It is amazing that the “Disagreement” on Birthright Citizenship is occurring on the Same day that the Supreme Court hearing oral argument on this topic!
It was wonderful to hear Justice Sotomayor tell Attorney John Sauer that his legal argument made no sense at all!
Today’s “Disagreement” is welll thought out, timely exciting and well researched!
It really comes down to if the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean full and complete jurisdiction of the United States and based on the debates in congress at the time the 14th was being debated and Congress's subsequent exclusion of Native Americans due to Congress deeming them subject to tribal jurisdiction one would have to believe Congress meant 100% full and complete jurisdiction a standard to which illegal aliens and those on temporary visas can't meet.
The US couldn't compel an illegal alien or one here on a temporary visa into induction of the US Armed Forces if a draft were held, so they aren't under the full jurisdiction. It also must be noted that present day congress ruled that Natural Born Citizens are the children of American Citizens through Resolution 511 in 2008, which was supported in the form of legal opinions from an Ivy League Law Professor and a former US Solicitor General. Now Resolution 511 could have proved awkward and embarrassing for congress in 2024 if Kamala Harris had won as she doesn't meet criteria established in that resolution and one would have to wonder how congress could certify an election of a candidate who doesn't meet resolution 511?
If subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean full and complete jurisdiction of the United States, then SCOTUS would have to rule that the children of illegal aliens aren't US Citizens and that would open up a whole new can of worms as one would have to assume that lawsuits would reign down on behalf of those children of illegal aliens not being conferred citizenship citing the Equal Protection Clause as scores of children of past illegal aliens have been conferred US Citizenship.
Immigrating foreign nationals seeking American citizenship and lawful residency are seeking a change in governmental jurisdiction. They seek to change the government under which they reside; to change the jurisdiction thereof under which they will future lawfully reside.
Unlawful infiltrators seek what? What does the act of unlawful infiltration into the United States produce? There is no change in lawful residency. There is no change in lawful jurisdiction. The infiltrator's lawful residency status remains unchanged and under the jurisdiction of their native home government during the period of their unlawful presence in the United States.
Emancipated slaves were denied citizenship in the United States. They were not denied residency in the United States. Slaves born to slaves "lawfully" residing in the United States were born under the jurisdiction of the United States to parents of foreign origin not citizens of the government that put them into slavery to later be sold and trafficked to reside as slaves under the jurisdiction of foreign governments. This happened. This is history.
The 14th Amendment resolved the question that the emancipated enslaved born to the soil and under the jurisdiction of of the United States as non-Citizen "lawful" residents of the United States were, in fact and in law, Citizens of The United States with full unalienable rights as set forth for all American Citizens.
Unlawful infiltrators are neither anticipated or addressed by the 14th Amendment.
Governance jurisdiction at birth and matters of citizenship, lawful residency and fealty are among the oldest attended matters in the history of western jurisprudence.
Traditionally, governance jurisdiction flowed from the citizenship of the father. If the father was Bulgarian, the child born to foreign soil would be born a Bulgarian citizen under the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian government. There are various schemes in law and policy that governments employ to sort the various rights and options between jurisdictional governance interests that arise when children are born to foreign soil.
Our constitution imposes eligibility tests to hold the office of POTUS. Among the tests for eligibility, one must be a Natural Born Citizen. I understand this is one of few constitutional issues that has never been directly addressed by SCOTUS. However, the historical and traditional meaning is rooted in the principle that an NBC is someone who is born to the soil of two parents who are also its citizens, and born free of any allegiances to any other nation or government and without obligation to any other nation or government.
Again, the issues arising from unlawful infiltrators, however long they may reside unlawfully in the United States, their mere unlawful presence does not transfer or materially alter their prior established jurisdiction under their home government that has not been and remains yet to be changed.
That cannot change until they matriculate and become American Citizens.
Until then, they merely unlawfully reside in the United States. Their issue are not born to, but merely born in the United States under the governance jurisdiction of the father, as has traditionally been the common law and government practice for centuries.
Rod Martin may be rich, but he's an idiot when it comes to this question. You harm your brand when you engage with idiots in an attempt to "both sides" the issue.
Nowhere in the 14th amendment does it mention borders. Nowhere does it mention diplomats. Yet many people have come to the conclusion, based on nothing whatsoever, that anyone born within the borders of the USA is a citizen, unless they are the child of a foreign diplomat.
Yes, I know there was a ruling. There's been lot's of rulings. And you can't find an American who agrees with all of them. We've had court rulings defending slavery and segregation. Pardon me if I don't put too much stock in court rulings.
But if anyone wants to defend a court ruling. then defend that court ruling. Don't pretend that the 14th amendment says something that it doesn't say.
subject to the jurisdiction thereof doesn't apply to only diplomats, when the 14th was passed Native Americans weren't included and that's because Congress deemed them subject to tribal jurisdiction and the vast majority of Native Americans aren't diplomats so those who subscribe to that theory are just wrong.
It is amazing that the “Disagreement” on Birthright Citizenship is occurring on the Same day that the Supreme Court hearing oral argument on this topic!
It was wonderful to hear Justice Sotomayor tell Attorney John Sauer that his legal argument made no sense at all!
