Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

It is not superfluous. It accounts for children of diplomats or other exceptions to the general rule that if you are on a country's territory, you are subject to its jurisdiction. Otherwise the US could seize diplomats' children for whatever reason. CPS can't do jack to a diplomat's child. The diplomat doesn't have to enroll his child in school. Etc, etc. I'm guessing at all this, going on instinct. Ive never looked into what the US can do with a diplomat's child. Common sense says im right. Prove me wrong.

 

Lynch's parents were here, resident and temporary sojourners, meaning they hadn't declared their intentions of becoming citizens.

So your only hope is for the phrase whatever the situation of his parents should cover illegals. The issue is that illegals were unknown to common law then, and were unknown until the mid 1900's.

Again you think aliens is all encompassing. Only whites were allowed to be born citizens then.

Again you rely on the word alien. Illegal aliens were unknown back then, to whit also only whites were allowed to be born citizens.

Again, aliens. In 1830, only whites were allowed to be born citizens.

Until you folks realize that only whites were allowed to be born citizens prior to 1866, aliens did not cover illegal aliens. From WKA

I certainly hope you do have more, namely after 1868. ​

 

Ridiculous and fallacious reasoning....if citizenship was determined by geography alone there would have been no need to insert the part about being under the jurisdiction of the U.S. aka by your reasoning by the mere fact they were born here would have been enough...but that alone was not enough thus the requirement to be under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Also............Birthright Citizenship is the automatic granting of citizenship to children born within a nation's borders or territories. The United States and Canada are the only nations in the world to offer Birthright Citizenship to tourists and illegal aliens.

 

They did outline it 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 they can't They can not be conscripted, why do you think when they are found within the ranks they are immediately discharged? Please give the link showing that illegals can be conscripted,since numerous pages back I gave the link showing they could not be.

Being required to register with the SSS does not mean you can be conscripted.

 

Yeah, they just said jurisdiction. They didn't say, "subject to the jurisdiction except" like you are doing with your exceptions (if they are exceptions, im just giving you the benefit of a doubt that conscription, etc. are exceptions). But in general, someone on another country's land is subject to its jurisdiction in every way. Again, walk across the Iranian border and find out. Your US citizenship will mean nothing.

 

This is epic. Common sense? You don't seem to have any. Ideological stupidity you have in bounds.

Prove you wrong? I have time and time again, you never accept it. You are the one making claims it is your responsibility to back them up.

 

They said AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Recognized exceptions are just that, they are either already known or they are unknown to the common law, as Indians were per Justice Gray.

 

They were not citizens, and had no intention of becoming citizens.

It was what was accepted since early on: Birthright Citizenship - yes > whatever the situation of his parents.

Which is what you contend is something that's only happened in the past 50 years.

I didn't think I had to hold your hand and note what everyone knew: blacks were not citizens prior to the 14th A. Der.

I don't know why you think this is so significant, but it sure looks like you've got some strong agenda you're working on here, and the rules don't permit me to expand further.

 

Tell that to this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Stringer

He moved to the US. Six weeks later he was drafted.

What do you think it means?

 

That's right. They were however resident here as required by law.

No, not in England or in the US.

The first knowing of illegals was in 1906. In 1912 Bouve (Plyler v Doe footnote 10) wrote a book claiming that their children should be born citizens based on his perception that even though the US does not recognize their allegiance to the US, they by being here give a temporary allegiance even though it is not recognized.

If that was already known then you should have already known that your links don't do what you claim. Its not just that blacks were not citizens, but only whites were allowed to be born citizens.

So you get caught with your pants down on your links and you come back with this? Don't take it so bad, many others have tried to show me incorrect, nobody has been able to yet. Maybe next time.

 

Was he an illegal immigrant? NO? You don't say. SMFH

I already gave the meaning of the SSS registration.

Registration doesn't mean you will be conscripted.

 

Yet I bet I am right about CPS and schools when it comes to children of diplomats. And I have never met a diplomat or bothered to look it up. I am confident in my understanding of the principles. "...subject to the jurisdiction..." was meant to deal with the type of exceptions to the general rule of jurisdiction that I am discussing. Nothing more.

