@AverageJoe1 saidThey didn't say anything about "allegiance" in the 14th Amendment. I'm sure many former slaves had more "allegiance" to the African nations they were torn from then the US. That didn't matter to the Framers of the 14th Amendment.
The framers focused on allegiance and jurisdiction. Not on illegality of entry. We are talking about them, in framing the Constitution. You refuse to separate the two.
You’re asking me to prove that they excluded a category that they never even defined!!
The real question is what standard they did define—and that was allegiance, not legality of entry.
Whew. Obtuse is your middle name.
I would suggest your imaginary paralegal do some homework and read the SCOTUS' decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark decided in 1898. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/
It was not disputed that Wong's parents were " subjects of the Emperor of China".
@AverageJoe1 saidJurisdiction has NOTHING to do with allegiance.
You dodge this most simple issue. WHAT were the framers meaning, thinking about?.? Was it allegiance? No? You gonna say no? They actually SAID that “the jurisdiction thereof” meant not owing allegiance to another country. Undeniable. So you have no argument,,,,,,just bring up other stuff about slavery whatever. It ain’t the issue
Jurisdiction means "Can you be arrested by the government for breaking a law?" If yes, then you are under the jurisdiction of said government.
Allegiance is loyalty, devotion, or faithfulness owed to a person, group, cause, or country. It represents a firm commitment or duty, often in a formal sense, such as a citizen’s loyalty to their nation or a member's dedication to a group.
Clearly, one can be "under the jurisdiction thereof" this country without bearing allegiance to same. This is WHY most oaths of office include declaring one's allegiance to said country, because it is not necessarily included in citizenship.
Dim bulbs, the lot of you, Joe.
@no1marauder saidYou are right that allegiance is not in the Constitution, but the authors themselves explained 'jurisdiction' in terms of allegiance. The word was used in the debates, that jurisdiction means 'not owing allegiance to anyone else', I looked it up. It excludes 'those owing allegiance to foreign powers'. So there you have it.
They didn't say anything about "allegiance" in the 14th Amendment. I'm sure many former slaves had more "allegiance" to the African nations they were torn from then the US. That didn't matter to the Framers of the 14th Amendment.
I would suggest your imaginary paralegal do some homework and read the SCOTUS' decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark decided in 1898. https: ...[text shortened]... ral/us/169/649/
It was not disputed that Wong's parents were " subjects of the Emperor of China".
As to your allegiance to African Nations, the slaves were not treated as citizens of African nations, they were entirely under our jurisdiction, thus making them citizens (? I think). None of this proves Birthright citizenship.
Wong involved parents who were legally and permanently living here. That does not answer our question about 'immigration' per se. The issue is not about slavery or Wong, it is about how to interpret subject to the jurisdiction, which is still debated..
You're right, I write this but my para is on this stuff and enlightened me. I'd never heard of Wong and that several judges had debated that phrase. Judge Turnbull simplified it for us. And for you.
1 edit
@Suzianne saidIs EVERYONE in the world under the jurisdiction of the US?
Jurisdiction has NOTHING to do with allegiance.
Jurisdiction means "Can you be arrested by the government for breaking a law?" If yes, then you are under the jurisdiction of said government.
Allegiance is loyalty, devotion, or faithfulness owed to a person, group, cause, or country. It represents a firm commitment or duty, often in a formal sense, such as a citizen’s ...[text shortened]... d country, because it is not necessarily included in citizenship.
Dim bulbs, the lot of you, Joe.
Can you be arrested by any other country in the world if you were to go there and violate their laws?
@no1marauder said“Now all you have to do is present evidence that the authors of the 14th Amendment meant them and their children to be not made citizens by the relevant clause contained therein”
You are wrong; it was illegal to bring a slave into the United States from 1809 onward. That's an immigration law i.e. one concerned with the movement of new persons into a country to have them permanently reside there. Slavery was still legal in many states, but the importation of slaves was not.
What you are saying is incorrect; slaves transported into the country fr ...[text shortened]... them and their children to be not made citizens by the relevant clause contained therein. Good luck.
The 14th amendment is the evidence dumbass! 😂
@AverageJoe1 saidWhy would a child born in the US who's parents are living here, legally or not (and many you call "illegals" are here legally including asylum seekers and those under TPS designation), have any "allegiance" to a foreign country?
