Who is Responsible for Verifying Presidential Eligibility?

The Post & Email Newspaper ^ | 26 Jul 2024 | Sharon Rondeau

[woodpusher]

Again, supposing for the sake of argument that the interpretation of Wong Kim Ark is accurate,

A moronic argument. Regardless of any interpretation of Wong Kim Ark on the internet, the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court is the law of the land. Holdings of the U.S. Spreme Court do not enter into force upon internet approval.

How can you evidence that the intent of the drafters of the 1952 Immigration Act, who would have known of Wong Kim Ark, was to provide a means for aliens who enter the US with Student Visas, to be able to have an "anchor baby" who is born a US citizen?

If your inane brainfart about the INA of 1952 were correct, it would mean that the Act is repugnant to the Constitution, and null and void ab initio. 14A-1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...."

If that was the intent of the drafters of the 1952 Immigration Act, why would they have classified Student Visa recipients at the time as "non immigrants" (who were ineligible to immigrate)?

If you insist on being so legally obtuse as to interpret a statute law to be in conflict with the Constitution, you are reminded that the Constitution does not yield; rather it renders the offensive statute null and void.

Of course, your interpretation that Student Visas made foreign students not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is impossible, but that is your problem. Were such students actually not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they could commit any act of criminality imaginable, and they could not be prosecuted due to lack of jurisdiction by all courts, State and Federal.

[woodpusher]

The definition of "jurisdiction" in the 14th amendment meant "political jurisdiction" (also rephrased as "allegiance") in Elk v. Wilkins of 1884.

Bullcrap.

Elk's Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed September 24, 1881 and docketed for the October term of 1883.

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.

Horsecrap.

From the Record of Transcript:

JOHN ELK, Plaintiff, vs. CHARI,ES WILKINS, Defendant.

Be it remembered that on the 14th day of April, 1880, a petition was filed in the office of the clerk of said circuit court, which said petition is in words and figures following, to wit:

Petition.

In the Circuit Court of the United States, District of Nebraska.

JOHN ELK, Plaintiff, vs. CHARLES WILKINS, Defendant.

John Elk, plaintiff, complains of Charles Wilkins, defendant, and avers that the matter in dispute herein exceeds the sum of five hundred dollars, to wit, the sum of six thousand dollars, and that the matter in dispute herein arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and for cause of action against defendant, avers that he, the plaintiff, is an Indian, and was born within the United States; that more than one year prior to the grievances hereinafter complained of he had severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes, and had fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, and still so continues subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and avers that, under and by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, he is a citizen of the United States, and entitled to the right and privilege of citizens of the United States.

That on the sixth day of April, 1880, there was held in the city of Omaha, (a city of the first class, incorporated under the general laws of the State of Nebraska providing for the incorporation of cities of the first class,) a general election for the election of members of the city council and other officers for said city.

That the defendant, Charles Wilkins, held the office of and acted as registrar in the fifth ward of said city, and that as said registrar it was the duty of such defendant to register the names of all persons entitled to exercise the elective franchise in said ward 2 of said city at said general election.

That this plaintiff was a citizen of and had been a bona fide resident of the State of Nebraska for more than six months prior to said sixth day of April, 1880, and had been a bona fide resident of Douglas county, wherein the city of Omaha is situated for more than 40 days, and in the fifth ward of said city more than ten days prior to said 6th day of April, and was such citizen and resident at the time of said election, and at the time of his attempted registration, as hereinafter set forth, and was in every way qualified, under the laws of the State of Nebraska and of the city of Omaha, to be registered as a voter and to cast a vote at said election, and complied with the laws of the city and State in that behalf.

From the Record of Transcript:

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, ARTICLE VII.

SECTION 1. "Every male person of the age of twenty-one years or upwards belonging to either of the following classes, who shall have resided in the State six months, and in the county, precinct or ward for the term provided by law, shall be an elector.

First.—Citizens of the United States.

Second.—Persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens conformably to the laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization, at least thirty days prior to an election."

