Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

Trump is Right!

Contrary to popular belief the Constitution (14th Amendment) does not guarantee anyone born in the US is automatically a citizen. Those who believe this fallacy cite the Fourteenth Amendment which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." Everyone forgets about the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause. I defer to the 1866 Senate transcript from Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI).

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”​

Obviously such people born to “foreigners, aliens, (or) families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Children born to foreigners are citizens of that country under US law and the Constitution.

Once again the Constitution “outlaws” LEFTIST philosophy, or outlaws LEFTISTS


http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

 

That is correct. The 14th Amendment was about former slaves.

 

Are you sure? I've been told that the the original intent was to provide a steady supply of low skilled workers. Apparently a peasant class is the latest lefty craze.

 

Except illegal aliens are subject to our jurisdiction. Novel attempt to rewrite history and the constitution, but a failure still.

 

Funny isn't it. Naturally, the link is from an anti immigration group, but you have to look very hard to figure that out. They try to hide it.

 

The 14th amendment itself is null and void. It never received the required amount of votes to ratify it, not to mention the misrepresentation of the south following the civil war was disgusting.

 

If you are physically present in the US, you are under US jurisdiction.. not other country's laws apply.. The only exception is if you are a foreign ambassador.


8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

- - - Updated - - -

You're correct............ If they are NOT foreign ambassadors and they are in the US .. they are subject to US jurisdiction.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

 

So if Destroyer of Illusions and his Putin Storm troopers invade California, and he has a child then the child of an invader and enemy of the United states would become a US citizen?

 

Who knew the real law experts were posters on PF.com and not the actual law graduates themselves?

 

It was ratified on July 28, 1868.

 

The OP is just outright wrong.

ANYONE is the USA is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA except families of ambassadors or foreign ministers as they have diplomatic immunity.

As for the comment of one of the authors, that is irrelevant to anything for how law works. It only matters what a law says, not what someone offering it claims how they want it applied. ANYONE who understand how law works understands that.

 

Now that's the progressive dream right there...

 

A U.S. Citizen born to immigrants parents is automatically a low skilled peasant? I'm not sure Rick Santorum would agree. Trump was born to an immigrant mother and seems to have done ok for himself.

 

Obviously, otherwise they could not be prosecuted for any criminal offense for lack of jurisdiction. Anyone in the USA is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA UNLESS they have diplomatic immunity. Any rational person understands that simple principle.

 

No. The SCOTUS case US vs Wong Kin Ark ( 1898 ) found that:

 

all persons within the USA, except for folks within Indian Reservations, are under the legal jurisdiction of the United States, and guarunteed all of the rights listed in the Constitution.

 

Then Trump should be deported?

- - - Updated - - -

Indigenous Americans on reservations are, in fact, 99% subject to USA jurisdiction in reality.

 

"The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment affirmed the traditional jus soli rule, including the exceptions of children born to foreign diplomats, to hostile occupying forces or on foreign public ships, and added a new exception of children of Indians owing direct allegiance to their tribes."

 

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar09.html

A major landmark on the road to the Civil War, the Dred Scott decision was overturned with the adoption of the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution in 1865 and 1868. These amendments ended slavery and established firmly the citizenship of all persons, regardless of race, creed, or previous condition of servitude.

 

Except the quotation is legitimate history and can be found on the Library of Congress site from the link below (in the middle column).

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

 

Not exactly. Read it for yourself.

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

 

Not sure if a foreign military attacking us qualifies as being subject to our laws.

 

It's no rewriting history or the Constitution. The intent was never to include children of aliens or Native Americans. In fact they didn't put a clause in for Native Americans because it was clear they were not subject to United States jurisdiction, but their tribe. As the writers of the 14th stated, jurisdiction in 1866 meant complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anyone else, i.e. a citizen by birth of another country. This is totally inline with the intent: to make former slaves full citizens. You can read the Congressional record at the time and it's clear the writers never intended what we now call anchor babies.

It's people like you that have re-written history and the Constitution.

 

Nope...

sub-ject


[n., adj. suhb-jikt; v. suh b-jekt]

8. a person who owes allegiance to a government and lives under its protection:
four subjects of Sweden.​

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subject?s=ts

 

So invading illegal Mexicans by this rule are not subject to the 14th amendment, as they represent an enemy force.