As I have explained there are a few exceptions, why do you keep pretending I haven’t answered that question?
Birth Right Citizenship Will It Finally End?
- Thread starter Tobytone
- Start date
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
It's been explained to you that there is no reason to exclude diplomats.
What are the other exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction?
Tobytone
Verified User
Let's set aside politics for a moment and apply some common sense to this birth right thing.
Consider America as your home, with the border representing the walls, windows, and doors of that home.
Imagine, if you can, and entertain this analogy:
You and your lovely family decide to open your doors, believing that you're in a better position than most and there are many without a home or living in poor conditions. You think you're being kind and generous, so you welcome others in.
The first few days might go smoothly. Some in need enter your home, you provide them with food, help with their laundry, and give them a book to learn how to navigate this new environment, to become self-sufficient and proud in their new refuge. But, as they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
The next morning, you find your home overcrowded, things are missing, the pantry's empty. You check on your family, and little Susie's crying because someone was inappropriate with her. You call another family meeting, and despite some reluctance, the majority still favors keeping the doors open.
However, the following night turns sour. You can't find Susie, valuables are gone, and the newcomers seem indifferent to you and your family, even threatening you. You retreat to the basement with who's left of your family, decide to evict everyone, and lock the doors behind the last person to leave. Now your home has a strong border.
In the subsequent week, you learn that a couple managed to break in through a window and had a baby in your bathtub. Now you're in a bind, because she broke in and gave birth there, she's allowed to stay, no matter her character or potential danger to your family. She can bring her partner and extended family to live with you indefinitely. As frustrating as this is, it keeps happening because it's become known that if someone can break in and have a child in your bathtub, they get a permanent place in your home, with access to your resources and protection.
Does this analogy work with anyone? Of course, the left will argue this isn't an accurate parallel. If that's the case, please explain why it doesn't fit, and tell me which part specifically doesn't make sense.
Consider America as your home, with the border representing the walls, windows, and doors of that home.
Imagine, if you can, and entertain this analogy:
You and your lovely family decide to open your doors, believing that you're in a better position than most and there are many without a home or living in poor conditions. You think you're being kind and generous, so you welcome others in.
The first few days might go smoothly. Some in need enter your home, you provide them with food, help with their laundry, and give them a book to learn how to navigate this new environment, to become self-sufficient and proud in their new refuge. But, as they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
The next morning, you find your home overcrowded, things are missing, the pantry's empty. You check on your family, and little Susie's crying because someone was inappropriate with her. You call another family meeting, and despite some reluctance, the majority still favors keeping the doors open.
However, the following night turns sour. You can't find Susie, valuables are gone, and the newcomers seem indifferent to you and your family, even threatening you. You retreat to the basement with who's left of your family, decide to evict everyone, and lock the doors behind the last person to leave. Now your home has a strong border.
In the subsequent week, you learn that a couple managed to break in through a window and had a baby in your bathtub. Now you're in a bind, because she broke in and gave birth there, she's allowed to stay, no matter her character or potential danger to your family. She can bring her partner and extended family to live with you indefinitely. As frustrating as this is, it keeps happening because it's become known that if someone can break in and have a child in your bathtub, they get a permanent place in your home, with access to your resources and protection.
Does this analogy work with anyone? Of course, the left will argue this isn't an accurate parallel. If that's the case, please explain why it doesn't fit, and tell me which part specifically doesn't make sense.
At the time of the writing of the 14th Indian reservation, and there was reason to exclude diplomats dumb shit!
It is impossible to commit a crime if there is no jurisdiction.
Because at the time, Native Americans were physically born in the USA, but were considered citizens of their tribe, and not of the USA. That gave them citizenship in an entity within the USA, and were not subject to deportation.
At the time, the US Government did not have jurisdiction over many Native Americans. They were not even counted in the census. They were within the USA, and had every right to stay within the USA, but they were not of the USA.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Diplomats were automatically, already excluded because they were diplomats.
Those NA's owed allegiance to a foreign nation.Opinion from NYT ...
“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”
And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which afforded citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, "domiciled") residents was a citizen.
The broader language in the case suggesting that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient (thereby rendering the “subject to the jurisdiction" clause meaningless) is only dicta — not binding. The court did not specifically consider whether those born to parents who were in the United States unlawfully were automatically citizens."
Opinion is not fact.Diplomats were automatically, already excluded because they were diplomats.
Opinion from NYT ...
“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”
And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which afforded citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, "domiciled") residents was a citizen.
The broader language in the case suggesting that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient (thereby rendering the “subject to the jurisdiction" clause meaningless) is only dicta — not binding. The court did not specifically consider whether those born to parents who were in the United States unlawfully were automatically citizens."
No law is above the constitution, so if diplomats were excluded, the constitution would have changed that if it did not add, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
SCOTUS Justices issue legal opinions all the time.
Diplomats come here voluntarily, under their own legal terms, or not at all.
And nothing in the constitution is above the Supreme court interpreting it as they see fit.
My guess is this shit is over very soon.
The question that you people seem unable or unwilling to answer I will ask again. If there is an answer in it lies the insanity of the left.
Why is having open borders and birth right citizenship so important to you?
Ok, but without that clause, the constitution would give their children citizenshipSCOTUS Justices issue legal opinions all the time.
Diplomats come here voluntarily, under their own legal terms, or not at all.
However their ruling on what it says will stand. Will they recognize the intent or ignore it?
Excellent analogy...excellent.
Tobytone
Verified User
I've done this exercise on DP as well. I have yet to get a proponent of birthright citizens to even comment. I expected the usual illogical responses, you know "it's not the same because...........," but nothing? That did surprise me a little,
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Generally, diplomats are immune from federal and State laws, but not local laws. So yeah, you're wrong again!
And so what if it did. They would just have dual citizenship.
Last edited:
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Is Obama still the Left's leader?
Obama hates America because of its colonial origins.
Your grasp at a point is not valid.