Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

It doesn't say "subjected to".. It says subject to jurisdiction.. That means if you are on US soil you are subject to US Law.. not Mexican Law or French Law or the laws of any other country.

 

and what country do those states belong to?

uh, I didn't fail anything. I destroyed your argument, again.

 

Yes, it would be a dream of progressives, a wet dream. But according to current law, and I know less about laws etc than just about anyone, isn't it a fact that in the Putin analogy wouldn't Putins crumb snatcher be a US citizen?
reva

 

Lol, that was pathetic. If we passed a law stating non US citizens could be conscripted then they'd be conscripted. Both the 9 year old and the illegal currently can't be conscripted. It's irrelevant to the fact they are both subject to U.S. Jurisdiction based on their presence inside the borders.

If you are under state jurisdiction you are under federal jurisdiction.

At this point since you have been corrected by so many people it has gone well beyond a simple misunderstanding on your part to willful ignorance.

 

Actually it's settled US law. You've been given the court rulings.

 

If you are right why didn't the 14th Amendment give citizenship to American Indians regardless of where they were born; a reservation or Chicago...? American Indians did not get citizenship until 1924. Thank you for your reply.

 

They didn't give citizenship to American Indians due to---racism and xenophobia.

 

Nope. The meaning of jurisdiction, for legal purposes, goes all the way back to English common law which is the basis for US law. In Wong Kim ark, that law is also cited showing he meaning of jurisdiction http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407716&p=1065006608#post1065006608

Physical presence is the determining factor. Sorry

 

What court ruling stated CITIZENSHIIP was automatic for anyone if a person was born the US? IF so, why did not 14th Amendment not automatically make American Indians born off reservation and IN an actual state citizens?

 

Now you are making stuff up! Indians were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United states and owned no loyalty to the country. The 14th amendment was supposed to guarantee all be treated equally under the law. Make something up more believable...

 

You mean if Putin was NOT the head of State traveling with diplomatic status?

What do they teach in East TN?

 

Wong Kim ark.

racism and bigotry.

 

You cannot be serious. English Common law used physical presence for subjection, not citizenship. You were considered to be a subject of the King if you were physically born within his boundaries and this could not be easily changed. The Colonies repealed that in the Declaration of Independence and later passed by statute the right of every American to repudiate their US citizenship.

We aren't going to agree on this, but I appreciate the discussion.

Mexico Begins Charging Americans 20 Bucks a Piece to Enter Country


click to enlarge

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-20-09-23-54

 

And if you bothered reading the decision Iinked to you would have seen the court ruled there is noegal difference between subject and citizen. They are legally identical.

 

It also applied to natural born children to citizens and non citizens.

 

sure, but they werent deported

 

And Aborigines.. The trick here is to READ the statutes.

 

It doesnt, it affects ICE officials, and instructs them to violate US immigration law.

 

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

Can you explain how youre subject to a law thats not enforced?

 

You are going off on a tangent... US law has jurisdiction over anyone on US soil..........

 

obviously not, otherwise theyd deport illegal aliens.

 

there is nothing Trump could do about current citizens.

but, he could order the SSA to stop issuing Social Security numbers and cards to children unles their parents prove citizenship or Permanent Residency status.

this would of course go to the courts.

 

I agree that we should deport illegals.. We really haven't done that consistently in over 50 years.. Maybe we can't afford it.. or maybe we should have temporary work visas for foreign workers like agricultural workers.

 

We do deport illegal aliens. We just don't deport all of them. The same goes for every other law we have: we don't catch everybody, and we don't pursue charges against everyone we catch. Saying that this means that "U.S. law doesn't have jurisdiction" is like claiming we have no rule of law because I saw a guy smoking pot the other day. It's ridiculous. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the breadth of the 14th amendment. The only purpose here is distraction.

The Republican party should be ashamed that such a fringe theory regarding the 14th Amendment is making it to the forefront of their issues.