The 14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship was intended for the children of freed slaves (2 Viewers)

[RetiredAtLast]

And in each and every lower court since 1898. Your position remains refuted.

Are you acting stupidly, or does it just come naturally?

 

[Gordy327]

Yes, with great foresight. It was after the writing of the Constitution, though, that Marshall in Marbury v Madison decided that it provided that the Supreme Court would interpret the laws. Their "interpretation," of course, has the effect of modifying the Constitution. Thus, without explicit definition in the Constitution, it is a second method of "amending" it when the Court, not necessarily "the people." thinks it needs changing.

A SCOTUS interpretation does not modify the Constitution. Modification requires a Constitutional amendment. The SCOTUS interprets the constitution when rendering a ruling. SCOTUS rulings can be overturned or affirmed by another SCOTUS ruling.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

A SCOTUS interpretation does not modify the Constitution.

I stand corrected. It modifies the implementation of the Constitution, it's meaning, and how law enforcement and the Courts must all act with respect to the Constitution and any laws relative to their decision. For all practical purposes, it modifies the Constitution. For example, a Supreme Court decided that there was a "Right to Privacy" guaranteed by the Constitution, although no such wording appeared there. That decision altered the behavior of the nation, without adding a single word to the document itself, and served as the basis for yet other SCOTUS interpretations.

 

[Fledermaus]

it was not created for non-citizens
it was created for citizens
that is a fact

All persons = All persons.

Fact.

If they meant children of slaves they would have worded it differently.

Educated opinion.

 

[Fledermaus]

it was created for emancipated slaves
that is a fact

OPINION noted and laughed at given ALL PERSONS are not simply emancipated slaves.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Second, your attempt in the above sentence is yet another predictable attempt from the left to turn the issue into one of racism, and I won't argue racism with the most racist Party in the country, the Democrats.

Of course you won't, there's no "argument."

It's ok, we know. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Gordy327]

I stand corrected. It modifies the implementation of the Constitution, it's meaning, and how law enforcement and the Courts must all act with respect to the Constitution and any laws relative to their decision. For all practical purposes, it modifies the Constitution. For example, a Supreme Court decided that there was a "Right to Privacy" guaranteed by the Constitution, although no such wording appeared there. That decision altered the behavior of the nation, without adding a single word to the document itself, and served as the basis for yet other SCOTUS interpretations.

"All persons born..." doesn't need interpretation. It's quite straightforward.

 

[rahl]

Are you acting stupidly, or does it just come naturally?

Im sorry they your ideology forces you to detach yourself from reality. But reality remains. Your argument has been refuted. It has lost every single time it’s been in front of any court since 1898.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Im sorry they your ideology forces you to detach yourself from reality. But reality remains. Your argument has been refuted. It has lost every single time it’s been in front of any court since 1898.

OK. That answers my question.

 

[rahl]

OK. That answers my question.

I know it sucks for you that your ideology is against reality and you are demonstrably wrong. But you’ll get over it.

 

[Buster Keaton]

All persons. It’s why it explicitly says, all persons.

still wrong

 

[Buster Keaton]

Doesn’t matter. We are free to interpret the plain language of the Constitution in various ways. Look how “equal protection” or freedom of speech has been interpreted historically. There has always been a tension between strict and loose constructionists, the original intent folks and the plain language folks.

And what would you have happen to someone born here of parents who were illegal and perhaps arecnow dead, which person has a US birth certificate and passport, but no citizenship elsewhere, send them to our Salvadoran Gulag?

they have to apply for citizenship just like all other non-citizens

 

[Buster Keaton]

persons means citizens

 

[rahl]

still wrong

But I’m irrefutably correct. It’s why the first 2 words say “all persons”. I know it’s sucks for you to have your ideology completely demolished. But reality doesn’t care. You are demonstrably incorrect and have been repeatedly proven to be incorrect. Every single time this has been before any court, since 1898, you’re position has lost.

 

[Buster Keaton]

All persons = All persons.

Fact.

If they meant children of slaves they would have worded it differently.

Educated opinion.

you do not understand who the 14th amendment was created for

 

[Buster Keaton]

OPINION noted and laughed at given ALL PERSONS are not simply emancipated slaves.

persons means citizens

 

[Lursa]

persons means citizens

Nope, it defines citizens. And that would be:

Section 1​

"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."

Correct, non-citizens, period, are not citizens.

 

[Rich2018]

People who were first arrested by Customs and Border Protection, which typically means those arrested at the border, accounted for most of the deportations in February 2024 under Biden.

