Birthright Citizen: The Little Conjunction That Explains Everything

American Thinker ^ | 7 Aug, 2025 | Ted Noel

[MtnClimber]

What will the Supreme Court say?

[ProtectOurFreedom]

It’s amazing the number of times the fate of the nation depends on courts divining the meaning of one simple word.

[xzins]

As always, scotus will split the baby. They’ll deny tourism citizenship but will accept citizenship of illegals born here if parents show evidence of having worked here. I have no idea how they’ll expect such a thing to be documented since it’s illegal.

[Kleon]

I’m a scholar of the Constitution. “Subject to the jurisdiction” is simply meant to exclude a very narrow set of people, such as children of foreign diplomats. This argument put forth by the President is basically a non-starter.

[nesnah]

Scholar?

[Sicon]

If you’re a Mexican citizen, you owe your allegiance to Mexico. It doesn’t matter whether you are traveling to Australia, Russia, or the US. Your allegiance is to Mexico. You are “subject to the jurisdiction of” Mexico.
And if your baby is born in any of those places, it’s still a Mexican citizen because you are a Mexican citizen.

It amazes me how people cannot seem to grasp this very simple, obvious point. Or more likely, they deliberately do so for their own ends.

[LouAvul]

It’s amazing the number of times the fate of the nation depends on courts divining the meaning of one simple word is entirely highjacked by liberal trash and scum and conservatives sit idly by while it happens.

(Not saying that to anybody in particular, but we all know what I mean.)

[FoxInSocks]

Maybe that was the predicate in the 1700’s, but they probably weren’t thinking of millions of people just walking in to set up shop and apply for free stuff. That would have been inconceivable.

[Semper Vigilantis]

Folks may laugh, but this little ditty and it's companions got me through many an English grammer test:

Conjunction Junction

[cuz1961]

It means what it plainly says and says what it simply means

Not YOUR idea of “ simply means”

You do violence to the text and pulled your opinion from the penumbra of your “ scholarly” rectal emanation I suspect

I could be wrong
But I doubt it

[philman_36]

Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof: Birthright Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment House Committee on the Judiciary
(starts at 32:54 so skip to there for actual start)(2:34:08 total time)

[kvanbrunt2]

if parents show evidence of having worked here. I have no idea how they’ll expect such a thing to be documented since it’s illegal.>>>They would probably say that working here is setting up a domicile.

[Semper Vigilantis]

Isn't it amazing that a document created for people that were mostly uneducated at the time was understandable at the time and for the next 150 or so years suddenly needs suddenly to be 'interpreted'?

(I have the same complaint about The Bible. One of my biggest turnoffs is when the preacher says "What did God / Jesus mean by that...?".)

[Hatteras]

Haha, FR is full of “scholars”. Just ask them. Experts one and all.

[batazoid]

The offspring born here of parents who are not U.S. citizens are not natural-born U.S. citizens.

[nikos1121]

Wrong

[Carry_Okie]

I’m a scholar of the Constitution.

No, you're not. No scholar would begin that way.

“Subject to the jurisdiction” is simply meant to exclude a very narrow set of people, such as children of foreign diplomats. This argument put forth by the President is basically a non-starter.

That list was offered by Senator Howard for example purposes. It was not definitive. One is best served by the definition of "subject" in the Bouvier Law Dictionary of 1856.

SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistiction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights. Then we have Chief Justice Miller's opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases: The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States. Then we have Chief Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark. If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 28, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were and are aliens, unless they have or shall, on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States; and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect. And children who are aliens by descent, but born on our soil, are exempted from the exercise of the power to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, so often maintained by this court,- an exemption apparently disregarded by the acts in respect of the exclusion of persons of Chinese descent. That is what a "scholar of the Constitution" would do.

[bert]

Some of us are Miscellaneous Experts who have developed expertise in numerous fields merely by being.

Some time after say 70 or 71, the pent up expertise and wisdom just begins to bubble up and out.

[PTBAA]

“...They’ll deny tourism citizenship but will accept citizenship of illegals born here...”

Ironic, if correct; the tourist has permission be in the country while the invader does not.