seems pretty clear to me. aliens are excluded.
Posted on 10/30/2018 2:05:00 PM PDT by reaganaut1
It has always been clear to me especially when one considers the context in which the amendment was passed (see Dred Scott decision).
“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.”
IOW if one is born in the USA to persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, you are a citizen. Having one parent who is a USA citizen also qualifies you.
Ipso facto someone born on USA soil to two persons who are NOT USA citizens but are citizens of another nation, is by default a citizen of the parents country, not the USA.
As I said, seems simple to me.
The federal government can hardly say Pequena Niña, daughter of illegals, wasn’t under the jurisdiction of the US when the US government paid for her hospital delivery.
seems pretty clear to me. aliens are excluded.
Of course. I considered that and thought the quote would be enough. :^)
Just so. I wholeheartedly agree that it is way past time for this issue to e teed up for adjudication. But I also can’t ignore that it an excellent turbocharge for the base seven days before the election. Yet we have these leaders who can’t wait to throw cold water on it. At best, it shows a lack of strategic accumen.
Not on the face of it.
IMO, neither an amendment or a statute is required. If Trump issues an EO and directs his various depts. to proceed the left/globalists/RINO's will have a hissy fit and take it to the Judiciary. Fair enough.
In this instance, Trump would merely be cleaning up an inappropriate policy within the Executive Branch.
The single statute the globalists rely on (Title 8, Sect. 1401), beyond cleaning up a few contemporaneous issues, went beyond the language of the 14thA to narrowly include Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
To suppose Congress intended to redefine the "jurisdiction" element of the 14thA by also including onsite born children of illegal entrants seems a significant defect.
Let’s assume the drafters of that amendment were not morons. They had a choice between:
1. “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,”
and
2. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
They chose and ratified the second version. The only logical interpretation is that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to have a restrictive meaning. President Trump is correct.
But a SCOTUS opinion footnote CAN? Bullcrap.
Exactly.
No No NO, Grassley—the purpose of signing an executive order would be to get the courts to re-examine birthright citizenship.
Any originalist judge should know the 14th amendment was for blacks who were former slaves. Not for some invader to sneak in and then have a baby so they can steal citizenship that doesn’t belong to them.
They should certainly refrain from giving the president legal advice in public.
It is easy to forgive Grassley but Ryan shows, once again, what kind of loose cannon he is. Be good when he is off the team.
Take it to the Supremes !
Two illegals have a baby.
Neither parent is subject to the laws of the US, but the child is.
If ever something could be challenged by a court, that would be it.
Why not? Congress has infringed upon the Second Amendment enough.
Many things told to him were wrong.
It would take one USSC decision to effectively do it.
“Neither parent is subject to the laws of the US”
The parents are subject to US laws. If they stab their new baby to death the moment the legs are extracted they can be tried for murder is a US court.
Dens stick together. Republicans attack each other. Ryan is hoping that we lose the House. Who is blackmailing him or waiting with a huge RINO retirement payoff?
“Of course my opinion is not any better than that of any other member of the Senate; but it is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin. 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.” Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajo Indians are subject to the Complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. [emphases added] Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make …”
— Senator Lyman Trumbull, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session. (See middle of first column.)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
[Somebody else posted this in the past, not personally checked]
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.