The 14th amendment and original ism.

Goonie · Jan 23, 2025

Been following and commenting on the threads covering Trump's attempt to abolish birthright citizenship.

So one of the main arguments against birthright citizenship is that the writers of the amendment meant to only give citizenship only to the formerly enslaved.

One question? Do you believe the writers are idiots? I know why the amendment says 'all people', it avoids people arguing who was enslaved or not, if you are born in the USA you are a citizen.

I am quite sure the writers knew full well the consequences of saying 'all people' . They must have known unless they are utter morons, that it meant more than the formerly enslaved, and they despite that wrote it clearly and concisely to declare

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Pommer · Jan 23, 2025

Goonie said:
Been following and commenting on the threads covering Trump's attempt to abolish birthright citizenship.

So one of the main arguments against birthright citizenship is that the writers of the amendment meant to only give citizenship only to the formerly enslaved.

One question? Do you believe the writers are idiots? I know why the amendment says 'all people', it avoids people arguing who was enslaved or not, if you are born in the USA you are a citizen.

I am quite sure the writers knew full well the consequences of saying 'all people' . They must have known unless they are utter morons, that it meant more than the formerly enslaved, and they despite that wrote it clearly and concisely to declare

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The “we’re being invaded” crowd doesn’t see their point-of-view as “just rhetoric”.

If foreign soldiers were to wash up on our shores, I would do whatever I could to defend my homeland.

Some people are at that point, already.

eleos1954 · Jan 25, 2025

Goonie said:
Been following and commenting on the threads covering Trump's attempt to abolish birthright citizenship.

So one of the main arguments against birthright citizenship is that the writers of the amendment meant to only give citizenship only to the formerly enslaved.

One question? Do you believe the writers are idiots? I know why the amendment says 'all people', it avoids people arguing who was enslaved or not, if you are born in the USA you are a citizen.

I am quite sure the writers knew full well the consequences of saying 'all people' . They must have known unless they are utter morons, that it meant more than the formerly enslaved, and they despite that wrote it clearly and concisely to declare

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The dispute is under this phrase

subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

the interpretation of "birth right"

It needs to go back to the Supreme Court and be revisited.

Quite honestly .... the interpretation don't make sense. I mean technically then if a non-citizen has a baby in the US then the baby is considered a citizen but the parent is not .... so the parent(s) are subject to non citizens requirements but the baby is not. Technically then ... the parent(s) could be deported and the baby not. So ... that would put the parent(s) in the position of being forced to be become a US citizen ... that certainly can not be right. Because a person has a baby here don't make the parent(s) citizens so why should it be for the baby? Anyways ... I believe it will go back to the Supreme Court.

This is interesting ...

Goonie · Jan 25, 2025

eleos1954 said:
The dispute is under this phrase

subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

the interpretation of "birth right"

It needs to go back to the Supreme Court and be revisited.

Quite honestly .... the interpretation don't make sense. I mean technically then if a non-citizen has a baby in the US then the baby is considered a citizen but the parent is not .... so the parent(s) are subject to non citizens requirements but the baby is not. Technically then ... the parent(s) could be deported and the baby not. So ... that would put the parent(s) in the position of being forced to be become a US citizen ... that certainly can not be right. Because a person has a baby here don't make the parent(s) citizens so why should it be for the baby? Anyways ... I believe it will go back to the Supreme Court.

This is interesting ...
View attachment 360185

It's pretty plain anyone in the USA is subject to US Jurisdiction. If I as a UK citizen I was on US soil and committed a crime whose Jurisdiction am I under? How can Trump order the death penalty for illegal immigrants who commit murder If they are not under the Jurisdiction of the USA?

Belk · Jan 25, 2025

eleos1954 said:
The dispute is under this phrase

subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

the interpretation of "birth right"

It needs to go back to the Supreme Court and be revisited.

Quite honestly .... the interpretation don't make sense. I mean technically then if a non-citizen has a baby in the US then the baby is considered a citizen but the parent is not .... so the parent(s) are subject to non citizens requirements but the baby is not. Technically then ... the parent(s) could be deported and the baby not. So ... that would put the parent(s) in the position of being forced to be become a US citizen ... that certainly can not be right. Because a person has a baby here don't make the parent(s) citizens so why should it be for the baby? Anyways ... I believe it will go back to the Supreme Court.

This is interesting ...
View attachment 360185

From a lawyer on substack.

