Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/26/2026 1:50:01 PM PDT by Retain Mike
It is broadly agreed by constitutional scholars that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Many in Congress initially argued that the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 granted citizenship and the rights and liberties attached to that status. Others argued that there should be explicit legislation, which resulted in the Civil Rights Act the following year. Still others thought the Civil Rights Act was insufficient because future majorities could repeal it. This concern became the impetus for the Fourteenth Amendment, which constitutionalized the Civil Rights Act.
The citizenship clause was a late addition to the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Joint Committee placed importance on the jurisdiction clause, which meant, at a minimum, that not all persons born in the U.S. were automatically citizens. Subject to the jurisdiction does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S. In sum, what we today call birthright citizenship is a legacy of feudalism that was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens.
(Excerpt) Read more at imprimis.hillsdale.edu ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I’m an unhyphenated AMERICA. Period.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Remember to read it over and over again for as many times as it takes... It will come to you eventually.
BTW - It doesn't say all slaves... It doesn't say all indigenous peoples... It say all.
The meaning of all
all /ôl/
"All" refers to the whole amount, quantity, or total extent of something, encompassing every member or component of a group.
Speaking of citizenship, here is my cowchip to add to the fire
Citizenship without birthright, condensed to military service for obtaining citizenship. All rights and vote afforded to the military veteran, since he has laid down his life for the nation who bore him .
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
- - -
Let’s read this part too.
They could have not included that part if they didn't think it was important and merely left the 'all'.
The part that says “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean anything to you? It is clearly a qualifyer to the word you espouse so abundantly, ALL.
Oops! Wrong thread! Too many windows open!
<>This concern became the impetus for the Fourteenth Amendment, which constitutionalized the Civil Rights Act.<>
IOW, without the 14A, southern democrats returning to Congress could repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Consider how the pre-17th Amendment Congress of 1866 anticipated future problems and dealt with them.
A flaccid Congress today that cares only about reelection ignores clear and present dangers like muslims and Iran.
We do not despise Congress enough.
“And” also means and.
we are ,” consumers,” and we don’t live in a nation, it is an “economy.”
It doesn’t say all indigenous peoples...
Yezzzz, but then you have to consider the fact that the fourteenth amendment was written, and passed by a select few politicians from a select number of states in order to continue punishing a select other few states which they had just invaded, burned, pillaged, starved and murdered. They had not a care in the world what future destruction their handiwork caused, any more than the past destruction they had achieved. You are, today, and seemingly forever into the somewhat dubious future of this country doomed to reap the benefit of there mindless posturing. Be sure to remember them in your prayers.
“and of the State wherein they reside”
That restricts the meaning to those living in the USA at the time of ratification.
Chinese birth tourism babies normally never reside in the USA.
Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
We have somehow come today to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction. But this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous and without force. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, they would simply have said that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens. Furthermore, the principal supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment were explicit about the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction”: it meant owing exclusive allegiance to the U.S. and none to any other country.
And jurisdiction doesn’t mean following laws like some idiots like KJB on the Supreme Court and daft Freepers think.
There are two legal concerns, Amendment XIV and 8 USC 1401.
8 U.S. Code § 1401...:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”
Congress can change 8 USC 1401, and should.
Why are the leftists not merely relying on Amendment XIV?
Because they know it was meant for the “Africans” of 1868.
“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.”
Funny how the last part seems to get left out in quotes. It means the quoted sentence is retrospective as of the time of ratification and not prospective.
Birth tourism babies typically never reside in the USA.
“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.”
Many babies of PRC moms never reside in any state. Mere popping out in the USA is insufficient.
The “and” is important. It means that the clause is merely retroactive as of the date of ratification.
born - past tense
naturalized - past tense
are - present (time of ratification [1868]) tense
******
Shall is normally used in the Constitution for the future tense.
Amendment X uses “are reserved”.
Reserve means “to keep back or save for future or special use”
The citizenship clause is at most a one-time (1868) grant.
******
The fact that the writers didn’t use the oft used Constitutional word “shall” matters. It was the obvious choice. It would have accomplished what they undoubtedly intended.
******
Also consider the citizenship of babies born in the USA with parents having citizenship from the country of India.
The babies can get Indian citizenship upon application, but they are not born with it.
Why does India have such a system? Probably so that babies of citizens of India don’t run afoul of the complete jurisdiction requirement.
******
“If birth in the US alone would constitute US citizenship (particularly following Wong Kim Ark of 1898), then there would have been no need for the Indian Citizenship Act (Snyder Act) of 1924.”
It would be silly to say that a baby of Mexican Apaches if popped out in hospital room in El Paso would be an American citizen under Amendment XIV but a baby of American Apaches if popped out in the adjoining hospital room would not.
“Birthright” ... “Subject to the jurisdiction does not simply mean .. subject to American laws”
“Birthright” is an abuse of the English language here. To be in the US is a PRIVILEGE...not a RIGHT. RIGHTS are freedom of speech, of press...to carry, etc. I was PRIVILEGED to be born in the US.
“Subject to the jurisdiction” clearly is intended to exclude foreign diplomats.
To say that illegals are not subject to the Jurisdiction is to say that they have the immunity of Diplomats.
But clearly, illegals are arrested for everything from a parking ticket to murder and nobody questions “subject to the jurisdiction” because they are in fact subject to the jurisdiction.
It is impossible for a STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST to think otherwise. It is only possible to think otherwise if one thinks the Constitution can mean anything my subjective opinion wants it to mean.
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.