Very difficult arithmetic. Elk filed a petition claiming he tried to register to vote on sixth day of April 1880, and he was denied registration. Elk swore that he was in every way qualified, under the laws of the State of Nebraska and of the city of Omaha, to be registered as a voter and to cast a vote at said election. The Nebraska constitution required him to be 21 years or upwards on April 6, 1880. That puts his birth not later than 1859. When John Elk was born, the 14th Amendment did not exist, and was not relevant to his claim of citizenship. For John Elk to have been born after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, on April 6, 1880 he could not have been more than twelve years old.

John Elk's argument was that he was born in the United States at least 21 years before 1880, and when the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, it made him a citizen of the United States.

A Student Visa recipient retained their foreign residence and allegiance, as the legislative intent of their admission was for study on a temporary basis (rather than to illegally have an "anchor baby" in the US).

Piled higher and deeper.

Your arcane interpretations are absurdities.

that recipients of Student Visas had status of "non-immigrants" and "aliens" relative to the US, as they were required to retain their foreign residence and foreign jurisdiction. (As evidence, these terms appear on immigration service documents in the 1950's and early 1960's).

You still have not identified what wacko website you cribbed that absurdity from.

In re Look Tin Sing, Circuit Court, D. California, (29 Sep 1884), Field J.

In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. 382 (1896)

21 Fed. Rep. 905-906:

Field, Justice. The petitioner belongs to the Chinese race, but he was born in Mendocino, in the state of California, in 1870. In 1879 he went to China, and returned to the port of San Francisco during the present month, (September, 1884,) and now seeks to land, claiming the right to do so as a natural-born citizen of the United States. It is admitted by an agreed statement of facts that his parents are now residing in Mendocino, in California, and have resided there for the last 20 years; that they are of the Chinese race, and have always been subjects of the emperor of China; that his father sent the petitioner to China, but with the intention that he should return to this country; that the father is a merchant at Mendocino, and is not here in any diplomatic or other official capacity under the emperor of China.

21 Fed. Rep. 906:

The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that “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.” This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents.

21 Fed. Rep. 909

With this explanation of the meaning of the words in the fourteenth amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it is evident that they do not exclude the petitioner from being a citizen. He is not within any of the classes of persons excepted from citizenship, and the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country.

In Look Tin Sing, the U.S. Federal Court examined the case of a child of two Chinese citizens, born in the United States. Regarding the child, the Federal Court found that the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country.

The child with two foreign parents, neither of whom was even eligible for naturalization, when born in the U.S., is born under the jurisdiction of the U.S., exclusive of that of any other country.

The birther argument about jurisdiction has been losing in Federal court since 1886, ten years before Wong Kim Ark.

In re Wong Kim Ark, District Court, N.D. California, 71 Federal Reporter 382 (1896), Morrow, District Judge

71 Federal Reporter 383-384

An agreed statement of facts has been filed, which is as follows:

“(1) That the said Wong Kim Ark was born in the year 1873, at No. 751 Sacramento street, in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America; and that his mother and father were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China; and that said Wong Kim Ark was and is a laborer. (2) That at the time of his said birth his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, state aforesaid. (3) That said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark continued to reside and remain In the United States until the year 1890, when they departed for China. (4) That during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged In any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China. (5) That ever since the birth of said Wong Kim Ark at the time and place hereinbefore stated and stipulated, he has had but one residence, to wit, a residence in said state of California, in the United States of America, and that he has never changed or lost said residence or gained or acquired another residence, and there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States.

71 Federal Reporter 384

The question to be determined is whether a person born within the United States, whose father and mother were both persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China, but at the time of the birth were both domiciled residents of the United States, is a citizen, within the meaning of that part of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution which provides that:

“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.”

