Thank you..

It's nice to have a lawyer in the house... sometimes.

And how exactly is Trump a klansman ?..

I was wondering the same thing.
Just another salacious lie .

Well his DAD 'probably' was ... so guilt by association maybe?

diserli_gears:


Interesting. So you are accusing Workin4it of being a Letist?

I think he may be a bit surprised at your judgment about him.

I did not accuse Workin4it of being a leftist, if I did I would say so

I said its no different than any other Leftist threads, as in leftists that post things they believe whole heartily like anything anti Trump.

Your senators didn't have the authority to rule on the meaning or intent of the 14th Amendment. Only the Supreme Court has such authority, and it has not yet agreed with you on this.

That's why we have the mess we have here, and so far, no major party has backed the needed Constitutional Amendment to resolve the issues.

gee Wally I dunno
there is nothing to it Beaver.

anyways, so you're basing it on a birth certificate, and what is the precedent you are basing it on?

U.S v Wong Kim ark?

Ive read the 14th amendment debates and the 1866 civil rights act debates and while it doesn't address Illegal immigrants ,the citizen clause addresses it citizens and what qualifies as a citizenship.

if they were born in America but their parents were born in another country their allegiance belongs to that country unless they revoke allegiance to that country and from my understanding The framers did wrote that in to curb Immigration from Germany , Britain, Ireland and such.

that whole Jus soli argument.

yes the supreme court has...
Supreme Court decisions

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.


In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

so ms h you are saying 2 of the original crafters of the 14th were totally wrong in their recorded statements of what and how they were crafting????

no. Im saying the framers did not say that chldren of immigrants were not citizens or that being born on american soil has exceptions ...

yes they did here

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

and here

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
and explained here


The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

depends on how you read commas ...

a foreigner has a right to protection but is not a citizen(true, because someone who is a citizen is not a foreigner and someone who is foreigner is not a citizen)

this will not include persons born in the united states who are foreigners, aliens ... who belong to families of ambassadors or families of ambasssadors or foreign ministers

some may read that as three distinct different categories, others may read it as three ways to describe the same ONE category.

this middle part means exactly what it says...

those people ACCREDITED to the US are NOT subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States they ARE subject
to the jurisdiction of their home country...this is what
Diplomatic Immunity is all about....they are NOT under our
jurisdiction....therefore, when the Ambassador and his wife
have a child born on US soil they are not considered a citizen..

then the last part...but, EVERY OTHER class of persons
will be included...

you are using the subject to jurisdiction vs within the jurisdiction argument.

but it boils down to allegiance to a foreign power, this is why dual citizenships can also cause issues.

did you know before The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that the official passport document for the United States from the US state department the passport application you had the city and state where you were born and to be a citizen you had to prove the allegiance of the parents which was a separate item.

If all you had to do is show you were born in America why did you have to fill out that form?

This was common during the FDR years ,and now the bureaucrats changed the language to include subject to the jurisdiction means subject to US laws so birth is all you need.

how do you explain that?

then i suggest you actually read the whole body of their statments your self and see that the context matches the most blatant i have quoted and not your imagined interpretations

here is the link again

I explain that we are no longer in FDR years

And all I needed for my childrens passports were their birth certificate and their parents signature.

What you're not getting, is that EVERYONE is "subject to the jurisdiction of".

Don't believe me? Try going to Saudi Arabia and getting drunk.

Before they chop your head off, or give 90 lashes, say "You can't do this! I'm an American, I'm "subject to the jurisdiction of" American laws. See how that works for you.

If you're in the US, you're subject to the jurisdiction of" US law. If you're in France, you're subject to the jurisdiction of" French law.

See how that works?

its quite all right. Im sure there were plenty of varying opinions from even the framers .. but the court is there to interpret it and they have ..

because of changes in the Immigration act aka Hart Cellar act in 1965