- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who determines “jurisdiction” in the 14th amendment? The president?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:09 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:09 am to SlowFlowPro
So if Trump hired SFP how would you attack existing case law on the path to eliminating anchor babies from automatic citizenship?
1
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:11 am to GumboPot
quote:
So if Trump hired SFP how would you attack existing case law on the path to eliminating anchor babies from automatic citizenship?
You have 2 options.
1. Hope there are a lot of philosophical hypocrites on the Supreme Court, which is what it would take to reverse Wong Kim Ark or create a new case carving out a distinction within the framework of that case.
2. Start working on a Constitutional Amendment.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
2. Start working on a Constitutional Amendment.
This is the way. Uphill battle and all.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:14 am to GumboPot
How does one get around the fact that an illegal remains under the jurisdiction of whatever country they left, as would their child, even if born in the US??
LINK
quote:
In its 1884 decision in Elks v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court adopted Senator Trumbull’s formulation that, to receive birthright citizenship, the parents must “not merely [be] subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and not subject to any foreign power,” as well as owe the U.S. “direct and immediate allegiance.”17 Parents and child, returning to their native land of which they are citizens, remain subject to that foreign power and must show it allegiance, and thus do not give the U.S. “immediate allegiance.” An immigrant who violated U.S. law by entering or overstaying illegally also fails to show “allegiance,” which by definition requires loyalty and obedience to the law.18 William Blackstone, the famed English legal commentator in the period the 14th Amendment was enacted, and to whom American lawyers, judges, and legislators then repeatedly cited and quoted in decisions, legal briefs, and statements in the legislatures, defined “allegiance” in this context as requiring that the subject “will demean himself faithfully.”19 An illegal alien, breaking America’s laws, by definition, certainly does not meet that requirement. Further, an illegal alien, while subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, is not “completely subject to [U.S.] political jurisdiction” and, as a citizen of a foreign country, remains “subject to [a] foreign power”—thus falling outside of the Court’s stated requirements for birthright citizenship.
LINK
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:15 am to GumboPot
Really, where is this formal declaration?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:17 am to SlowFlowPro
Might be both.
This fight:
Could lead to this:
On the surface it just doesn't seem right to exploit jus soli as it's currently being exploited.
This fight:
quote:
1. Hope there are a lot of philosophical hypocrites on the Supreme Court, which is what it would take to reverse Wong Kim Ark or create a new case carving out a distinction within the framework of that case.
Could lead to this:
quote:
2. Start working on a Constitutional Amendment.
On the surface it just doesn't seem right to exploit jus soli as it's currently being exploited.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:19 am to KiwiHead
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:21 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
How does one get around the fact that an illegal remains under the jurisdiction of whatever country they left,
This is not accurate
Read the later case, Wong Kim Ark, which even discussed Elks as it applies more broadly (quoted in the concurrent thread).
His parents were Chinese citizens who could never naturalize in the US. The legality of their presence is irrelevant to the discussion.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:22 am to GumboPot
quote:
On the surface it just doesn't seem right to exploit jus soli as it's currently being exploited.
I reject this argument when Leftists use it to criticize the 2A and I reject it here. Freedom has consequences
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:24 am to GumboPot
Huh? Why would the president determine jurisdiction. The Constitution, U.S.statutes and case law are clear and determinative.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:39 am to GumboPot
quote:
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.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," does not sound inclusive. Persons born and subject to does not have the same meaning as persons born and are subject to.
It depends on what the word "and" means.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:51 am to POTUS2024
quote:It wouldn’t be, and you would not want to live in a country where it would be.
It would be.
quote:Effective immediately, the right to bear arms is hereby denied as it is unlawful. Furthermore, the United States government is entitled to remove and firearms from the possession of anyone in the country under the auspices of "Safety" of the citizenship
Effective immediately, "Anchor Baby" citizenship is hereby denied as it is unlawful. Furthermore, the United States government is entitled to remove and deport anyone in the country under the auspices of "Anchor Baby" citizenship.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:54 am to lake chuck fan
quote:The same way as all illegals stay here. Anchor parents could be removed. They just aren’t, because th government won’t do it. How many would abandon their kids? I donno, but I suspect few would. Either way it’s a political loser.
How does one get around the fact that an illegal remains under the jurisdiction of whatever country they left, as would their child, even if born in the US?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:54 am to TigerFanatic99
quote:
You either believe the constitution is to be interpreted exactly as written or not.
What happens when words change meaning over time?
