Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

However your accuracy on most issues is in question.Your facts are often more
fudge than anything else.As if you work in a fudge factory and during your lunch break,
vociferously try to catch up on both politics and the funnies from a copy of
the New York Times.Kinda like what Maureen Dowd does,but can't bring herself to
admit.

 

What statute? Not the Fourteenth Amendment which is what we are talking about...

 

Don't act stupid.

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

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

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:

Provided
, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

 

There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!

 

The "statute" in not the Constitution and can be re-written or struck down quite easily.

 

Lol! That is exactly what I knew your point would be, and is why you wanted me to read the case. It's like I knew what your argument was without reading your argument. Spoiler alert for your argument. That is not a relevant argument to what is written in the Constitution and what the law scholars have decided what is not only right, but morally right. Your argument was DOA from the beginning.

And from that interpretation the decision was unanimous coming from these law scholars.

Not likely! Trump even acknowledged that.

Yeah, well fantasy land is a world you choose to live in that I would rather stay away from.

Yeah, while you sleep on it, people throughout our history have tried to create laws based on certain universal morals. Didn't realize that was an issue for you.

They actually are not, because the decision was already made. Showing me a scholar who is scratching his head is counter productive to your argument, that in the end means nothing.

 

The statute defines the Constitution..

If you want to change it go ahead... but you have denied what the current law says.

 

Ever hear of the Supremacy clause of the Constitution? No? Didn't think so. it is in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. It says the Constitution "defines" laws. "The statute (law does NOT ) define... the Constitution.."

 

From your post #280, you quote the Fourteenth Amendment highlighting the various key parts that you believe are relevant, yet, now you say there is no Fourteenth Amendment. Lol! That's pretty good!

 

That's not an adjective, it's a verb.
Also, peasants were "subjects" to the king, but "subject" to his laws.

Margot2 used the proper word.

 

I stand correct with my adjective / verb confusion. Either way, I still believe the word "subject" used in the Fourteenth Amendment is used as a noun, or a PERSON. However, can we all agree with the idea the phrase "jurisdiction thereof" refers to the United States? If so... the wording says the person has to be both born IN the United States, and I guess if you are correct be subject to US laws, right? My question is then why add the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the amendment? Why the need for the redundancy? Why not simply state "All persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens of the United States?" Obviously anyone born IN the United States is subjected to all US laws, right? I still have trouble with why the Fourteenth Amendment did not make American Indians born off reservation and in American towns and cities citizens. Can you explain, I mean if your position is correct?

 

So I take it that applies to legal immigrants as well? Since they can have their status revoked and be deported.

 

There are many Constitutional scholars who stand by that the lVX Amendment is unconstitutional.

I had a law professor at UCLB who who said the same thing and would go no further than to say that there was no 2/3 quorum in the House when the lVX Amendment came to a vote because the Southern Representatives were barred entering the Capitol and the lVX Amendment wasn't ratified by 3/4th of the states.

I'm just the messenger not the message. I just brought up that the lVX Amendment was not ratified by 3/4 of the states as the Constitution calls for. Look at Post #280 as just a FYI post.

The lVX Amendment is the most misunderstood and misinterpreted amendment of them all.

I'm a constitutionalist, not someone who believes that the Constitution is a breathing document where the meaning can be changed at a whim without using the amendment process established in the Constitution. I look at the "intent" of the authors of the Constitution not what I feel is the meaning.

Someone above used "common law." Nope, the author's of the lVX Amendment used "Natural Law," Vattel's that they based the lVX Amendment on. That "Son follows the condition of his father" when he is born on foreign soil. That the father still holds his loyalty to his home country and that his sovereign has the jurisdiction over the father (or mother today.)

Example:

Today when some American travels over to lets say Thailand (sex tourism) and has sex with a 12 year old girl, when he returns to the USA he is likely to be arrested by federal agents and tried in a U.S. federal court for committing a crime that's illegal in America because the U.S. government still has jurisdiction over an American citizen when he or she is on foreign soil. Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The Mexican government looks at it's citizens who are illegally with in the USA as still owing allegiance to Mexico and still have jurisdiction over it's citizens. That's why Mexico has over 50 Mexican consulates in the USA today because over 10% of Mexico's citizens are living in the USA today.

 

Legal immigrants would be subject to U.S. jurisdiction because they have a legal right to be here. If they had a child while legally in the U.S. then that child would become a citizen. If their legality is revoked and THEN they had a child then the child should not become a citizen. However, that is not the way it is now. Right now an ILLEGAL immigrant can cross our border, have a child, and that child is given citizenship. Trump plans to challenge that.