71 Federal Reporter 385

It is contended, further, that the common-law doctrine does not govern the determination of the question of citizenship, for the reason that there is no common law proper of the United States; citing Wheaton v. Peters 8 Pet. 658; Kendall v. U.S., 12 Pet. 524; Lorman v. Clarke, 2 McLean 568, Fed. Cas. No. 8,516; U.S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Woodb. & M. 401, Fed. Cas. No. 15,867; People v. Folsom, 5 Cal. 373; In re Barry, 42 Fed. 113. Finally, it is maintained that the United States Supreme Court, in interpreting the first clause of the fourteenth amendment, now in question, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, adopted, to all intents and purposes, the rule of international law, when it said through Mr. Justice Miller:

“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.”

This failed argument is still being recycled as if it had never been considered by the Federal courts and resoundingly and repeatedly rejected.

71 Federal Reporter 386

But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.

As the Federal court clearly found, in Minor the Supreme Court mentioned the political status of children born in the U.S. to foreign parents and expressly declined to pass upon that question. This is cited endlessly by birthers as binding precedent regarding what the Court expressly declined to pass upon. Minor v. Happersett<>/i> is an imaginary precedent.

71 Federal Reporter 386

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States must be controlling upon the question presented for decision in this matter, irrespective of what the common-law or international doctrine is. But the interpretation thereof is undoubtedly confused and complicated by the existence of these two doctrines, in view of the ambiguous and uncertain meaning of the qualifying phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which renders it a debatable question as to which rule the provision was intended to declare. Whatever of doubt there may be is with respect to the interpretation of that phrase. Does it mean “subject to the laws of the United States,” comprehending, in this expression, the allegiance that aliens owe in a foreign country to obey its laws; or does it signify, “to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States,” in the sense that is contended for on the part of the government? This question was ably and thoroughly considered in In Re Look Tin Sing, supra, where it was held that it meant subject to the laws of the United States.

The question is controlled by the U.S. Constitution, not by the Law of Nations, the body of law, nor by The Law of Nations, a book written in French by Emerich de Vattel while the states were still colonies, and everyone was a subject, not a citizen.

71 Federal Reporter 390-391

The Slaughterhouse Cases were decided in 1873, and the opinion was delivered by Mr. Justice Miller. In the decision most of the provisions of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the constitution received clear, elaborate, and able interpretation and construction. …

But the question which is here directly involved did not arise in that case, nor did the interpretation of the court relate to such a state of facts as exists here. Obviously, therefore, what the court then said with reference to the status of children born here of foreign parents is but obiter dictum. …

… the observations referred to and relied upon, however persuasive they may appear to be, cannot be accepted as declaring the law in this circuit, at least as against the authority of In re Look Tin Sing, where the question was squarely met and decisively settled.

So much for the Slaughterhouse Cases as precedent.

71 Federal Reporter 391

Nor does the interpretation of the phrase in question in the case of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 5 Sup. Ct. 41, dispose of the matter. There the question was whether an Indian, born within the United States, and who had severed his tribal relations, was a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment.

There goes Elk as precedent.

Let's try Plyler v. Doe.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep457202/

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 (1982)

In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." ¹⁰

We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.

__________

¹⁰ "Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States .... ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used.

He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."' Id., at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouvé, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

[Political Junkie Too]

Is there any history regarding "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" that suggests that it means "subject to the sole jurisdiction of the United States?"

How about with any other legal terms? When the courts in the past ruled on things like "subject to...," did being "subject to" preclude being subject to other things as well or did it mean to be exclusively subject to the thing being stated unless exceptions were specifically called out in the same text?

In the case of the student here on a temporary visa, sure, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but they are also still subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, are they not? If while here at college, if their home country discovers they were participants in a crime and requests their extradition to face trial, we would honor that because they are subject to both their home jurisdiction and our jurisdiction. Would you agree on that point?

So is there any text, any related interpretations of law, any similar constructs of law, that might suggest that the intent of the 14th amendment was that a person was a citizen at birth if they were subject solely to the jurisdiction of the United States?

---

On a related note, what can you tell me about how the United States treats people who become naturalized regarding their passports from their former countries?

