Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

Read the ruling

- - - Updated - - -

No, on this forum. Wka and plyler v doe completely destroy your premise.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would I? I'm going bynthenplain English of the amendment, and Supreme Court rulings.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe as the courts believe.

 

I have and both Kims parents were here legally. So whats the name of the one whos parents were here illegally?

 

You didn't read the ruling. Gray goes out of his way to cite English common law as the basis for his ruling.

Please read it

 

I have read it more times than I care to as you never cease posting this crap. No one is mentioned whos parents came here illegally. There has never been a case brought before the court with that as its premise no matter how hard you try to spin it.

 

Who cares that they can't be conscripted. We are talking about jurisdiction in general. And the rule around the world is simple. You Walk into a country, you are subject to its jurisdiction, unless you are a diplomat or soldier. Which is why the phrase, "subject to...", is in the 14th.

Its plain meaning is clear. Illegals are subject to US jurisdiction. If not, then you couldn't even use the term illegal to describe them.

 

WKA is a court ruling.

Sure it did. Unless you were an enemy. English Common Law was the basis of citizenship for these people, even though actual Citizenship didn't exist; https://books.google.com/books?id=x... person born in the thirteen colonies&f=false

Scotland or wherever, doesn't change the same procedure used with the Thirteen colonies by England. It is what it is chief. You've been beating this dead argument of yours until there is nothing left to beat. Common Law was for everyone who pledged their allegiance, legal or illegal, and was never contested going into the writings of the Constitution. It decided WKA and nothing I can say or you can change that. You want a Constitutional Amendment, go for it. Having a moral conscience would never allow me to move forward with such a thing. Our horrific past is enough for me to never bring the subject up again.

 

You haven't read it.

 

The Great Flatu's fantasy about trashing the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and driving certain folks who were born here out of the country has won him the support and endorsements of White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis, it's true, but he would, if his pipe dream came true, eliminate two interlopers in particular who are annoying him.

Piyush Jindal’s non-US-citizen parents came to Louisiana under visas as foreign graduate students just months before his birth. Marco Rubio’s parents had permanent residency status, but they did not become naturalized citizens until four years after he was born.

Whether Flatu demands they get out of his country, he can at least insist they stop masquerading as eligible to serve in the presidency.

The Daily Stormer would be tickled pink. (I think that's an acceptable colour for those folks, isn't it?)

 

Given that in the context of the citizenship clause, subjection to US jurisdiction of those born citizens must apply from birth, with what crime do you suppose an infant can be charged?

 

They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they can not be conscripted. Being subject to civil law doesn't mean much.

Is that why you couldn't prove it wrong? Illegals can not be conscripted, nor are they recognized as residing in the US.

And yet its not, you don't even know the definition of settled law.

WKA never stated anything of the sort. Surely you can quote the paragraph stating such, shouldn't be too difficult for you.

 

The child, if it is on US soil, is subject to its jurisdiction in the same manner as any other child is, inasmuch as a child can be subject to a jurisdiction. The only way it is not, is if it is the child of a diplomat or soldier operating under a SOFA or other narrow exceptions.

That is the whole point of diplomatic protocol and SOFAs. The only reason we need them is because it is automatically assumed, worldwide, throughout history, that if a person sets foot on another country's soil, that person is subject to the jurisdiction of that country.

So we outline exceptions to this general rule. Nothing in the Constitution is superfluous. "...subject to the jurisdiction of..." accounts for these exceptions to the general rule that if you are in a country, you are subject to its rules.

 

Your quote of WKA doesn't do what you claim. Do you know what amity means yet? If Minor isn't relevant than why does your quote cite it? Do you even know how to quote properly, since your quote is of 2 different sections ran together to look like one.

Who is they? Justice Gray specifically states

Then exactly what does this quote from Gray mean?

Nobody is changing the clause, the clause is merely declaratory of existing law, meaning it only takes a law to change the law. Your issue is you want to limit the clause in the 2nd Amendment (shall not be infringed), yet don't want to limit the 14th Clause (citizenship by birth). You don't get to have it both ways.

No, WKA recognizes 2 exceptions and then added a third, which later, 1924, that exception was changed via Congress passing a law granting citizenship to Indians at birth. Illegals were unknown to common law then, and to this date have never been challenged to determine. The policy of giving citizenship by birth to children born to illegals is merely recent, within the past 50 years.