 

Oh my, more white hate from [MENTION=61067]Natty Bumpo[/MENTION] What a surprise. Gee, playing the race card again. Or should I say, playing the Nazi card & the white supremacist card?

Nobody is talking about trashing the 14th. There is nothing wrong with the 14th Amendment, it is one of the greatest accomplishments of the Republican Party.

I'll have to do a whole new thread on birthright citizenship for dummies. Hey, that's a good name for it, I think I'll keep it if the mods allow it.

Oh, nevermind, that is what this thread is about.

 

Y'all are right in that the jurisdiction phrase of the 14th excludes some from citizenship. You are wrong in who it excludes. Again, if you are on a country's territory, and you can't cite a specific agreement that says you are not subject to the jurisdiction of that country (like diplomatic protocol, a SOFA, perhaps an Olympic athlete), then you are subject to that country's jurisdiction. That includes if you immigrated illegally, you got a job there, or you are just a tourist.

 

They came in to the country, plopped down and made a home. Nothing more. They never sought citizenship. That doesn't differentiate them, bub. Their child, born here - was found in 1844 to be a US citizen, by birth. Birthright Citizenship. You're playing word games.

You. Are. Wrong.

lol. Channeling Ann Coulter. Run with it! Run! lol

They do. You just refuse to accept it.

You birth a baybee here, that baybee is a citizen. Deal with it. Try changing the law, watch it be challenged in the courts - I don't care - but it IS -- THE LAW. I'm not crazy about it. But it is, and has been -- for a long, long, long time, accepted law.

Again. This.

If you coded it a little more different, it might be less transparent.

Bluster is all you show. Let us know how that bluster survives Court challenges.

 

Again since they listed the exceptions there would be no need to add under the jurisdiction there of unless there were others or more could be added or changed.

 

Everyone I side our borders is subject to U.S. Jurisdiction. A 9 year old girl can't be conscripted. Conscription is irrelevant.

It's the determining factor, lol

 

Listen to yourself. He certainly wasn't a legal citizen at that point, was he?
Do you think someone can arrive in the US, and be a legal citizen in 6 weeks just by plopping down?

You failed to answer the question. Telling.

Here's some help: Just because you might not be conscripted, doesn't mean it's not possible. Yes, even immigrants, those here with Green cards and otherwise, must register. If they fail to do so, it's grounds to be denied Citizenship.

 

Of course it does. It points out we use English common law, the only 2 exceptions to jurisdiction, and that every child born within the borders is a citizen. With onlyn2 exceptions.

 

Who is "they" and what exceptions did they list? If the jurisdiction phrase wasn't in there AND the diplomatic protocol, SOFA, etc. didn't include what is to be done with the children of the person under the jurisdiction agreement, then the US government could seize that child, or force school enrollment, etc.

It's not superfluous. It is a legal out for those who don't want their children to be US citizens under the 14th.

 

Which is subject t US jurisdiction.

It has nothing to do with it. Illegals are exempt by our choice as well. Both are subject to U.S. Jurisdiction while inside the borders. Plyler v doe and wka.

 

No, you are upset by the truth, so you resort to your ad hominem attacks.

I have specifically cited and provided links to White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis endorsing and supporting Trump. You are impotent in confronting and refuting them.

I do not believe that these enthusiastic Trumpies are in any way representative of White Americans such as myself, but are, undeniably, an extremist element enthralled by his shtick.

 

That's right meant to deal with exceptions to the rule. Illegals were unknown to the common law, and to this date there is not one case that can be construed to grant citizenship by birth to children born to illegals, thus it is there mere assumption of this administration that declares they are, and people like you who don't really seem to know any better.

 

We know it excludes recognized exceptions, illegals are unknown to the common law, therefor they can be recognized exceptions. Because no court has declared them to be either or, it is nothing more than the admins policy to claim that they are born citizens. Previous admins have declared they "may be" citizens.

Surely your not discounting what the 1873 AG says, are you?