One of the main authors of the 14th Amendment stated,
"Sen. Trumbull goes on to declare:
“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. That is what it means.”
Barack Obama or Wong Kim Ark with their multiple allegiances to foreign states does not fit into the 'complete jurisdiction thereof.' Noway does Obama or did Ark become natural born citizens under the 14th Amendment. The Act did not make instantaneous natural born citizens.
“Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it state citizens born and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are natural born citizens.”
This merry-go-round is getting old.
Yes, I know. Never said it did. I arrive at 14th amendment soil babies being NBCs by virtue of the fact that all born citizens are NBCs, by virtue of the words N, B, and C.
“Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
I’ve already talked about this. Not owing allegiance to anyone else is not what it means. Dual citizenship is allowed. Possible allegiance to other countries is not a concern for citizens from birth, since they possess citizenship by right.
Soil babies receive allegiance both through geography and through their parents not being one of the conventional groups that are beyond the law and beyond the capacity for allegiance: that is, diplomats, native american tribes, and invading armies. “Political jurisdiction,” or whatever you call it, follows from the same mechanism that determines legal jurisdiction. If the U.S. government can assert general legal authority over the parents, the child can be assumed to have the minimum requisite capacity for allegiance.
One thing the government can never dictate is total and undivided allegiance. Like I’ve said before, there are always people who travel abroad a lot, people who are close to foreign grandparents, people whose ideology warps their mind against their home country, etc. These cannot be adequatly checked in a free society.
What can be checked are conditions at birth. Our Constitution has done that. Not according to two citizen parents and no dual citizenship, as you hold. They did it through being subject to U.S. jurisdiction, which soil babies not born of diplomats, Indian tribes, and invading armies fulfill.
“Barack Obama or Wong Kim Ark with their multiple allegiances to foreign states does not fit into the ‘complete jurisdiction thereof.”
Both, despite dual loyalties, were citizens at birth, yes? They meet the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause according to SCOTUS (Obama I assume, Ark I know [they told me]). You know this, so what are you talking about?
“Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it state citizens born and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are natural born citizens. The phrase “All persons born” is a general statement that covers all classes of born citizens.”
IT DOESNT NEED TO. IT’S ALREADY BEEN UNDERSTOOD THAT “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING “CITIZEN AT TIME OF BIRTH” SO “ALL PERSONS BORN” WHO ARE “CITIZENS” WHEN BORN ARE “NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS”.
My GOD are you dense!
The Justices of that time knew exactly this equivalence, as it was written in the law dictionaries.
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.
Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.”