The federal Oath of Allegiance to the United States begins as follows:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

I don't think we make them turn in their passports, nor do we make them file with their home countries to renounce their citizenship and return their passports. I know that we can't force another country to revoke the citizenship of one of their own natural born citizens, but I assume that naturalized citizens are now considered to be subject to the sole jurisdiction of the United States because the oath renounces and abjures all prior allegiances.

In the case of the freed slaves, were they also subject to the sole jurisdiction of the United States or would they have been considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries in 1868 when the 14th amendment was ratified (the last slave ship to enter the United States was in 1859 or 1860)? I would assume that it was the former as there was no "going back;" even the most recently captured African slaves were here to stay.

I wonder if, given the logistics of the time, that when the 14th amendment was drafted, when they said "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," they really meant the "sole" jurisdiction of the United States and no other country?

If so, then the 14th amendment would not apply to people here on tourist visas, temporary work visas, or even permanent resident alien visas. In fact, would you say that a proposed amendment that does nothing more than tha insert the word "solely" after the word "subject" in the first sentence of the 14th amendment would be all it takes to eliminate birthright citizenship?

-PJ

[DiogenesLamp]

Holdings of the U.S. Spreme Court do not enter into force upon internet approval.

"Force" is the operative word here. Not "Truth."

People need to keep that in mind when having these discussions.

[research99]

"Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

The answer is simple.

If an alien recipient of a Student Visa in 1964 is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, that means they are subject to the terms of US laws as stated in the 1952 Immigration Act.

The 1952 Immigration Act stated that Student Visa recipients retained their "domicile" in their country of origin.

One source of the term "non immigrant" is Wikipedia:

"In the United States, the F visas are a type of non-immigrant student visa that allows foreigners to pursue education (academic studies and/or language training programs) in the United States. F-1 students must maintain a full course of study."

[woodpusher]

In the case of the student here on a temporary visa, sure, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but they are also still subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, are they not?

If a Russian were to defect to the United States, could the Russian police come here to exercise their jurisdiction and arrest him?

[Political Junkie Too]

That's a pretty poor deflection of what I thought was a reasonable query, suggesting that you don't want to answer it.

Why are you comparing a defection with a temporary student visa? Defections are high-stakes geopolitical events. Student visa are commonplace to ordinary individuals.

Why don't you answer your own question? Is a defector just a glorified asylum seeker? What is the legal status of an asylum seeker? Does a Russian defector get the same treatments as an illegal border crosser seeking asylum at the southern border? Are asylum seekers who are fleeing criminal prosecution in their homelands still subject to extradition to their homelands?

-PJ

[woodpusher]

Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

The answer is simple.

If an alien recipient of a Student Visa in 1964 is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, that means they are subject to the terms of US laws as stated in the 1952 Immigration Act.

The 1952 Immigration Act stated that Student Visa recipients retained their "domicile" in their country of origin.

I will not entertain any more of your fantasies about what the INA of 1952 says. Quote it or forget it.

You are still attempting to have one of your fantasies about imaginary content in a statute overriding the Constitution.

One source of the term "non immigrant" is Wikipedia:

"In the United States, the F visas are a type of non-immigrant student visa that allows foreigners to pursue education (academic studies and/or language training programs) in the United States. F-1 students must maintain a full course of study."

The subject is the child born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, not the student mother or fother. The child is not an immigrant, but is a natural born United States citizen. The INA of 1952 has nothing to do with any child born in the United States.

[woodpusher]

Why are you comparing a defection with a temporary student visa? Defections are high-stakes geopolitical events. Student visa are commonplace to ordinary individuals.

Just how does a student visa affect the citizenship of the child of the student visa holder? It doesn't. All persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States. There is no secret codicil about children born of a parent with a student visa. The child born of two illegal aliens in a detention center awaiting deportation, is natural born United States citizen.

The argument about the parent student visa affecting the citizenship of the child is just typical birtherism.

