Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof. - Page 3

caconservative · March 18th, 2016, 02:43 PM

As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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." The statement speaks for itself. Foreign aliens would not be considered citizens because they did not owe their "full-allegiance" to the U.S. Being under the "jurisdiction" of their home-country.

BubbaJones · March 18th, 2016, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caconservative

As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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." The statement speaks for itself. Foreign aliens would not be considered citizens because they did not owe their "full-allegiance" to the U.S. Being under the "jurisdiction" of their home-country.

]

YUP !!! And since the illegals have not officially renounced there prior citizenship, their children shouldn't be citizens.

Pete Moss · March 18th, 2016, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Those countries could change the law, in the US it would require changing the constitution, and that takes a bit more work.
It's like abortion in that respect, no political party is willing to suffer the backlash of such an attempt.
The GOP will pander to racists and xenophobes, but they won't risk the backlash of actually doing anything about it, just like they will pander to anti-abortion people, but will not take actions that would risk backlash.

No, it wouldn't require an amendment. There is nothing in the constitution permitting anchor babies.

Pete Moss · March 18th, 2016, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caconservative

As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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." The statement speaks for itself. Foreign aliens would not be considered citizens because they did not owe their "full-allegiance" to the U.S. Being under the "jurisdiction" of their home-country.

Exactly.

goober · March 18th, 2016, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Moss

No, it wouldn't require an amendment. There is nothing in the constitution permitting anchor babies.

Hello, earth to Pete, Reality Calling...

goober · March 18th, 2016, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmyb

It would not require changing the Constitution to adhere to the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Much like the Second Amendment could be reinterpreted to limit firearms to the militia....

Jimmyb · March 18th, 2016, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Hello, earth to Pete, Reality Calling...

Anchor babies were created by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

Jimmyb · March 18th, 2016, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Much like the Second Amendment could be reinterpreted to limit firearms to the militia....

That would not be a re-interpretation. That would be creating a meaning and intent that does not exist.

goober · March 18th, 2016, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmyb

That would not be a re-interpretation. That would be creating a meaning and intent that does not exist.

But why would the founders put all that stuff in there about a militia if it didn't mean anything.

And if 5 Supreme Court Justices think that's what it means, then that's what it means....

Jimmyb · March 18th, 2016, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

But why would the founders put all that stuff in there about a militia if it didn't mean anything.

And if 5 Supreme Court Justices think that's what it means, then that's what it means....

It is a prefatory clause and nothing more. It served a purpose and has nothing to do with the operative clause.

If five Supreme Court justices rule that the Second Amendment limits firearms to the militia, then each one should be impeached. And their ruling would not change the meaning unless they want to change all the individual rights to collective rights in the Bill of Rights.

March 18th, 2016, 02:43 PM	#21
caconservative Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: California Posts: 15,772	As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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." The statement speaks for itself. Foreign aliens would not be considered citizens because they did not owe their "full-allegiance" to the U.S. Being under the "jurisdiction" of their home-country. Thanks from Pete Moss

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sikhs Subject to Turban Search	pensacola_niceman	Other Religions	1	November 20th, 2010 05:44 AM
Because every subject needs a little chuckle ...	tristanrobin	Gay and Lesbian Rights	4	January 12th, 2009 03:27 PM
Hucks thoughts on the subject.	fxashun	Gay and Lesbian Rights	24	March 1st, 2008 06:35 AM
Bill Clinton changing subject from 'me' to 'she'	CNN	Current Events	1	July 2nd, 2007 11:04 AM