Posted on 08/18/2015 12:04:39 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
2. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
3. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
4. Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that “natural born citizen,” is the child of an existing citizen. “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
5. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of “a native born person” of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.
Source: http://birthers.org/USC/14.html
The issue of “subject to the laws of the US” deals with persons who are immune to US law, such as those holding diplomatic immunity.
A child born here to a mother and father who both hold diplomatic positions here as representatives of a foreign power is not a US citizen.
It is not about those in the country illegally.
Jurisdiction is a court's authority to apply and enforce the law. If you are not subject to their jurisdiction then you can't be tried in that court.
If you are subject to our laws then by definition you are subject to our jurisdicition.
Based on my interpretation of the wording of the 14th amendment, a person who is not “under the jurisdiction of the U.S.” is an “outlaw”.
According to Webster 1828:
OUT’LAW, noun A person excluded from the benefit of the law, or deprived of its protection. Formerly any person might kill an outlaw; but it is now held unlawful for any person to put to death an outlaw except the sheriff, who has a warrant for that purpose.
OUT’LAW, verb transitive To deprive of the benefit and protection of law; to proscribe.
This is excellent. I’m going to have to get DH to explain some of this so I can make sure I understand it. (not a legal guy, but insurance- so he can usually decipher it)
Yes I know that kid..
Yawn. Congress has had this power since the beginning. Tell me the last time it was used. Hint: not in this century.
nothing there in prohibited the immediate deportation of the mother of an anchor baby who got knocked up and subsequently gave birth in the United States Of America intending to thereby assure her own usa domicile
deportation of mothers resolves the issue legally and instantly
correct
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.