People today think jurisdiction means within the territory of the US or wherever US law is applicable. That is clearly not what the writer and signers of the amendment meant. It's such a ridiculous concept to think that is how the law was written
So yes, we should interpret it as written, but we should also use the proper definition of the words.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:09 am to TenWheelsForJesus
Michigan senator Howard words have plenty of room to allow the Supreme Court to KO birthright citizenship. If the court doesn’t than move on to some new constitutional amendment, add term limits. Yet, no reason to believe the court is 100% going to support birthright citizenship. I find it ridiculous to have folks believe this is settled matter. Trump EO immediately and move it to the courts and see what happens
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 9:35 am
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:13 am to TigerFanatic99
What if one parent is a citizen and the other is not?
Would it depend on whether the non-citizen was legally in the USA or not?
This affects me personally as my dad was a citizen but my mom was not, though she was here legally.
Would it depend on whether the non-citizen was legally in the USA or not?
This affects me personally as my dad was a citizen but my mom was not, though she was here legally.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 9:15 am
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:13 am to GumboPot
quote:SCOTUS
Who determines “jurisdiction” in the 14th amendment? The president?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:19 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
What happens when words change meaning over time?
Then you make the argument that the constitution is a living document. You want to go there, feel free, but good luck
Posted on 12/9/24 at 10:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Read that case and its historical and textual analysis of "subject to the jurisdiction" and try to exclude illegal immigrants (you can't logically).
The Supreme Court Justice who wrote the dissent did just that. I guess he's not "logical." The Wong ruling is more convoluted than the amendment, which is what lawyers have to continually do to twist the intention of the law. The majority opinion specifically included resident aliens but not illegal aliens. There is a clear difference between the two.
It then explicitly excludes Indians because they do not have allegiance to the US. Illegal aliens do not have allegiance to the US.
The ruling then shifts to speak in general terms and changes from talking about "allegiance to the US" to "within the allegiance of the US." The judge basically changes his own standards within the ruling.
The judge explicitly excludes Indians because they are subjects of their tribe. He then admits that Wong's parents were subjects of the Emperor, but somehow that doesn't matter now.
The judge even quotes a secretary of state basically saying that even foreigners have to obey the laws of the land they are in. This doesn't really apply to the discussion at hand, but the judge included it anyway, presumably because he had run out of valid arguments.
The ruling then concludes by only talking about Chinese citizens. To say that this ruling gives every illegal alien born here citizenship is a huge leap in logic. It also ignores the rulings and precedents of other cases.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 10:32 am to TenWheelsForJesus
Below is from an article that explains the 14th Amendment wasn't intended to grant citizenship to children born to illegals here in the US.
Seems reasonable to me and explains it better than I can.
LINK
Seems reasonable to me and explains it better than I can.
quote:
.
The fact that there were no illegal immigrants when the 14th Amendment was enacted is not the only basis for concluding that the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to a child born to transient aliens. To hold otherwise would require attributing to the enactors of this Amendment the intent to scuttle a provision of the original Constitution that was sacrosanct at that time and has remained so until the current date. Article II of the Constitution prohibits anyone who is not “a natural born citizen” from being president. John Jay, later the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote a letter to George Washington, then presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, that sheds light on the purpose of this provision. He suggested that it would “be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.”29 Such a “strong check” would be non-existent if a child of foreign parents, who left the U.S. following birth and lived as a citizen of that foreign land, owing it allegiance, could return at age 35, or even 20, and become president. That inconsistent continuing provision in the Constitution—not only never questioned, but specifically mentioned during the debate on the 14th Amendment30—counsels a rejection of the theory that the Birthright Citizenship provision granted citizenship to any child of non-diplomat foreign citizens born in the U.S.
Proponents of the broad view of birthright citizenship also err in asserting their premise that two clauses of the Amendment section that contains the Birthright Citizenship provision—“within the U.S.” and “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction”—are synonymous as applied to illegal and transient immigrants. But the Amendment’s authors, in fact, made clear that they did not believe that “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction” meant the same as “within the U.S.” In the same section of this Amendment, it guaranties “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The “within” phrase was defined by co-author Senator Howard as meaning “all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction,” meaning that anyone physically present must be treated equally under our laws.31 In contrast, the Court has stated and later reaffirmed that “subject to jurisdiction” means much more: “owing … direct and immediate allegiance.”32 No allegiance, and certainly not immediate allegiance, is given by a parent who, following birth, returns with her newly born baby to live in the country of her citizenship; nor does one who remains here in violation of law show such allegiance.
Further, Congress knows what words to use if it wants to declare that every non-citizen born within the United States is a citizen. The Indian Citizenship Act of 192433 provides that “all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States.” There is no reason to believe that the Congress of 1866 was any less able to use such words if it intended to provide citizenship to all persons born within the territorial limits of the United States. That it did not use such words requires the conclusion that no such all-encompassing grant of citizenship was intended.
LINK
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News