Trump deported fewer people last month than Biden a year ago, but border crossings have plummeted

About 11,000 immigrants were deported last month, compared with over 12,000 a year ago, data obtained by NBC News shows.

www.nbcnews.com

Another reason, obviously, is that Trump stopped the flow of aliens across the border.

Illegal immigration at the U.S. southern border has dropped since Trump entered the White House. But the White House’s data use is misleading.

The post’s claims also overemphasize the data from a short time period; history shows immigration trends ebb and flow no matter who is in office. We won’t know the full effect of Trump’s policies compared with Biden’s until we are able to zoom out over a longer period of time. For now, it’s unclear whether any drop in illegal immigration will last or for how long.

Using two different data points inflates the drop in illegal immigration under Trump
The White House pointed us to a Fox News Instagram post that showed a chart similar to the one the Trump administration used.

Text over a photo of Biden read, “20,086 daily encounters (in the) last seven days of (the) Biden administration.” Below it, a photo of Trump was captioned “1,041 daily encounters (in the) first seven days of (the) Trump administration.”

Fox News’ post is misleading. It uses the total number of border encounters for Biden’s last seven days in office and compares it with a daily average for Trump’s first seven days in office.

• Border officials encountered migrants trying to cross the U.S. southern border 20,086 times during Biden’s last seven days in office. That’s an average of 2,869 times a day.
• During Trump’s first seven days, border officials encountered migrants trying to cross the U.S. southern border 7,287 times. An average of 1,041 times a day.

That’s a 60 percent drop, not a 95 percent drop as the White House claimed in its Instagram post.

Additionally, the White House and Fox News are using encounters both at official ports of entry and between them. Under Biden’s administration, people could make appointments at official ports of entry and be legally allowed to enter the U.S. to seek asylum. Those appointments still counted as encounters, even though they did not not represent illegal immigration. Trump ended that program on his first day in office and cancelled all existing appointments.

Fact-checking the Trump White House's claims about illegal immigration dropping sharply

Illegal immigration at the U.S. southern border has dropped since Trump entered the White House. But the White House’s data use is misleading.

www.pbs.org

​

 

[Buster Keaton]

There is a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

[snippet]
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

 

[Rexedgar]

Citizens means citizens.
All persons has no qualifiers.

 

[Fledermaus]

you do not understand who the 14th amendment was created for

I do understand.

That is why I can make that educated guess.

 

[Fledermaus]

persons means citizens

According to whom?

 

[Buster Keaton]

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional and National Imperative

Trump is right: "birthright citizenship" isn't required by the Constitution, no matter how many pundits tell you otherwise. And it's being badly abused.

www.rodmartin.org

According to whom?

the authors of the 14th amendment

 

[Lursa]

There is a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

[snippet]
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

No one is "subjecting" themselves to anything. That's a verb. It's also a choice. The 14th uses "subject" as an adjective. And it's not a choice, it's a condition.

This guy writing your "source" material doesnt even understand basic grammar and usage. Or is just misusing it to twist the meaning of the 14th to suit his agenda.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

Agreed, they are under the jurisdiction of the US and the state in which they are.

Please source a definition for "political jurisdiction." How is it distinct from just "jurisdiction?"

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Where does the 14th A address "jurisdictional allegiance obligations?"

 

[Buster Keaton]

The USSC needs to make this clear

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional and National Imperative

Trump is right: "birthright citizenship" isn't required by the Constitution, no matter how many pundits tell you otherwise. And it's being badly abused.

www.rodmartin.org

[snippet]
As constitutional scholar John C. Eastman has argued, “subject to the jurisdiction” was meant to exclude those who owed allegiance to foreign nations. This understanding is reinforced by the historical context in which the amendment was drafted. Its primary purpose was to grant citizenship to freed slaves, who had been wickedly denied it by the slave states, and later nationally under the infamous Dred Scott decision.

The authors of the 14th Amendment wanted to ensure that the freed slaves were granted citizenship, and that the former slave states could not abridge or deny it. But they never intended for the amendment to grant automatic citizenship to the children of foreign nationals, particularly those who enter the country illegally or remain on temporary visas.

Don’t believe me? Here’s what the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website has to say:

A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of United States law. Therefore, that person cannot be considered a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Wait, what?! Did they just say that if you’re not “subject to the jurisdiction of United States law” then the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to you?
Why yes. Yes they did. And this isn’t a new thing: it’s always been the law.

The Supreme Court affirmed this original understanding of the 14th Amendment in its earliest interpretations. In The Slaughterhouse Cases (1872), the Court explicitly stated that the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude children of foreign diplomats, consuls, and foreign nationals born on U.S. soil.