 

Nobody is discussing superceding an amendment. The only thing being discussed is the ability to define the clause via law as Justice Gray states, or the clause to be defeated by changing the law, as was prior to limit it to certain classes (Whites Only) of persons.

That quote has been shown to not do what you claim. Do you know what amity means yet? How about Ligeance? That quote also runs section 1 into section 2.

He also showed aliens in amity, do you know what amity means yet?

 

Jurisdiction in this context simply means being subject to civil law.

Conscription has everything to do with Jurisdiction (authority of the govt). A 9 year old girl is simply exempt based on our own choice.

 

Your own example stated what I stated. I simply used my example to show that they can be charged and if their country denies to revoke their immunity, they are then removed from the country. The charges against her were not dismissed until after she was out of country and she moved to have them dismissed.

She can never again enter the US.

Georgian authorities revoked his immunity so he could stand trial, meaning he was already being charged. Here's more about him

As I stated, you don't seem to understand the word "charge".

 

You haven't given anything that was either controlling or precedent. Your quote of section 1 and 2 ran together is nothing more than dicta. As has been shown numerous times, you don't know how to quote properly, let alone know what dicta, holding, or precedent even is.

 

We have, it doesn't claim what you claim.

They don't, they do however show that you don't have the first inkling of comprehending basic court opinion.

Neither of which you seem to comprehend.

Then you believe the clause can be limited as Gray states

To deny this is to look even more inept than you already do.

 

No, Gray states US common law, and simply says that English Common Law may have been the basis, but at the signing of the DoI, English Common Law was no longer relevant here. US common law then became the law (your quote where it shows Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655] ), and prior to the 1866 CRA, it was limited to whites only.

 

Said manner being what, precisely?

Actually, by your logic...

...this is entirely superfluous.

No it doesn't, because WRT the citizenship clause it doesn't matter whether diplomats are subject to US jurisdiction, only whether their children are.

 

Really, is that why the AG in 1873 stated the following

We are not talking about jurisdiction in general. The term jurisdiction has several meanings.

Being subject to civil law is not the same as being under absolute and complete jurisdiction. What's clear is the limiting of the word jurisdiction to only one meaning to cover all the different contextual meanings it really has.

 

That is so, so, so wrong.

Are you familiar with Lynch v Clarke [1844] ?

Frederick Van Dyne, Citizenship of the United States (1904)
(Van Dyne was the Assistant Solicitor for the US Department of State.)

"After an exhaustive examination of the law, the court [in Lynch v. Clarke] said that it entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession and the universal impression of the public mind."

Or how about this guy, who rubbed shoulders with some of our Founders, and wrote the first legal treatise published in America:

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…

The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
​

Or how about this guy - appointed by George Washington. In 1829, he wrote A View of the Constitution - page 86:

"[H]e who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity…Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.'
​

Or how about Chief Justice Story, writing in 1830:

"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."

I have more....if you want.

 

Brilliant deduction there Sherlock. The Yale link was a doctoral thesis.

Am I to read the entirety of the book or will the Introduction do? Since the Introduction states exactly what I have shown. Nowhere in there does it state that "all persons", it simply states "persons born" and when it gets to aliens it states "aliens in amity". Do you know what amity means?

Nobody had to pledge their allegiance. Aliens in amity were not required to pledge their allegiance. I don't want a Constitutional Amendment, as one is not needed. WKA

Your ramblings show that you don't know much about the history of citizenship by birth in the US let alone in England.

Your moral conscience amounts to a pile of used beans.

 

If the authors of the 14th meant your limited jurisdiction concept they would have outlined it. They just said jurisdiction of the US. So we must assume jurisdiction in the general sense since they didn't qualify the word in any way. And that general meaning, throughout the world and throughout history, is being on a country's territory.

 

Not true. Undocumented immigrants can, in fact, be drafted. In light of that fact, does that mean that you will now change your view on the matter and claim that they are "subject to the jurisdiction" since they do satisfy the metric that you chose yourself? Or will you prevaricate and pretend as if that fact is suddenly irrelevant?

https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Immigrants-and-Dual-Nationals

"Immigrant Men Are Required to Register

If you are an immigrant man (documented or undocumented) living in the United States, age 18 through 25, you are required to register."​

 

And new recognized exceptions can come into play as was noted by Gray in WKA (Indians were unknown to the common law), as the Indians were recognized up to 1924 when it took an act of Congress to grant citizenship to them. Prior to the 1866 CRA only whites were allowed to be born citizens in the US.