You are right that allegiance is not in the Constitution, but the authors themselves explained 'jurisdiction' in terms of allegiance. The word was used in the debates, that jurisdiction means 'not owing allegiance to anyone else', I looked it up. It excludes 'those owing allegiance to foreign powers'. So there you have it.
As to your allegiance to African Nations, ...[text shortened]... and that several judges had debated that phrase. Judge Turnbull simplified it for us. And for you.
The fact that Wong's parents were "subjects of the Chinese Emperor" and had, in fact permanently returned to China to live had no bearing on the outcome of the case according to Gray's majority opinion.
Finally, slaves smuggled here illegally and their descendants would logically have to be excluded from the 14th Amendment by your argument, but they clearly were not.
@no1marauder saidLogic? Well then, how is this logical.
Why would a child born in the US who's parents are living here, legally or not (and many you call "illegals" are here legally including asylum seekers and those under TPS designation), have any "allegiance" to a foreign country?
The fact that Wong's parents were "subjects of the Chinese Emperor" and had, in fact permanently returned to China to live had no bearing on ...[text shortened]... d logically have to be excluded from the 14th Amendment by your argument, but they clearly were not.
A woman who illegally enters this country is. without question, NOT a citizen of this country,.
3 months later, she births a person (baby) that IS?…IS …. IS a citizen of this country. Mama is, baby ain’t.???
An apple tree hardly can fruit out pears, it can only bear apples.
Crazy huh.
@AverageJoe1
You need to check out the small treatise thread, K Max is onto your considerations that a company owned by its owners needs to spread all of the wealth around to employees.. It is absolutely unbelievable to see y’all thinking like that.
Next will be saying that everyone in the country should have free healthcare. You all say that with a big smile, but you do not realize what you are actually saying, which is that you are enslaving medical practitioners…… the government will own them. I think I will do a thread on that tomorrow.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidWong's parents weren't citizens of this country. The 14th Amendment is silent as to the parents; it applies only to the person born (or naturalized).
Logic? Well then, how is this logical.
A woman who illegally enters this country is. without question, NOT a citizen of this country,.
3 months later, she births a person (baby) that IS?…IS …. IS a citizen of this country. Mama is, baby ain’t.???
An apple tree hardly can fruit out pears, it can only bear apples.
Crazy huh.
@no1marauder saidYeah.
Wong's parents weren't citizens of this country. The 14th Amendment is silent as to the parents; it applies only to the person born (or naturalized).
Crazy, huh?
I have rented a room in my house permanently to someone. He has moved in. He is now taking me to court to prove that he should be considered a member of my family. I may need you!!! You see all sides.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidEveryone in the world is not a citizen of the United States.
Is EVERYONE in the world under the jurisdiction of the US?
Can you be arrested by any other country in the world if you were to go there and violate their laws?
Were you dropped on your head as a child?
And yes, you moron.
Location, location, location.
If you are in a country, then yes, normally they can arrest you for breaking the law.
Pull your head out of your ass, please.
@AverageJoe1 saidSeriously, dude. Don't be stupid.
Yeah.
Crazy, huh?
I have rented a room in my house permanently to someone. He has moved in. He is now taking me to court to prove that he should be considered a member of my family. I may need you!!! You see all sides.
@Suzianne said? Illegals broke the law, you say that they CAN arrest them??? Well good grief. Make up your mind.
Everyone in the world is not a citizen of the United States.
Were you dropped on your head as a child?
And yes, you moron.
Location, location, location.
If you are in a country, then yes, normally they can arrest you for breaking the law.
Pull your head out of your ass, please.
@Suzianne saidyou previous post on this doesnt make any sense then
Everyone in the world is not a citizen of the United States.
Were you dropped on your head as a child?
And yes, you moron.
Location, location, location.
If you are in a country, then yes, normally they can arrest you for breaking the law.
Pull your head out of your ass, please.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidHow bout she and her anti-ICE protesters are trying to stop ICE from arresting illegal aliens (They have broken the law), but here she says the following:
you previous post on this doesnt make any sense then
"If you are in a country, then yes, normally they can arrest you for breaking the law."
I could just scream. The forum is so HARD!