What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Status
Not open for further replies.
SJHovey said:
Since the Amendment reads "all persons born or naturalized in the United States", I'm going to guess she probably isn't right.
Click to expand...

But, it took the Dawes Act to grant citizenship to American Indians. I think the workaround there is that the USA had treaties with the Indians, and you can't make a treaty with your own citizens. Therefore, the Indian Nations were not part of the United States.

But I'm a retired accountant, not a constitutional lawyer.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

unofan said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

What about the part I bolded:
"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."

I know the courts have basically ruled that the part I bolded can be ignored but as written doesn't that mean anchor babies should not actually be citizens because they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I see the GOP has moved from vote suppression to citizenship suppression. Good, good.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Shirtless Guy said:
What about the part I bolded:
"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."

I know the courts have basically ruled that the part I bolded can be ignored but as written doesn't that mean anchor babies should not actually be citizens because they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
Click to expand...

What makes you think illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? I'm sure that's news to ICE among others.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

GrinCDXX said:
What makes you think illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? I'm sure that's news to ICE among others.
Click to expand...

So what is the point of having that qualifier in there if it doesn't qualify anything?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Shirtless Guy said:
What about the part I bolded:
"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."

I know the courts have basically ruled that the part I bolded can be ignored but as written doesn't that mean anchor babies should not actually be citizens because they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
Click to expand...
So what does that language mean? It doesn't say "and not subject to the jurisdiction of some other country."
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Shirtless Guy said:
So what is the point of having that qualifier in there if it doesn't qualify anything?
Click to expand...
I would submit that it means you can only be a citizen, by virtue of having been born here, if you in fact submit to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That is, we can't make you be a citizen of this country just because by happenstance you were born while your foreign parents happened to be here. However, if you are born here, and you agree to be subject to our jurisdiction by claiming to be a citizen, then you are a citizen.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Shirtless Guy said:
So what is the point of having that qualifier in there if it doesn't qualify anything?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it didn't qualify anything. My first thought is that it would qualify Native Americans born on reservations--thus the reason that a separate act was needed to cover them.
 
Shirtless Guy said:
What about the part I bolded:
"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."

I know the courts have basically ruled that the part I bolded can be ignored but as written doesn't that mean anchor babies should not actually be citizens because they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
Click to expand...

Sure they are. They're not diplomats with immunity. They're not Native Americans with their own sovereign nation. They're still subject to the jurisdiction of state and federal law.

If a European tourist gives birth in the U.S., that baby would be an American citizen at birth.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

unofan said:
Sure they are. They're not diplomats with immunity. They're not Native Americans with their own sovereign nation. They're still subject to the jurisdiction of state and federal law.

If a European tourist gives birth in the U.S., that baby would be an American citizen at birth.
Click to expand...

United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe are definitely interesting reads on this subject...

I'm still not sure why you qualify things to basically exclude diplomats? That seems like a pretty small group of people.
 
Shirtless Guy said:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe are definitely interesting reads on this subject...

I'm still not sure why you qualify things to basically exclude diplomats? That seems like a pretty small group of people.
Click to expand...

Because it's meant to be a small group of people? The default should be that you're a citizen.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

unofan said:
Because it's meant to be a small group of people? The default should be that you're a citizen.
Click to expand...

but why exclude a child born of a diplomat? What reason would they have to do that? because they wouldn't wouldn't be allowed in the country otherwise if they were not there as a diplomat? It seems like a very strange exemption considering the fact that in the 1860s I doubt we were worrying much about female diplomats?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Shirtless Guy said:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe are definitely interesting reads on this subject...

I'm still not sure why you qualify things to basically exclude diplomats? That seems like a pretty small group of people.
Click to expand...

Are Native Americans also a small group of people?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

GrinCDXX said:
I didn't say it didn't qualify anything. My first thought is that it would qualify Native Americans born on reservations--thus the reason that a separate act was needed to cover them.
Click to expand...
I think the Native American issue is a result of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

It seems commonly accepted that the 14th Amendment was proposed as a way of preventing future sessions of Congress from repealing the 1866 Civil Rights Act in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil Rights Act included a specific exception for Indians who did not pay taxes.

Of note, the Act also refers to people born in the country "not subject to any foreign power". But that language didn't make it into the 14th Amendment. Instead, we get the much more vague language as currently exists.

I just don't see a Court concluding that those born here to foreign parents are not citizens simply because of the mess it would create as a result of years of treating them as citizens.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kepler said:
I see the GOP has moved from vote suppression to citizenship suppression. Good, good.
Click to expand...
All part of the same plan because eventually those kids grow up and remember how badly the GOP has treated them, and then they can get to vote.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Shirtless Guy said:
but why exclude a child born of a diplomat? What reason would they have to do that? because they wouldn't wouldn't be allowed in the country otherwise if they were not there as a diplomat? It seems like a very strange exemption considering the fact that in the 1860s I doubt we were worrying much about female diplomats?
Click to expand...

Male diplomats would bring their wives and have children born here, just like our soldiers taking their wives and having American babies born in Germany while they're stationed there.

Diplomats are here as a function of their foreign government, in service to that government, which makes them subject of a foreign power. The argument comes into play, are illegal immigrants still subject to that foreign power when they've left their homeland just because they still have official citizenship there? Afterall, they willfully left that nation's lands and its troubles behind them in search of a (assumed) permanent life here. Would that then mean they're now subject to the US's gov't and not their former homeland's government?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top