Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

Being "within the jurisdiction" is not the same as being "and subject to the jurisdiction". Again, Margot gave us the definition of Jurisdiction per the 14th, having authority over a person, to which the US does not have authority over the illegal. Now the state doesn't have authority over them either, which means that jurisdiction then means simply being subject to the laws and equally protected under the laws within the state of which you are found, nothing more. There is a 10th Amendment to the USC for a reason.

You haven't destroyed anything, let alone even understood what you are attempting to cite.

 

No law would allow them to be conscripted, their countries have that authority over them, no other country does. They are only subject to the jurisdiction of the law, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the body politic, i.e. they can not be conscripted. Why do you think those illegals that have joined the military have been kicked out as soon as they were discovered to be illegals? Why can't a temporary visa holder be conscripted? Why are only legal residents and citizens the only ones allowed?

Being under the jurisdiction of the law is not the same as being under the jurisdiction of the govt (body politic). Your problem is you fail to comprehend the context of jurisdiction and its numerous meanings, you apply only the one that you want. I suggest remedial l English 101 at the 3rd grade level to help you realize your inanity.

And yet you still haven't responded to nor answered my pointed questions to you, why is that? Why did reality run away in the other topic? Why have no other commenters been able to respond to those questions?

Until you can answer those questions you will be continuously scoffed upon.

 

If the US didn't have authority over them, the US couldn't label them as illegal. The US couldn't imprison them for criminal activity. Your position is complete nonsense.

 

Key words, US law has jurisdiction, not the US Govt having jurisdiction to conscript into the military. Two totally different meanings to the word jurisdiction.

- - - Updated - - -

Your knowledge lacks. Being within the jurisdiction of the law is not the same as being under the jurisdiction of the govt. They can not be conscripted. Try looking up the definition to the word jurisdiction and let us know how many meanings there are.

 

You keep spinning your argument and it still makes no sense. If the conscription were the determining factor, women children and the elderly wouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

 

I keep spinning my argument?

Women can be conscripted, so can the elderly right now, children are under the age limit at this point, you are confusing conscription with registering with Selective Service. In the past women have been exempt from conscription along with disabled males, exempt doesn't mean they can not be conscripted.

So I guess I look like I'm spinning my argument because you really don't know the laws or the difference between being conscripted or registering for the Selective Service.

 

What are you arguing? We have an all volunteer military.

 

One that no illegal can be conscripted into nor volunteer to enter as they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

 

I think that would make a great project for you. Please come back with a report on conservative hypocrisy.

 

We actually do have temporary work visas for foreign workers like agricultural workers. Problem solved!

 

The courts found that the 14th says what it says. Trump is wrong on this. What the 14th says is pretty simple " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside."

 

If the parents are not subject to US jurisdiction, why do you think the child is???? The parents are subject to US law when in the US and having a child to obtain citizenship, in my mind is an illegal act...

 

And what case would that be since the WKA opinion states that the 14th is merely declaratory of existing law.

 

your mind is totally irrelevant the courts found the 14th says what it says. the 14th was settled law a long time ago

 

And the courts never said that children born to illegals are born citizens of the US. All law is open to interpretation. All laws also contain recognized exceptions such is the case with the 14th. Again from WKA opinion

Why can't there be a recognized exception DQ'ing children born to illegals? or Birth tourists? or simply tourists?

 

again, the courts said the 14th says what it says, no more and no less. the law was interpreted and decided a long time ago.

 

And at no point does the court state that children born to illegals are US Citizens at birth. The laws interpretation changes under each administration. The court said the 14th is merely declaratory of existing law, the 1866 CRA, so if we enact a change to the CRA can BRC be limited by denying children born to illegals?

 

Read the statute......... its very clear..

 

The quote of the statute you quoted was added in 1924, which is when Indians and other natives were then allowed US Citizenship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act Under the 14th they were the third recognized exception, unknown to common law, that Justice Gray states in the WKA opinion, the first 2 being foreign invading armies and ambassadors.

 

laws do not change under administrations, thats just ignorant.

 

I wonder how many conservatives that agree with this line of thought to satisfy their racist urges wouldn't even be citizens without the 14th amendment.

Hypocrisy anyone?

 

Policies, the interpretation of a law, change under administrations, hence the laws interpretation changes. Do you not understand how law works or do you not comprehend basic English?

- - - Updated - - -

Ignorance anyone?

 

This is incorrect. Jurisdiction is not a geographical term in this legal case as noted by the man that wrote it. It is those bound by the laws of the United States.

He was quite clear when he wrote:

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”

 

You see, the democrats interpreted the 10th Amendment to mean they had a right to slavery because of states rights.

Now the democrats interpret the 14th Amendment to mean they get an endless supply of little brown cheap slave laborers from Mexico and places south.

Democrats have always been the pro-slavery party, still are.

 

This is true. And the 14th Amendment doesn't amend or dissolve the plenary power of Congress "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;" Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.