 

First off, if you will read the entire second section of this article, you should be able to pick up on the fact that illegals born in this country according to the Constitution, are in fact citizens; http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-you-should-know-about-birthright-citizenship If something there is confusing, let me know. Secondly, to your question. The answer, such is the nature of the Constitution, is the best way to answer your question. Many things in the Constitution take on an interpretation that appears redundant. Why they did this, you'd have to ask the framers. For me, the second amendment is outdated and doesn't say enough to justify the kind of personal weaponry that in my opinion was never addressed. But that's another example of how confusing it is for me. That being said, the Fourteenth was finally settled by scholarly lawyers, while you read the section I'm talking about, that basically interprets the fourteenth to not exclude illegal immigrants born into this country. But you are right about one thing; you better be paying attention to what some of these decisions say or mean, or you'll miss the whole meaning. It might just be one word that gives you that WTF moment, and takes forever to sort out exactly what the (*)(*)(*)(*) they are talking about.

 

Now someone who is subject to US laws who is unlawfully with in the USA wouldn't be on U.S. soil would they ? So the illegal alien seems not to be subject to U.S. laws at least that's what the open borders types are claiming.

But you point out a very important thing about the lVX Amendment Swamp_Music that the lVX Amendment revisionist can't explain. That when an American indigenous Native America was born off the "reservation" they weren't anchor babies and were not recognized as American citizens. That they were not under the jurisdiction of the United States but under the jurisdiction of their native tribe, be they on or off the "rez."

 

The only spoiler alert is that your link of O'Donnell is To claim my argument is DOA is

The law scholars in your article merely state there is no law denying them citizenship. Those scholars never claim that there is a law that does grant them citizenship, just as their is no case known where a child born of illegals has been granted citizenship. Their citizenship is only given by an administration policy based on its interpretation of the law.

So you really can't answer any of my posed questions, you in turn provide links that you claim do more than they actually do, they are opinions and not facts.

The moral high ground whine. SMFH Your morals are not the same as mine.

The Congress brings up a Bill to deny citizenship by birth every new Congress, it was first brought about by Harry Reid in 1993. So, yea there is a division among the scholars.

Its easier to play political football with the issue than actually address it.

 

So even though They aren't citizens of the U.S. But are citizens of another country they are still subject to our jurisdiction?

 

And if the 1924 law was never passed, then it wouldn't be in the statutes and they would never be US citizens at birth, they would have to naturalize even if born off their reservations on actual US soil. So without that particular law placing it in the statutes, the 14th would be irrelevant to them.

- - - Updated - - -

The statutes are nothing more than law, they do not define the constitution.

 

Whether the Indian was born on or off the reservation is irrelevant. Because of the centuries long holocaust campaign against the American Indian by the white settlers, just staying alive with little to no water is slowly killing off the Indians; http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/the-navajo-water-lady/ At this point in time, I don't think they give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about your fourteenth Amendment. The only thing they know, is that they were driven from their homes, murdered, raped, and sent to places even hard for a Cockroach to live. While we continue this crime to humanity towards the American Indian by placing them in areas with no water, what a fitting occasion to have Donald Trump demonize other groups trying to survive as well. Then, "we", the Frankenstein monster, who caused this desperation and disparity among these groups, want to kick them back from where they came from as if it is some fault of theirs.

So here's how it goes; we conquered the Indians, now we are trying to finish them off for something they were never at fault for to begin with,and now, we're trying to do the same thing to Central America. When what they are trying to do, is simply survive by the unnecessary hardships the whites placed on them.

 

So you can't explain how an Indian born after 1898 (WKA case) is still not granted Citizenship by birth even if born on US soil and not the Reservation. Got it.

Maybe you can explain why it took an Act of Congress to pass a law in 1924 granting them citizenship whether they are born on US soil or on their reservation. Somehow I doubt that you can answer either with any intellect.

 

Intellect? I love this reverse role you think you can play on others as if you have this patent on intelligence. Laziness maybe! Intelligence I don't know about. Your ridiculous question as to why it took an act of Congress to pass a law in 1924 granting Indians citizenship, is because we were still fighting the American Indians all the way up to 1924; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars Of course there was no citizenship up until then. What did you expect they would get before then? Lol! What a joke.

 

Stop BS'ing. I've read the entire decision and the judge never once mentioned whether the parents had entered the country legally or illegally. It doesn't say that the parents "entered via the law and registered via the law." The only thing the decision says about the parents is that they were in the US temporarily when their daughter was born. That's it. Full stop.

 

If they have a legal right to live and work in the U.S. then they are subject to its jurisdiction. (See Wong case) If they do not have the right to live and work in the U.S. then they would not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore their children born here may not be considered U.S. citizens.

 

Both the wong court and the court in plyler stated that all that is required to be under US jurisdiction is physical presence inside US borders. Everyone inside US borders is subject to U.S. Jurisdiction. Unless you are a diplomat or foreign invading army.