Recently, some commentators have seized upon the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language to argue that, in fact, the Citizenship Clause only applies to those who have lawful immigration status—and so excludes children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants. As Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho (appointed by Trump) wrote in a 2006 essay, this argument cannot be reconciled with either the text or the original understanding of the Citizenship Clause, which confirms that it “plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws.” As we’ll see below, the Supreme Court has been clear for … a very long time … that only three very specific categories of people “in” the United States are nevertheless not “subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws,” and undocumented immigrants aren’t one of them.

Well worth the read

Bonus 112: Birthright Citizenship, "Invasions," and the Supreme Court

President Trump has vowed to go after birthright citizenship on his first day in office. He's going to lose, but in a way that may well provide cover for other controversial immigration measures

www.stevevladeck.com

durangodawood · Jan 25, 2025

eleos1954 said:
The dispute is under this phrase

subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

the interpretation of "birth right"

It needs to go back to the Supreme Court and be revisited.

Quite honestly .... the interpretation don't make sense. I mean technically then if a non-citizen has a baby in the US then the baby is considered a citizen but the parent is not .... so the parent(s) are subject to non citizens requirements but the baby is not. Technically then ... the parent(s) could be deported and the baby not. So ... that would put the parent(s) in the position of being forced to be become a US citizen ... that certainly can not be right. Because a person has a baby here don't make the parent(s) citizens so why should it be for the baby? Anyways ... I believe it will go back to the Supreme Court.

Immigration wasnt just invented yesterday. There was loads of immigration back when the 14A was ratified. And so the consequences of birthright citizenship were perfectly well known - except to complete idiots of course. And thats why the text is so unambiguous. Immigrants, legal or not, are plainly under the jurisdiction of US law when here in the US.

Basically this is a fake "dispute" ginned up by people who simply dont like birthright citizenship.

(Note that I think the time for birthright citizenship for immigrant children has come and gone. But that doesn't compel me to abandon all sense and respect for the constitution. It has to be done the right way: an amendment).

eleos1954 · Jan 25, 2025

Belk said:
From a lawyer on substack.

Recently, some commentators have seized upon the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language to argue that, in fact, the Citizenship Clause only applies to those who have lawful immigration status—and so excludes children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants. As Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho (appointed by Trump) wrote in a 2006 essay, this argument cannot be reconciled with either the text or the original understanding of the Citizenship Clause, which confirms that it “plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws.” As we’ll see below, the Supreme Court has been clear for … a very long time … that only three very specific categories of people “in” the United States are nevertheless not “subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws,” and undocumented immigrants aren’t one of them.

Well worth the read

Bonus 112: Birthright Citizenship, "Invasions," and the Supreme Court

President Trump has vowed to go after birthright citizenship on his first day in office. He's going to lose, but in a way that may well provide cover for other controversial immigration measures

www.stevevladeck.com

Supreme Court has been known to overturn itself. Guess we will see.

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship – The White House

Currently ... a baby born in the US automatically becomes a citizen ... they are issued a US birth certificate .... however ... that does not effect the citizenship of the parents. This is a conundrum.

Belk · Jan 25, 2025

eleos1954 said:
Supreme Court has been known to overturn itself. Guess we will see.

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship – The White House

Currently ... a baby born in the US automatically becomes a citizen ... they are issued a US birth certificate .... however ... that does not effect the citizenship of the parents. This is a conundrum.

As the article makes clear, it would not only need to overturn itself. It would be too overturn three existing precidents plus the existing federal statue.

Pommer · Jan 25, 2025

eleos1954 said:
Supreme Court has been known to overturn itself. Guess we will see.

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship – The White House

Currently ... a baby born in the US automatically becomes a citizen ... they are issued a US birth certificate .... however ... that does not effect the citizenship of the parents. This is a conundrum.

Why would this even get to the Supreme Court?

eleos1954 · Jan 25, 2025

Pommer said:
Why would this even get to the Supreme Court?

Just saying It is questionable ... none the less

well is the birth of a baby attached to the "soil" (physical location) or the citizenship of the parent?

Example would be military families in foreign countries. There is a special process they must go through to actually receive a US birth certificate ... they weren't born "physically on US soil" ... so it reverts back to the citizenship status of the parent.

So ... the way it is now ... the birth of the baby does not change the citizenship status of the parent, nor should it.

Like I said ... it's a conundrum.

We should always be open to revisiting things .... nothing wrong with it.

eleos1954 · Jan 25, 2025

Pommer said:
Why would this even get to the Supreme Court?

Nothing wrong with revisiting things.

Oompa Loompa · Jan 25, 2025

Goonie said:
Been following and commenting on the threads covering Trump's attempt to abolish birthright citizenship.

So one of the main arguments against birthright citizenship is that the writers of the amendment meant to only give citizenship only to the formerly enslaved.

