Replies

The 14th Amendment uses the jus soli doctrine of citizenship which uses expansive language in it's text. The Congress used expansive language in their definition of natural born citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. 1401. Scotus and all courts since Wong Kim Ark given birthright citizenship to all persons (14th Amendment language) born in the US, who are not children of foreign diplomats.

If you are present on US soil, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Again, well settled and accepted basic law. If it was different, then there are hundreds of thousands of illegally held prisoners in our country. I strongly suggest you read the entire WKA SCOTUS case. It addresses and answers both the birthright citizenship issue and the ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ issue.

The problem that birthers have is that not only does nobody outside of their fantasyland agree with their discredited theory, but the rule of law from the Constitution to SCOTUS caselaw to Federal statute to state law in all 50 states all hold that jus soli citizenship is used in the US. It is also well settled law for over the past century that if you are a citizen at birth, you are a natural born citizen.

....The 14th Amendment uses the jus soli doctrine of citizenship which uses expansive language in it's text. The Congress used expansive language in their definition of natural born citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. 1401. Scotus and all courts since Wong Kim Ark given birthright citizenship to all persons (14th Amendment language) born in the US, who are not children of foreign diplomats.....

Baloney Kim Wong Ark did no such thing. Apparently you did not even glance at the link I gave you or you are ignoring it.. 8 USC 1401 Does not define Natural Born Citizenship, What is its title?

......If you are present on US soil, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Again, well settled and accepted basic law. If it was different, then there are hundreds of thousands of illegally held prisoners in our country. I strongly suggest you read the entire WKA SCOTUS case. It addresses and answers both the birthright citizenship issue and the ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ issue...

I suggest you go back and read it again. It says nothing about children of illegal aliens or of temporary visitors. What does it say about NBC for eligibility to be President? The link I gave you shows very plainly the controversy over 14th amendment jurisdiction, you are refusing to look at it because it doesn't help your obvious agenda.

,,,,,,,,The problem that birthers have is that not only does nobody outside of their fantasyland agree with their discredited theory, but the rule of law from the Constitution to SCOTUS caselaw to Federal statute to state law in all 50 states all hold that jus soli citizenship is used in the US. It is also well settled law for over the past century that if you are a citizen at birth, you are a natural born citizen.....

No it is not well settled that a person born to alien parents in the US is a citizen at birth or a Natural Born Citizen. See Minor v Happersett

While you claim the law is settled, why would Justia, a legal reference website change references to Minor v Happersett? Since they are trying to it, then does not the case prove that NBC requires both parents to be citizens.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2795647/posts

try and sell your baloney someplace else it won't work here. So are you a retread?