[Political Junkie Too]

You completely misread my post (on purpose, no doubt). I was asking the question about whether or not there was case law to suggest that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" means "subject to the sole jurisdiction of the United States?"

Or, more generally, whether a legal construct of "subject to the _____" is exclusive unless it is accompanied by exceptions explicitly called out in the same text?

The student visa example had nothing to do with citizenship, it had to do with being subject to multiple jurisdictions. Again, you're smart enough to have comprehended that so I must conclude that you're just being evasive.

Throwing out the birther charge just solidifies my opinion that you're being a dishonest debater.

-PJ

[research99]

Student Visa recipients were considered "alien" to the US and retained their domicile in their country of origin. Those facts are listed on the forms I-20 and I-530, respectively, which were used by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service at that time.

A child receives their immigration status relative to the US at the time of birth. In part, this is based on sharing the domicile of their parent/guardian, based on one of the two requirements of citizenship according to the 14th Amendment.

These are clarified here citing Weedin v. Chin Bow of 1927, which in part read:

"...the transmission of the right of citizenship is not at the death of the ancestor but at the birth of the child, and it seems to us more natural to infer that the conditions of the descent contained in the limiting proviso, as far as the father is concerned, must be perfected and have been performed at that time..."

and

"...the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States..."

In this case, the father of Kamala Harris acquired permanent residence after her birth, then naturalized in 1981, which was after the deadline for "derivative" citizenship for Kamala.

[research99]

" Just how does a student visa affect the citizenship of the child of the student visa holder? It doesn't. All persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States. There is no secret codicil about children born of a parent with a student visa. The child born of two illegal aliens in a detention center awaiting deportation, is natural born United States citizen.

The argument about the parent student visa affecting the citizenship of the child is just typical birtherism."

Here's some fact: The terms of the Student Visa in 1952 described recipients as "alien" to the US, and required them to retain their foreign "domicile," which are directly related to how a US-born child would not meet the requirements of the 14th Amendment for citizenship.

Instead you try to just label an opposing view.

Research how the Student Visa was legislated and implemented, and you will answer your own questions.

[woodpusher]

You completely misread my post (on purpose, no doubt). I was asking the question about whether or not there was case law to suggest that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" means "subject to the sole jurisdiction of the United States?"

Or, more generally, whether a legal construct of "subject to the _____" is exclusive unless it is accompanied by exceptions explicitly called out in the same text?

You misuse terms and speak in legal gibberish. You are attempting to use the term "exclusive jurisdiction" in a manner which would assume that someone within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States could be a little bit subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and a little bit subject to the territorial jurisdiction of someplace else. That's like being a little bit pregnant. A person within the territorial jurisdiction is totally in or out of United States territorial jurisdiction. Those totally out enjoy diplomatic immunity. The rest are totally within the territorial juristiction of the United States.

Black's Law Dictionary 11th Ed.

jurisdiction. 1. a government's general power to exercise auithority over all persons and things within its territory; esp. a state's power to create interests that will be recognized over common-law principles as valid in other states .

2. A court's power to decide a case or issue a decree .

3. A geographic area within which political or judicial authority may be exercised .

4. A political or judicial subdivision within such an area .

- - - - -

exclusive jurisdiction. The court's power to adjudicate an action or class of actions to the exclusion of all other courts . Cf. Concurrent jurisdiction.

- - - - -

territorial jurisdiction. 1. Jurisdiction over cases arising in or involving persons residing within a defined territory. 2. Territory over which a government, one of its courts, or one of its subdivisions has juirisdiction.

[woodpusher]

Here's some fact: The terms of the Student Visa in 1952 described recipients as "alien" to the US, and required them to retain their foreign "domicile," which are directly related to how a US-born child would not meet the requirements of the 14th Amendment for citizenship.

Here's some fact. You have yet to cite a word from any statute or act.

14A-1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...."

