5 ms·

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

laughing_man 1y ago
[flagged]
- lelandbatey 1y ago
  > 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. Yes. It's in the constitution. Says it right there. Please explain how all our eyes deceive us.
  - laughing_man 1y ago
    You're relying on a 21st century layman's interpretation of legal language written in the 19th century. "[S]ubject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, in broad strokes, people who are here legally.
    - lelandbatey 1y ago
      It does not mean that in broad strokes. It very specifically was meant to exclude folks such as children of diplomats, as decided in United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 A great summary: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/33057 https://law.stackexchange.com/a/33057 In short the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes three and only three groups of people: 1.Children born to foreign diplomats here on diplomatic business, who have diplomatic immunity to US Law 2.Children of members of an invading army that has occupied and controlled some part of US territory, born on that occupied area, who are obviously not subject to US Law (which has rarely happened in the US, although Guam was occupied during WWII, and parts of Alaska, and small parts of Maine during the War of 1812); and 3. Members of Native American tribes, subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, who do not pay US taxes. (This was true when the 14th amendment was passed, but it no longer is. See section below on the act that changed it in 1924.)
      - laughing_man 1y ago
        [flagged]
        9283409232 1y ago
        Using the Heritage foundation as a source says a lot. The tree where all the liars and conmen in this administration have come from.
        laughing_man 1y ago
        Yes, it's terrible people can disagree with you. How about addressing his points?
        lelandbatey 1y ago
        Neither you nor that heritage foundation (an incredibly biased and anti-immagrant organization) have read the supreme court decision which I linked to. To save you time, I will quote the relevant commentary by the justice: > [T]he Fourteenth 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 all 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.
        laughing_man 1y ago
        What do you suppose "in the allegiance and under the protection of the country" means?
        1y ago
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      I am sure you would love that same standard to apply to the second amendment
      - laughing_man 1y ago
        Why are you trying to change the subject?
    - thunderfork 1y ago
      [dead]
    - benlivengood 1y ago
      In this case, I'm in favor of a reading that the only natural citizens of America are Native Americans and their descendants. I don't think they naturalized many folks, either. Gotta go with the original law, which was Native. Just because a bunch of illegal westerners come in and try to run things means nothing.

laughing_man 1y ago

[flagged]

lelandbatey 1y ago
> 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. Yes. It's in the constitution. Says it right there. Please explain how all our eyes deceive us.
- laughing_man 1y ago
  You're relying on a 21st century layman's interpretation of legal language written in the 19th century. "[S]ubject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, in broad strokes, people who are here legally.
  - lelandbatey 1y ago
    It does not mean that in broad strokes. It very specifically was meant to exclude folks such as children of diplomats, as decided in United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 A great summary: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/33057 https://law.stackexchange.com/a/33057 In short the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes three and only three groups of people: 1.Children born to foreign diplomats here on diplomatic business, who have diplomatic immunity to US Law 2.Children of members of an invading army that has occupied and controlled some part of US territory, born on that occupied area, who are obviously not subject to US Law (which has rarely happened in the US, although Guam was occupied during WWII, and parts of Alaska, and small parts of Maine during the War of 1812); and 3. Members of Native American tribes, subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, who do not pay US taxes. (This was true when the 14th amendment was passed, but it no longer is. See section below on the act that changed it in 1924.)
    - laughing_man 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - 9283409232 1y ago
        Using the Heritage foundation as a source says a lot. The tree where all the liars and conmen in this administration have come from.
        laughing_man 1y ago
        Yes, it's terrible people can disagree with you. How about addressing his points?
      - lelandbatey 1y ago
        Neither you nor that heritage foundation (an incredibly biased and anti-immagrant organization) have read the supreme court decision which I linked to. To save you time, I will quote the relevant commentary by the justice: > [T]he Fourteenth 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 all 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.
        laughing_man 1y ago
        What do you suppose "in the allegiance and under the protection of the country" means?
        1y ago
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    I am sure you would love that same standard to apply to the second amendment
    - laughing_man 1y ago
      Why are you trying to change the subject?
  - thunderfork 1y ago
    [dead]
  - benlivengood 1y ago
    In this case, I'm in favor of a reading that the only natural citizens of America are Native Americans and their descendants. I don't think they naturalized many folks, either. Gotta go with the original law, which was Native. Just because a bunch of illegal westerners come in and try to run things means nothing.