Lol.

Why does he have to do that?

An argument is an argument regardless of the source Mr. Lawyer.

I agree with your spirit argument as that gets lost/distorted over the years.

That said, those still arguing that babies born in America to foreigners who come here on visas, etc to give birth and return to their home countries are American citizens are purposefully being dishonest, because now they have to abandon the under the jurisdiction provision(which they've already bastardized and twisted away from its original intent/meaning.)

Because I don’t think he understands, and making him type out their argument is the only way to not have him turn around and dodge later.

Id rather use the actual words and thoughts of those who wrote then 14th.

I cant do any better than that.

You don’t use the thoughts to interpret it unless the words are ambiguous.

U.S. Supreme Court: "We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statut...%20ambiguities.

Now, unless you’re going to argue that the child of illegal immigrants born in - let’s say San Diego - is not “subjection to the jurisdiction” of the United States - these words are as clear and unambiguous as possible.

And if you ARE going to argue that, understand what it means. It means they stand outside the laws of the US. We don’t have jurisdiction over a Mexican in Mexico. We can’t charge them for violation of any US law. What happens when they step onto US soil? We gain jurisdiction over them, even if we don’t know they are here.

"Words and thoughts" don't override what the 14th Amendment actually says. Which continues to contradict your propaganda.

BOLD: That child is not an American citizen, as it does not meet the criteria of the 14th.

That said, at face value, I would agree, however, the justices made it clear that the phrase,subject to the jurisdiction,wasnt simply where one hanged their hat. It encompassed much more than that.

Their were two provisions that granted "citizenship." Simply being born on American soil was not enough.

Again, Im going to copy and paste it because I cant say it any better:

We start with the relevant words of the 14th Amendment ratified on July 9, 1868. It requires that two conditions—not just birth in this country—be present for citizenship to be granted: the baby must be “born … in the United States;” and when born, the baby must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.A cursory glance at the words themselves makes it clear that those who argue that mere birth within the United States results in citizenship fail reasonably to address this second requirement.

In the Slaughterhouse Cases,10 the Court wrote that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”That is as absolute and complete a statement as can be imagined, and it would deny birthright citizenship to a child born in this country to undocumented immigrants or to a transient alien mother.

Now, onto the justices definition of the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction."

It meant complete allegiance to America and not a foreign power, which obviously negates foreign born children being born and brought back to their parents country of origin, and living under that countries jurisdiction and subject to their power. You keep skipping over that one, because now you are forced to abandon the "subject to the jurisdiction" provision.

Also:

William Blackstone, the famed English legal commentator in the period the 14th Amendment was enacted, and to whom American lawyers, judges, and legislators then repeatedly cited and quoted in decisions, legal briefs, and statements in the legislatures, defined “allegiance” in this context as requiring that the subject “will demean himself faithfully." An illegal alien, breaking America’s laws, by definition, certainly does not meet that requirement.Further, an illegal alien, while subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, is not “completely subject to [U.S.] political jurisdiction” and, as a citizen of a foreign country, remains “subject to [a] foreign power”—thus falling outside of the Court’s stated requirements for birthright citizenship.

"Senator Lyman Trumbull, who explained to the Congress before it voted, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” required being “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” meaning, as he put it, “not owing allegiance to anyone else. As Thomas Jefferson earlier wrote, “aliens are the subjects of a foreign power, and thus owe allegiance to another country; hence, the alien’s children are not U.S. citizens simply by virtue of birth on U.S. soil."


Im done beating a dead horse here but I will say this, anyone reading these exchanges and educating themselves on the true meaning of the 14th, remember one thing... These same birth right people want to rewrite the 2nd amendment with their own leftist intent/interpretation. Thats fact.

The only difference is, many on the right have educated themselves on the 2nd, so its much harder for them to get away with it, unlike the 14th, which most dont have a clue about and simply see a phrase like, "subject to the jurisdiction" and mistakenly think, oh well, thats that....NO, you couldn't be more wrong.

Literally all you have done here is copy/paste some absurd arguments that we don’t actually control the kids of illegals born here. Again, you can’t possibly actually want to argue that.

If you want to get into the 2nd - be my guest. I’ve published on it, including gaining physical access to the oldest relevant documents in the library of congress.

Ive made clear the definition of subject to the jurisdiction, as written by the justices in 1868. As said, their definition was more than just where one hanged their hat and the children born here were subject to its same definition as their parents.

Now for arguments sake, lets say your definition on jurisdiction is correct...now tell me how that applies to those born here and brought back to there parents country of origin?? Because, as clearly stated in the 14th, 2 provisions for citizenship are needed for birthright citizenship, and simply being born here wasnt enough.

PS, should the 2nd amendment be modified/reinterpreted?

Read both sides of the argument from prominent lawyers.

It seems it could go both ways. Both sides have valid arguments that make sense.

All depends on election outcomes and SCOTUS.

But at some point automatically giving the privilege of citizenship just for falling out of a vagina in this country MUST STOP.

It is unsustainable.

Id vote for him on this platform alone. these anchor babies are ridiculous.

No, you do not want to tinker with the definition of “jurisdiction,” unless you want to limit our ability to enforce our laws against the children of illigal immigrants.

And what’s all this crap about “brought back” - this is why I wanted you to define this argument in your own terms. If you were born in a place subject to the jurisdiction of the US, you are a citizen. You can renounce that, you can be in a place where we can’t enforce our laws, but otherwise you’re a citizen.

If I go to China, way outside our jurisdiction, do I cease to be a citizen?