Today’s “Disagreement” is welll thought out, timely exciting and well researched!
So Exciting!!!!!?
Thank You!!!
Thank you for listening and cheering us on!
It really comes down to if the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean full and complete jurisdiction of the United States and based on the debates in congress at the time the 14th was being debated and Congress's subsequent exclusion of Native Americans due to Congress deeming them subject to tribal jurisdiction one would have to believe Congress meant 100% full and complete jurisdiction a standard to which illegal aliens and those on temporary visas can't meet.
The US couldn't compel an illegal alien or one here on a temporary visa into induction of the US Armed Forces if a draft were held, so they aren't under the full jurisdiction. It also must be noted that present day congress ruled that Natural Born Citizens are the children of American Citizens through Resolution 511 in 2008, which was supported in the form of legal opinions from an Ivy League Law Professor and a former US Solicitor General. Now Resolution 511 could have proved awkward and embarrassing for congress in 2024 if Kamala Harris had won as she doesn't meet criteria established in that resolution and one would have to wonder how congress could certify an election of a candidate who doesn't meet resolution 511?
If subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean full and complete jurisdiction of the United States, then SCOTUS would have to rule that the children of illegal aliens aren't US Citizens and that would open up a whole new can of worms as one would have to assume that lawsuits would reign down on behalf of those children of illegal aliens not being conferred citizenship citing the Equal Protection Clause as scores of children of past illegal aliens have been conferred US Citizenship.
You shouldn’t profit from the crime of a parent. An obvious prerequisite for citizenship.
Under the jurisdiction thereof.
Immigrating foreign nationals seeking American citizenship and lawful residency are seeking a change in governmental jurisdiction. They seek to change the government under which they reside; to change the jurisdiction thereof under which they will future lawfully reside.
Unlawful infiltrators seek what? What does the act of unlawful infiltration into the United States produce? There is no change in lawful residency. There is no change in lawful jurisdiction. The infiltrator's lawful residency status remains unchanged and under the jurisdiction of their native home government during the period of their unlawful presence in the United States.
Emancipated slaves were denied citizenship in the United States. They were not denied residency in the United States. Slaves born to slaves "lawfully" residing in the United States were born under the jurisdiction of the United States to parents of foreign origin not citizens of the government that put them into slavery to later be sold and trafficked to reside as slaves under the jurisdiction of foreign governments. This happened. This is history.
The 14th Amendment resolved the question that the emancipated enslaved born to the soil and under the jurisdiction of of the United States as non-Citizen "lawful" residents of the United States were, in fact and in law, Citizens of The United States with full unalienable rights as set forth for all American Citizens.
Unlawful infiltrators are neither anticipated or addressed by the 14th Amendment.
Governance jurisdiction at birth and matters of citizenship, lawful residency and fealty are among the oldest attended matters in the history of western jurisprudence.
Traditionally, governance jurisdiction flowed from the citizenship of the father. If the father was Bulgarian, the child born to foreign soil would be born a Bulgarian citizen under the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian government. There are various schemes in law and policy that governments employ to sort the various rights and options between jurisdictional governance interests that arise when children are born to foreign soil.
Our constitution imposes eligibility tests to hold the office of POTUS. Among the tests for eligibility, one must be a Natural Born Citizen. I understand this is one of few constitutional issues that has never been directly addressed by SCOTUS. However, the historical and traditional meaning is rooted in the principle that an NBC is someone who is born to the soil of two parents who are also its citizens, and born free of any allegiances to any other nation or government and without obligation to any other nation or government.
Again, the issues arising from unlawful infiltrators, however long they may reside unlawfully in the United States, their mere unlawful presence does not transfer or materially alter their prior established jurisdiction under their home government that has not been and remains yet to be changed.
That cannot change until they matriculate and become American Citizens.
Until then, they merely unlawfully reside in the United States. Their issue are not born to, but merely born in the United States under the governance jurisdiction of the father, as has traditionally been the common law and government practice for centuries.
Rod Martin may be rich, but he's an idiot when it comes to this question. You harm your brand when you engage with idiots in an attempt to "both sides" the issue.
Just wrote this related article:
https://open.substack.com/pub/hermanforwood/p/birthright-citizenship-and-the-populist?r=oy1dn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Thank you for sharing this!
Thank you for reading and commenting.
Nowhere in the 14th amendment does it mention borders. Nowhere does it mention diplomats. Yet many people have come to the conclusion, based on nothing whatsoever, that anyone born within the borders of the USA is a citizen, unless they are the child of a foreign diplomat.
Yes, I know there was a ruling. There's been lot's of rulings. And you can't find an American who agrees with all of them. We've had court rulings defending slavery and segregation. Pardon me if I don't put too much stock in court rulings.
But if anyone wants to defend a court ruling. then defend that court ruling. Don't pretend that the 14th amendment says something that it doesn't say.
Thank you for reading and sharing your POV with us!
subject to the jurisdiction thereof doesn't apply to only diplomats, when the 14th was passed Native Americans weren't included and that's because Congress deemed them subject to tribal jurisdiction and the vast majority of Native Americans aren't diplomats so those who subscribe to that theory are just wrong.
True.