THUS, THE REASON "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" WAS WRITTEN.
Posted on 10/31/2018 3:28:18 AM PDT by reaganaut1
...
The right to citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil is derived from the Fourteenth Amendment adopted in 1868: “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.” This is the common law doctrine of jus soli, or right of the soil.
Opponents of birth citizenship try to obscure this plain meaning by interpreting “subject to the jurisdiction” as applying only to those who owe allegiance to America. Because alien parents owe allegiance to a different sovereign, the argument goes, their children have no right to citizenship.
But “jurisdiction” is well understood as referring to the territory where the force of law applies, and that means it applies to nearly everyone on U.S. soil. The exceptions in 1868 were diplomats (who have sovereign immunity) and Native Americans on tribal lands. Congress later granted Native Americans birth citizenship while diminishing tribal sovereignty.
The jurisdiction of U.S. law surely applies to all immigrants, or they could not be prosecuted for breaking even immigration laws. As for owing allegiance, do we really want to set a precedent that has the government defining which American residents owe allegiance to the U.S. and which don’t? What would that mean for American citizens who are also citizens of another country?
The very purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to prevent politicians from denying citizenship to those they thought weren’t American enough. This meant former slaves, but in the debate over the amendment the question of citizenship for immigrant children was raised directly. As David Rivkin and John Yoo have recounted, Pennsylvania Sen. Edgar Cowan asked: “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?” Sen. John Conness of California responded yes.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Can foreigners be drafted into the Army?
Can foreigners who are not residents be made to pay taxes on their home country earnings to the US?
Can foreigners be charged with treason to this country?
No, but their home country can do these things to them. Thus they are NOT subject to US jurisdiction. Being forbidden to murder someone here, or to run a red light, or to rape or rob someone, etc. is mere territorial jurisdiction, NOT the type of jurisdiction that the 14th Amendment speaks to.
The writer of this editorial is either unaware of this, or is purposely leaving it out.
BINGO
Emphasis - to be an immigrant you must have complied with the immigration laws of the US under the powers of the Congress to "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" and the implied power under the prohibition "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight," and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"
AND subject to the jurisdiction... the caravan is not both, but an anchor baby seems to be...
That is how I interpret it.
Flame away.
I don’t think that is what it means, if understood from the intent. If it did mean that, then your country will be given over to the foreigner and the citizen will be owned.
Nonsense! This would make the words redundant, just repeating "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." Obviously the term was added to qualify those person born in the territory of the United States, i.e. that there is a class of people born in the United States who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and a class of people who are not subject to it. Additionally, Sen. Howard, the author of the amendment, clearly stated that it does not apply to aliens.
Do you want to know who really rewrote the 14th Amendment? It is the Leftists, who have wanted since 1965 to replace the existing voting population with those more likely to vote for them, and the Chamber of Commerce types like the Wall Street Journal, who are interested in cheap labor.
The text of the Fourteenth Amendment has remained unchanged since it was ratified in 1868. For roughly 100 years thereafter, there was no debate like we are having now, and there were no anchor babies that foreigners were dropping here while illegal, or while here on tourist visas. That only started in the late 1960s, when the administrative state started cooperating with the goals of the Leftists the Chamber of Commerce types. THEY are the ones who have changed the meaning of the 14th Amendment, which was simply intended to give citizenship, along with the privileges and immunities thereof, to the then-recently freed slaves. That was necessary because southern states were ignoring laws passed by Congress from 1865 until the 14th Amendment was proposed and ratified, which laws sought to accomplish the same thing.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment is not to allow any person from any country on this planet who step one foot over our border to drop a baby, and have that baby eligible for the privileges and immunities of US citizenship, including all of the various welfare benefits that we have. Nor was the purpose of the 14th Amendment to allow that new “citizen” to apply for the entry of his or her parents, siblings, etc upon attaining the age of majority. Such an interpretation is not only absurd on its face, it turns the Constitution into a suicide pact. The latter result has already been ruled upon by the Supreme Court as nonsensical and non-enforceable.
Everytime the SCOTUS sits it is making decisions on the meaning of the Constitution as it applies to a specific set of facts and circumstances.
Presently, the President beleves that the interpretation of the 14th amendment he has put forward will prevail in a SCOTUS judgement.
It has been noted that since an executive Order is not congressionally passed law, the SCOTUS can judge that the EO is invalid because it is not law. For that reason,Senator Graham has ir is putting forth a bill to make it law.
So, bottom line is that the SCOTUS will make an interpretation
Please see number 21 and number 27.
The French embassy is by defintion not American soil
“Is the child of the Chinese [illegal] immigrant in California a citizen”?
No.
“Is the child of the Chinese [legal] immigrant in California a citizen”?
Yes.
>>> President Trump is forcing a new discussion about “anchor babies”. <<<
The Axios reporter ASKED the president about it, Trump seemed surprised at the question,,then gave an honest answer.
THUS, THE REASON "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" WAS WRITTEN.
Right, relying on the personal intent of the author is not exactly what most of us are advocating. Rather than the subjective intent of the author, we should be looking at the meaning of the words or phrase as was understood at the time that the language was voted on. To do this, you need to look at how the relevant words and phrases were understood at the time. A lot of the same phrases and words were used in various contexts during particular eras. It can be useful to know what the author thought the words meant not because of his personal, subjective intent but because if the author expressed a view, it might reflect what everyone else understood as well. Or not, which is why people study these things. (Isn’t it something like the Bible? The meaning of some parts is obvious to almost anyone yet we can still benefit from an explanation of many other parts.)
As proof that this article is FULL OF SH!T, I submit to you the June 2, 1924, Indian Citizenship Act, which granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. The right to vote, however, was governed by state law; until 1957, some states barred Native Americans from voting.
This ALONE proves that the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was not about obeying laws, but about ALLEGIANCE to another country or entity! PERIOD!
The WSJ is full of it. This definition is like that of a third grader. The Author of this legislation was never intending to allow what we have today.
They claim that the jurisdiction is geographic. but I believe the intent was more Political.
( “But “jurisdiction” is well understood as referring to the territory where the force of law applies, and that means it applies to nearly everyone on U.S. soil”.)
Everyone on US soil? Even people here illegally? It seems to me and even some of the more intelligent third graders would understand that to mean US CITIZENS.
Total B.S.
No, “immigrant” is a word for legal, permanent residents. It is commonly misused in the media and general conversation, but illegal aliens are not immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants - legally entered and here.
IMO, here, again, we have a wasted opportunity.
Now, the Leftists are semi-Constitutionalists again (still can’t diagram a sentence (big “AND” in the 14th gets ignored) or read the record of the day it was debated/ratified).
Shift to the 2nd, the 9th, the 10th...A1S8. See just how ‘articulate’ they become again.
Welfare\SS\Medicare? By what authority? How’s that jive w/ the OTHER Amendments? How can govt do what would be ILLEGAL in the real-world?
Same w/ the 16th (if slavery is 100% income tax, what’s 75%?)
Contracts vs. ‘min. wage’...Go down the list
I’ve heard “Can’t have open borders AND a welfare State” too damn often (esp. recently). Ahem, our Const. Republic specifically doesn’t ALLOW the the latter (and, depending on context, IMO, the former).
No more ‘public assistance’, ‘public funding’. Everyone pays their own way: schools, hospitals....any/all services one utilizes.
Least our Rights would be restored. THEN see just how those ‘sanctuary cities’ exist; how many those ‘refugees’ wish to come
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.