?




What about children of legal immigrants?  Say a tourist or student?  They are in the country legally.  Their kids are automatic citizens?  What about if a citizen and a non- citizen have a baby?  Citizen or not?

----------


## William R

> Don't be sorry William R., just show me where in the 14th Amendment it says "political" jurisdiction. Or show me a majority SCOTUS opinion that says that. We could throw authoritative links at each other all day long, but much smarter and more knowledgeable minds than mine, (I would say yours too, but I don't know you), have been at this debate for a long time - and we still have anchor babies.
> 
> I agree the 14th intended something else, but it doesn't say something else, and I am doubtful you can produce a more legitimate affirmation of your interpretation than the actual text of the Amendment.
> 
> _ps. If the Amendment does not say what it appears to say in plain text, then why does your expert "most cited" judge add; "But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.__?_
> 
> GA


You show me where it says anyone born here is a citizen.

----------


## OReich

> Sorry but that's not what's written.   By being in the United States they are subject to our jurisdiction.  Our laws.  But they're not under our political jurisdiction.   That's why they excluded diplomats and indians.   Well the same holds true with illegal aliens.


"Political jurisdiction" does not exist. Anyone walking through the borders of the US is under US jurisdiction, except diplomats and foreign soldiers (because they're in our country for the very purpose of serving their own country, not as an individual), and Indians (because of specific treaties where Indians were in their own territories, with their own courts and laws, and hence it was their own jurisdiction). Your sources which talk about "complete" and "full" jurisdiction are referring to the governance of Indian territories. The Supreme Court held in _Wong Kim Ark_ that the 14th amendment gives citizenship to anyone born here when their foreign parents were legally here, even temporarily; this means that your concept of "political jurisdiction" or "full jurisdiction" for permanent residents doesn't exist. Anyone legally within our borders is 100% within our jurisdiction, fully and completely, there is no difference between jurisdiction and political jurisdiction. Your quotes which show otherwise are instead referring to the governance of Indian territories under Indian jurisdiction, not US jurisdiction. I'm not saying _Wong Kim Ark_ would at all apply to illegal immigrants, the court specifically said it wasn't ruling on them. But, the ruling demonstrates that (according to those five justices) there is no such thing as "political jurisdiction," unless that's just jurisdiction. Political jurisdiction and full/complete jurisdiction do not exist, AND do not appear in the 14th amendment. Your quotes which are supposed to show the existence of those terms are actually talking about Indian jurisdiction over Indian territories.

----------


## William R

The Civil Rights Act included a definition for national citizenship, to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, 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.

That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a person who is not subject to any foreign powerthat is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866using only slightly different languageto put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1884, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.

That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth. Theyre not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Congresss INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.

So why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth? Because the Fourteenth Amendments Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners. Congresss current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires. Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.


JRichard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is Americas most-cited federal judge  and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, adding that Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it passed a law to put an end to the nonsense.


Facts are facts and the facts are the 14th amendment doesn't grant automatic birthright citizenship.   Never has.   This is one of the biggest scams the government has ever pulled on the American people.  

The above quotes are from articles I've linked to on this thread and another one.

----------


## OReich

> The Civil Rights Act included a definition for national citizenship, to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “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.”
> 
> That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> In 1884, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.
> 
> That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth. They’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.
> 
> So why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth? Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners. Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires. Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.
> ...


The Elk v. Wiggins did NOT say anything about foreigners walking through US territory, *it was about Indians.* Again you cite a case/quote about Indians and say its about foreigners. The Indians were in their own jurisdiction, the court explained this. Not only did the Supreme Court NOT say anything about foreigners (other than diplomats/soldiers), but the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark then said that a temporary, legal foreigner could drop an anchor baby. They didn't say illegals could drop an anchor baby, they didn't rule on that, but they did rule that anyone legally here, even a temporary foreigner, could drop an anchor baby. So again, you're misinterpreting language that is exclusive to Indians and diplomats/soldiers, and projecting that onto foreigners and illegal foreigners.

And the Civil Rights Act wasn't the 14th amendment. So no, you can't use one law to enforce the 14th amendment to say that's all it was about. And, Elk v. Wilkens, which you cite to show that the CRA's language should be used to understand the 14th amendment, is the case you're misinterpreting, it was about Indians. Again and again, you take quotes about Indians or diplomats/soldiers and generelize that into a broader category that doesn't exist. The Supreme Court even ruled after Elk v. Wilkens, in Wong Kim Ark, that temporary (legal) foreigners could drop anchor babies, and so your repeated notion foreigners were not under our jurisdiction is just false. Your quotes from Senators and the Supreme Court are all taken out of context from discussions involving Indians, and you're ignoring the later Supreme Court case that DID rule that temporary, legal foreigners could drop anchor babies.

I met Posner, he's a smart guy, he was nominated (or almost nominated?) for the US Supreme Court but admitted in testimony that he smoked weed _since college._ Cuz apparently everyone in college did it.

----------


## William R

"Not only did the Supreme Court NOT say anything about foreigners (other than diplomats/soldiers),.  

They didn't say anything because millions of people weren't breaking into the country back then.  You're a clown   But they feared an invasion from a foreign government  and that's why they included soldiers. During the Civil War Lincoln feared that France would enter the war on behalf of the Confederacy.    Well today we are experiencing an invasion from  south of the border. 2/3rds of Mexicans think Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California belong to Mexico.  Mexico is deliberately sending its citizens North.  Replace soldier with illegal aliens. 


IF an Indian and his Squaw left the Indian territories and had  a kid in Boston the child would not have been granted citizenship.   Because the parents were not American citizens. 

You don't know what you're talking about.

----------


## TommyJeff

> I'm talking about the constitution, you're talking about something you made up. Jurisdiction is the power of a state to exercise its laws over a person, period.


This isnt true at all. 
Just because that's how the term is used today, doesn't mean that's how the term was used in the past.  Your dramatic use of the word period is unnecessary and your statement people to that term period, is false.  
This is from wiki "The word "jurisdiction" is also used, especially in informal writing, to refer to a state or political subdivision generally, or to its government, rather than to its legal authority".    
 Period. Lol

----------


## TommyJeff

> Facts are facts and the facts are the 14th amendment doesn't grant automatic birthright citizenship.   Never has.


this is absolutely correct.  But there was no need to cloud up these facts with Supreme Court opinions.  The courts don't make law.  Just stick with the facts about the law congress passed.

----------