8 FAM 301.1

ACQUISITION BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES (CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021)

[excerpt]

d. "Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States": All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:

(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;

(2) The Court also concluded that: "The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States." Pursuant to this ruling:

(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and

(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

[woodpusher]

In this case, the father of Kamala Harris acquired permanent residence after her birth, then naturalized in 1981, which was after the deadline for "derivative" citizenship for Kamala.

Kamala Harris does not have derivitive citizenship. I suggest you research what the term means.

Kamala Harris was born in California, subject to the laws of the United States. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

https://www.uslawcenteronline.com/blog/naturalized-or-derived-us-citizen/

Derived Citizenship: The Basics

Derived citizenship is slightly different from being a naturalized U.S. citizen. Simply put, a derived citizen is someone whose parents are naturalized citizens and who seeks to become naturalized themselves. The two share similar eligibility requirements, but derived citizenship comes with a few extra procedures for interested parties to go through.

In addition to the requirements for becoming a naturalized citizen, you also must have one of your parents be a citizen and have a permanent residence status. Your parents can either be birth parents or adopted parents. If you fulfill these requirements, you can submit a form for derived citizenship.

[Political Junkie Too]

You misuse terms and speak in legal gibberish. You are attempting to use the term "exclusive jurisdiction"

Again, you are inserting words in quotes which I never wrote.

Show me where I wrote "exclusive jurisdiction." I did say "sole jurisdiction," and I asked if this clause was exclusive in law or if it allowed other jurisdictions to co-exist as a matter of legal construct when making law.

You twisted that to mean "exclusive jurisdiction."

-PJ

[woodpusher]

Show me where I wrote "exclusive jurisdiction."

[Political Junkie Too #250, and wodpusher #253 quoting it back to you] Or, more generally, whether a legal construct of "subject to the _____" is exclusive unless it is accompanied by exceptions explicitly called out in the same text?

How do you not understand my #253: "A person within the territorial jurisdiction is totally in or out of United States territorial jurisdiction. Those totally out enjoy diplomatic immunity. The rest are totally within the territorial juristiction of the United States."

How would you prefer it? Totally in, exclusively in, very in, solely in, manifestly in?

Within the territorial jurisdiction means totally, exclusively, solely and entirely within the territorial jurisdiction. There is no such thing as being within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and simulatanously being within the territorial jurisdiction of any other country.

For diplomatic immunity, by a fiction of law, the embassy of a foreign nation is considered the territory of that foreign nation. The territory of accredited diplomats is considered to travel with them. For legal purposes they are considered to not be within United States territory, and they are absolutely immune from United States territorial jurisdiction.

All others within the territory of the United States fall under the sole and exclusive territorial juirisdiction on the United States, including the newborn child of someone with a student visa, or the newborn child of an illegal alien in a detention center awaiting deportation.

Understanding "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," is not that difficult.

[Political Junkie Too]

How do you not understand that my question is about the formulation of law as text?

You took two disconnected words from two different paragraphs and connected them into a concept that I did not intend. That is dishonest. If I wanted to write "exlusive jurisdiction" I would have done so.

My use of the word "exclusive" was regarding whether the text was an exclusive constraint as in sole jurisdiction, or whether it is a non-exclusive constraint as in allowing being under simultaneous jurisdictions.

-PJ

[woodpusher]

How do you not understand my #253: "A person within the territorial jurisdiction is totally in or out of United States territorial jurisdiction. Those totally out enjoy diplomatic immunity. The rest are totally within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

How do you not understand, "Within the territorial jurisdiction means totally, exclusively, solely and entirely within the territorial jurisdiction. There is no such thing as being within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and simultaneously being within the territorial jurisdiction of any other country."

Understanding "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," is not that difficult. It says not a mumbling word about parents. People in the United States are not under the territorial jurisdiction of anywhere else.

[Political Junkie Too]

Now you are using a different language of "within" the jurisdiction, which is not in the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment says "subject to" the jurisdiction.

I will ask you again, is a person here on a student visa still "subject to" the jurisdiction of their home country as well as "subject to" the jurisdiction of the United States while they are here studying at college?

-PJ