the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship
- Thread starter BillytheC
- Start date
Its the "naturalized" part that will win this argument. Naturalized means BORN here.
'Naturalized' means you went thru a legal process to become a citizen. But the amendment says "born OR naturalized". So, if you're born here, you're a citizen whether you are naturalized or not.
What don't you understand about the rest of that sentence: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
If your a citizen of another Country, you are subject to their jurisdiction. You can't just arbitrarily say, I am no longer under that jurisdiction, I am now under the jurisdiction of the USA. And if you could do that, then why are cities, and states trying to be "sanctuary" cities and states. Why would ICE being going after people if they can just change their jurisdiction by just saying so.
I don't how this will shake out but it's one of Trump's Executive Orders I didn't think would fly.
This is the part the left ignores. They also trot out the Wong case. The Wong's were legal residents not illegal aliens. Lastly a newspaper from the time carried parts of the debates. The debate made clear that Native Americans were excluded because they were foreigners. Why would they make exceptions for others?
You think visitors to the US are only responsible for following the laws in their home country?
Not what the term means.
Its archaic but means they are not subject to any foreign power as in a citizen of another country.
The debates of the time made clear Indians were to be excluded even though they had been here longer than the slaves as they were here before the USoA. The purpose was to explicitly give citizenship to former slaves nothing more.
SCOTUS muddied the case a bit in the Wong decision in allowing people here that were not full citizens but legal residents to have their children included. That did not apply to illegals.
Indians were excluded until the 1920s because they were members of their nation/tribe. Poles or Mexican "visiting" here are not citizens of another country?
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.
Again...ILLEGAL ALIENS do not qualify
How do you become a naturalized US citizen?
- Be a lawful permanent resident (LPR) for at least five years
- Meet certain requirements, including passing the naturalization test
- Be fingerprinted and photographed for an FBI criminal background check
- Demonstrate an understanding of the English language
- Demonstrate a knowledge of US history and government (civics)
- Meet certain moral character requirements
- Meet educational requirements, which vary depending on age and length of residency
You can apply for naturalization using the N-400 form.
They are disqualified by everything highlighted
The 14th is pretty clearly written. If they wanted to exclude certain groups, they should have written it differently.
"...born OR naturalized..."
If the amendment said "All persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.", you would be correct.
So you think it's impossible for an illegal to have a child born in the US? I think you need to look into that.
In the language 150+ years ago
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" isn't a throw away line.
Your mis-interpretation of it would be a redundancy and thus make it a throw away line.
So it did exclude everyone that was the child of a foreigner who was a subject of another power aka jurisdiction. Its in their debates over the Indians.
Now without googling tell me about the "corruption of blood" clause ...its not leeches or blood transfusions.
Lastly, you can ask @nail1988 , I have been discussing this subject for over a decade back on the Volquest Political forum. I made this argument back then and actually linked a copy to the debate. Things were easier to google back then. The more info we have the harder it is to find specifics these days.
This interpretation makes the sentence a throw away line. Of course they are subject to our laws when they are here.
Lets fix it for you in modern vernacular.
AND are current subjects (citizens) of this (country) jurisdiction
WTF happened to google? It used to be great. Now it's difficult to find exactly what you're looking for.
All Persons as in citizens. The Constitution is the government of the United States. If you’re not a citizen you’re not subject to the Constitution. Same reason as to why the Constitution isn’t relevant to a person born in Egypt and never been to the US. Same reason why you don’t care about the government of Nicaragua. Doesn’t apply to you. An illegal alien has the same legal standing as the person in Egypt who’s never left Egypt
Too much data out there and page one is still only one page. The amount of data grows exponentially every year.
Why did they say anything about 'born'? Obviously, if you're born here to a citizen, you are a citizen, right?
Theo wants to make the case that the amendment should be changed so that opens the door for changing the 2nd Amendment.
Because the 2nd Amendment was written 250 years ao. When grown men used guns to hunt, fish and defend themselves. They didnt hide in a closet and wet themselves over an irrational fear of inanimate objects.
Theo wants new laws that apply to the beta males that are terrified of inanimate objects.
Because if you were born here to naturalized citizens or native born you were a citizen unless your parents were foreigners.
Same as the rules at the beginning of the country when the framers dealt with citizenship and ambassadors under statutory law.
The 14th was merely to give citizenship to former slaves and to ensure their equality under the law. They excluded Indians for the very reason that they belonged to another nation/tribe.
Well, you guys do seem to want to pick and choose which amendments are up to interpretation.
Then they should have been more specific because it says if you are born here, you are a citizen.
Again, I don't think children born here to illegals should be citizens but that's what the amendment states.
AI says: "Yes, children born in the United States are citizens of the United States. This is because of the 14th Amendment, which states that all people born in the United States are citizens. This principle is known as birthright citizenship." And you know AI is right.
Tell you what @GatorTheo ...it does not matter what you or I think ...SCOTUS will decide...it will be based on what they want not necessarily what was intended.
Roberts completely ignored direct taxation and apportionment clauses when he erroneously decided to allow Zero care because he is a big gubmint republican.
So SCOTUS may ignore history, the debates and the intent and decide they want to keep the status quo. Or they may do the right thing and rule constitutionally like they did when they overturned Roe.
Roberts completely ignored direct taxation and apportionment clauses when he erroneously decided to allow Zero care because he is a big gubmint republican.
So SCOTUS may ignore history, the debates and the intent and decide they want to keep the status quo. Or they may do the right thing and rule constitutionally like they did when they overturned Roe.
This entire thread has been you picking and choosing which words you want to discuss in the 14th amendment and which ones you want to ignore.
I'm so sorry the inanimate object did this to you.
LOL everything is up to interpretation. Its SCOTUSs job.
Actually Congress and POTUS are also supposed to look at things based on the constitution. In the early days presidents were loathe to veto stuff if they felt it was constitutional and congress was loathe to pass a law if it was of questionable constitutionality. We are long past those days. It began to really crumble under Wilson and FDR put the final stake in the heart of such introspection.
Actually, I believe they said the Native American were not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, BECAUSE, they were members of a Tribe and subject the the Tribes' jurisdiction.
Following the laws of the Country that you happen to be in at the time, is a whole different matter. That is not they type of "jurisdiction" the Constitution is referencing. They are talking about the Country that you owe allegiance to. You have to physically take steps/follow a process to change your allegiance from one Country to another one. Countries setup those steps/process. It's called immigration.