One question? Do you believe the writers are idiots? I know why the amendment says 'all people', it avoids people arguing who was enslaved or not, if you are born in the USA you are a citizen.

I am quite sure the writers knew full well the consequences of saying 'all people' . They must have known unless they are utter morons, that it meant more than the formerly enslaved, and they despite that wrote it clearly and concisely to declare

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yes, we should ban guns, not anchor babies.

Oompa Loompa · Jan 25, 2025

What happens if a pregnant Japanese woman is visiting Disney World with her husband and she goes into labor? Does that child become a US citizen? Or what about a pregnant woman from Mexico going into labor while visiting relatives in Texas, is that child a US citizen?

JSRG · Jan 25, 2025

eleos1954 said:
The dispute is under this phrase

subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

the interpretation of "birth right"

It needs to go back to the Supreme Court and be revisited.

Quite honestly .... the interpretation don't make sense. I mean technically then if a non-citizen has a baby in the US then the baby is considered a citizen but the parent is not .... so the parent(s) are subject to non citizens requirements but the baby is not. Technically then ... the parent(s) could be deported and the baby not. So ... that would put the parent(s) in the position of being forced to be become a US citizen ... that certainly can not be right. Because a person has a baby here don't make the parent(s) citizens so why should it be for the baby? Anyways ... I believe it will go back to the Supreme Court.

A law doesn't stop becoming a law just because it "doesn't make sense." It might made it a bad law or bad policy, but it's still the law.

The same is true for the Constitution. I think there's stuff in the Constitution that doesn't make sense or wasn't well thought out. The 18th Amendment (banning the sale of alcohol) turned out to cause a bunch of problems they didn't foresee, and it was repealed less than 15 years later. But something being a bad idea doesn't mean it's not in the Constitution.

JSRG · Jan 25, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
What happens if a pregnant Japanese woman is visiting Disney World with her husband and she goes into labor? Does that child become a US citizen? Or what about a pregnant woman from Mexico going into labor while visiting relatives in Texas, is that child a US citizen?

Yes to both.

Oompa Loompa · Jan 25, 2025

eleos1954 said:
The dispute is under this phrase

subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

the interpretation of "birth right"

It needs to go back to the Supreme Court and be revisited.

Quite honestly .... the interpretation don't make sense. I mean technically then if a non-citizen has a baby in the US then the baby is considered a citizen but the parent is not .... so the parent(s) are subject to non citizens requirements but the baby is not. Technically then ... the parent(s) could be deported and the baby not. So ... that would put the parent(s) in the position of being forced to be become a US citizen ... that certainly can not be right. Because a person has a baby here don't make the parent(s) citizens so why should it be for the baby? Anyways ... I believe it will go back to the Supreme Court.

This is interesting ...
View attachment 360185

I agree that it needs to be revisited in the supreme court. Which is why I believe Trump signed the executive order to goad people into creating lawsuits that will be taken to the supreme court. The funny thing is that had liberals done nothing, they could havw just waited until Trump left office and the next president can end the executive order.

Oompa Loompa · Jan 25, 2025

JSRG said:
Yes to both.

Are you sure about that? Do you have any references or examples?

Goonie · Jan 25, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
What happens if a pregnant Japanese woman is visiting Disney World with her husband and she goes into labor? Does that child become a US citizen? Or what about a pregnant woman from Mexico going into labor while visiting relatives in Texas, is that child a US citizen?

Interestingly I believe some of the judges in the Wong Kim Ark case, were sympathetic to the idea that a baby being born just passing through the USA should not qualify for citizenship, I saw that on one of the threads.

DaisyDay · Jan 25, 2025

Belk said:
As the article makes clear, it would not only need to overturn itself. It would be too overturn three existing precidents plus the existing federal statue.

Not to mention overturning the Constitution, or at least that amendment to the Constitution whose language is plain.

DaisyDay · Jan 25, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
I agree that it needs to be revisited in the supreme court. Which is why I believe Trump signed the executive order to goad people into creating lawsuits that will be taken to the supreme court.

And if people get their lives screwed over while awaiting their restoration of their citizenship rights, well eggs and omelettes, amirite?

Oompa Loompa said:
The funny thing is that had liberals done nothing, they could havw just waited until Trump left office and the next president can end the executive order.

And if the next president should be Vance for two terms, well, they can just hold their breath for 12 years, eh?

The 14th amendment and original ism.

Not so Mystic Mog.

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

God is Love

Not so Mystic Mog.

Senior Member

dis Member

God is Love

Senior Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

God is Love

God is Love

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not so Mystic Mog.

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Similar threads