Trump renews threat to end ' rediculous' birthright citizenship

The Citizenship Clause
The Citizenship Clause overrules the 1875 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision that freed African American slaves were not citizens, could not become citizens, and thus could never enjoy the benefits and protections of citizenship.


The Citizenship Clause states that “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 clause played an important role in two Supreme Court cases: Elk v. Wilkins (1884) which addressed citizenship rights of Native Americans, and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (189 which affirmed the citizenship of U.S.-born children of legal immigrants
As mentioned above.. " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is where it fails to give automatic citizenship to anyone born here.. there are birthing mills in Californai for rich Chinese to come , have a child and have them declared a US citizen .. How is something like this good for any country?

 

I'm sure it does, to those who haven't got - or don't want - a clue about it.

No need, trust me.

Yes, I do.

Of course it is, to people whose anti-American sentiments are best served by the proposition that it's meaningless.

On the contrary, everyone inside US borders is subject to US jurisdiction in the shallowest sense of the term - which is why that sense could not have been that intended by the framers of the provision. The diplomatic legal carve-out notwithstanding, the US can expel any foreign diplomat on a whim, because he is only here by way of US jurisdiction.

 

so good, I had to post it again.

 

Not necessarily, there is a legal case to be made it can be done statutorily and citing original intent.

 

Nope. The meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction of” was settled in plyler v doe.

Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen.

 

No there isn’t. Statutes don’t override amendments.

 

So instead of getting bogged down into a HOW to do it discussion, EO or legislatively or by amendment the first question is..........

Do you support eliminating or restricting by which ever means necessary to do so?

 

If the courts can be convinced then a stuatory fought may do. It is not easy trying to get at the original intent. Maybe we need to look at not just original intent but primary also intent. You do understand that some amendments are made to cover the primary intents yet ancillary ills ar also included. You also need to look at the British law on citizenship because as you are aware much of our laws and legal thinking come from British and Englishcommon law.

 

Where will a born in Canada to an American mother like Ted Cruz fit in????

 

The law should be challenged in court and hopefully reach the supreme court for a clearcut decision

 

We are not bound by British law. That will be the case if Congress passes a law, it will be challenged and then I would expect it to go all the way to the SCOTUS.

The question is do you support the elimination or restricted to say children of citizens and permanent residents (green card).

 

Those who use U.S. vs. Wong Kim always fail to mention is "legal Immigrants."

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

What does that mean ?

The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

 

Ted Cruz father at the time was not a U.S. citizen and Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen.

Winston Churchill mother was a U.S. citizen and under both Common Law and Natural Law, Churchill was not a U.S. citizen but 100% British subject.

 

"More than a year after the case was argued, Justice Horace Gray found for Wong Kim Ark in an opinion that:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth Service9within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the childrenborn, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.73"
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44251.pdf

That means legal resident intending to stay permanently. NOT illegal aliens.

 

Already happened back in the 19th century. US v Wong Kim Ark

 

Nope. Plyler v doe. Subject to the jurisdiction simply means physical presence inside US borders.

 

There are only 2 types of citizen. Natural born and naturalized. Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth, and not naturalized. That is the definition of natural born citizen.

 

No it doesn’t. It means anyone without diplomatic immunity or an invading foreign army.

 

Fantastic!

Get rid of it!

 

The Democrat's friends south of the border won't be happy, as they have used it to invade the United States, giving their offspring dual citizenship and allowing them to vote for Democrats.

 

That's why anchor babies are not U.S. citizens and why the Mexican government has jurisdiction over their citizens and Mexican anchor babies are Mexican citizens who owe their loyalty to Mexico not the USA.
May explain why Mexican anchor babies are allowed to vote in Mexico's elections.

"Son follows the condition of their father."

 

When a U.S. citizen travels to Bangkok to have sex with underage little girls or boys they are not on U.S. soil but will be arrested and prosecuted for the crime they committed abroad as soon as they step up on U.S. soil.

The federal government still has jurisdiction over its citizens even when the citizen in on foreign soil.

 

Ever hesar the term"native born citizen" ?

They haven't used it much lately for some reason.

Some constitutional scholars say that Barack Obama was a native born citizen.

 

Did not say we are bound by British I said we were heavily influenced by British which is obvious.

Please restate your last sentence . I would have to guess what you are asking and would not be fair.

 

Oh, no! Don't give up the right of birthright citizenship.