"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv ^

[cotton1706]

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. - US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1

[Jim Noble]

“So can foreigners, so what’s your point?”

Foreigners who are within the borders of the U.S. can be brought before a Federal judge, can compel witnesses for their defense, have benefit of the Grand Jury if charged with a capital or infamous offense, are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc, etc.

If that’s not being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (and re Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that it is), words have no meaning.

[tumblindice]

“Making up crap and blustering about in the insane arguments and conjectures that dominate these discussions is ridiculous.”

So why don’t you stop?

[Ray76]

And like illegals they are not subject to “full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States”, they can not participate in civil society, ie vote or hold federal office.

[Jim Noble]

First of all, the word “complete” does not appear in XIV.

Second of all, an alien on our territory can be executed. That’s REALLY subject to our jurisdiction.

[Ray76]

Lyman Trumbull, author of the Civil Rights Act and the one who inserted the citizenship clause into the 14th amendment along with it’s author Jacob Howard, states “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.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893)

All persons within the territorial bounds of the United States are subject it's municipal law; all persons within the territorial bounds of the United States are not completely subject to the jurisdiction thereof, they are not members of the civil society.

[GraceG]

[ Finally......maybe Levin will realize the 14th amendment doesn’t make anyone a ‘natural born Citizen’ ]

What if ONE parent is a Citizen and the other is here LEGALLY at the time of birth and becomes a citizen afterwards?

[Jim Noble]

What he meant is irrelevant, what he wrote is what counts.

The USSC has dealt with this over and over.

[Ray76]

All persons within the territorial bounds of the United States are subject it’s municipal law; all persons within the territorial bounds of the United States are not completely subject to the jurisdiction thereof, they are not members of the civil society.

[Hawthorn]

>> Show me this definition <<

Don’t bother us with the facts! /s

[Hawthorn]

Making up crap and blustering is more fun than rational thinking and factual analysis. You shouldn't try to spoil our fun!

And BTW, I wonder where Dr. Orly Taitz is these days? We really need her learned and authoritative take on the true meaning of the 14th Amendment!

[Hawthorn]

>> this latest Unicorn hunt <<

Tsk, tsk! The ghost of Dr. Emmerich de Vattel will not be pleased with your snarky language.

[GOPJ]

Amending the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship is no big deal..... Congress passed the 26th Amendment in March 1971 (to lower the voting age). It was promptly ratified by the states in a matter of months ..... President Richard M. Nixon signed it into law in July 1971.

Good one Liz. And if that fails we'll have lots of conservative Supreme Court Justices... maybe they can 'find' things in the Constitution no one else has ever seen... like liberals do...

[BuckeyeTexan]

Agreed. The definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" is well-settled in U.S. case law.

Mark Levin is correct about what the authors of the 14th intended, but arguing original intent doesn't change the current circumstances under the law.

Suppose Congress did pass a law ending birthright citizenship for the those born to illegal aliens. It will be disputed in the judicial system and SCOTUS is not going to overturn decades - over a century - of law that relies on the current understanding of "subject to the jurisdiction."

The only way to force the issue is a constitutional amendment.

[JediJones]

Trump said on O’Reilly tonight his intention is to challenge the current interpretation of the 14th amendment in court. He said his lawyers tell him it doesn’t really mean birthright citizenship. He said an amendment would take too long.

I agree with you. And I think this shows Trump is politically/legally naive. And that he’s trying to sell us some things which he just can’t realistically do.

[JediJones]

However, I agree we should push for an amendment on this and on abortion. A new study/poll shows in detail that immigration and abortion are perhaps the two biggest areas where the majority of the public is much more conservative than the current law is.

[DoughtyOne]

Of course they did, because a crime was committed.

The man was still a citizen of Mexico and officially a ward of that nation.

A normal person coming here from Mexico is not instantly a ward of the United States as soon as he steps foot on our soil. He is still officially a citizen of Mexico, and a member of their society, although temporarily on our soil.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Chief Justice Marshall wrote the following in The Exchange v. McFadden. Many citizenship cases have cited it or cases that rely on it, including Wong Kim Ark, Elk v. Wilkins, and Minor v. Happersett.

When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter can never be construed to grant such exemption.

Your reference to amity is a point I must consider. Thanks!

[DiogenesLamp]

The 14A is anything but clear. It is the worst written amendment ever but I don’t think we need another amendment.

Take a look at the Breibart argument on post #53.

Another person echoing a point I constantly mention. "worst written amendment ever". Ratified by guns pointing at people's heads too. Not voluntary at all. Under duress.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I love the idea of ending birthright citizenship for children of illegals. That said, arguing original intent has done us absolutely no good with abortion, Obamacare individual mandate, or gay marriage. We lose, lose, and lose some more no matter how well reasoned our arguments. Time to make it explicitly clear within the Constitution.

(That is not to say we shouldn’t try to pursue original intent in the judicial system. We just shouldn’t ignore the need for a constitutional amendment. If we’re successful in the courts, awesome!)

[DiogenesLamp]

Suppose Congress did pass a law ending birthright citizenship for the those born to illegal aliens. It will be disputed in the judicial system and SCOTUS is not going to overturn decades - over a century - of law that relies on the current understanding of "subject to the jurisdiction."

Well here is what one prominent Cornell Graduate thinks about that.