What the 14th Amendment actually says (and what Trump thinks it says), and what would happen if Trump signed an executive order to reinterpret it.

Jun 2012
41,958
15,170
Barsoom
#11
Ark dealt with legal aliens in the US under US law who had legal permanent residence in the US. The court also used the laws of England to make their opinion. Ark was based on US law and the offspring of permanent and legal Chinese residents.

Ark is also not precedent and will not be used as precedent. No naturalization law is based on Ark. Any lawsuit will be based on the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment, its intent, and the stated definition of subject to the jurisdiction being only polictical jurisdiction per the men who wrote it, the intent, and the common understanding of the term when it was written. Ark is irrelevant to any challenge to the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
Jul 2008
18,530
12,258
Virginia Beach, VA
#12
Ark dealt with legal aliens in the US under US law who had legal permanent residence in the US. The court also used the laws of England to make their opinion. Ark was based on US law and the offspring of permanent and legal Chinese residents.

Ark is also not precedent and will not be used as precedent. No naturalization law is based on Ark. Any lawsuit will be based on the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment, its intent, and the stated definition of subject to the jurisdiction being only polictical jurisdiction per the men who wrote it, the intent, and the common understanding of the term when it was written. Ark is irrelevant to any challenge to the Fourteenth Amendment.
The meaning of Jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment has been defined by the US Supreme Court to mean “subject to the laws of the United States”. Don’t like it? Take it up with the SCOTUS
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,170
Barsoom
#13
Not only did the Supreme Court did not define subject to the jurisdiction outside of a child born of legal and permanent residents under the Chinese Exclusion Act, it is not precedent, has never been used, no naturalization laws have used Ark's definition, and it will not be a factor in any litigation regarding the meaning of under the subject to the jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and birthright citizenship.
 
Nov 2012
40,545
11,692
Lebanon, TN
#14
Legal immigrants are under the Jurisdiction of the US, US Citizens are also.

Illegal immigrants are under the jurisdiction of their Nation of origin.
 
Jul 2008
18,530
12,258
Virginia Beach, VA
#15
Legal immigrants are under the Jurisdiction of the US, US Citizens are also.

Illegal immigrants are under the jurisdiction of their Nation of origin.
Good to know. We can’t prosecute any illegal immigrants for any crimes they commit here because we lack jurisdiction.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,170
Barsoom
#16
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment is political jurisdiction, not legal jurisdiction, per the men who wrote the amendment. If anyone is confused about this, the men who wrote the clause explained is nicely.
 
Jul 2014
14,225
8,638
massachusetts
#17
Not only did the Supreme Court did not define subject to the jurisdiction outside of a child born of legal and permanent residents under the Chinese Exclusion Act, it is not precedent, has never been used, no naturalization laws have used Ark's definition, and it will not be a factor in any litigation regarding the meaning of under the subject to the jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and birthright citizenship.
Once again you stopped reading before you got to the end.
The point was that in the years Ark's parents had lived in the US, they had engaged in private business, and had not been employed by the Emperor of China.
Not being employed by the Emperor of China is what made made there son "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
I understand English can be difficult to understand. But it's right there in the decision.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,170
Barsoom
#18
Not only did the Supreme Court did not define subject to the jurisdiction outside of a child born of legal and permanent residents under the Chinese Exclusion Act, it is not precedent, has never been used, no naturalization laws have used Ark's definition, and it will not be a factor in any litigation regarding the meaning of under the subject to the jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and birthright citizenship.
 
Jul 2008
18,530
12,258
Virginia Beach, VA
#19
Not only did the Supreme Court did not define subject to the jurisdiction outside of a child born of legal and permanent residents under the Chinese Exclusion Act, it is not precedent, has never been used, no naturalization laws have used Ark's definition, and it will not be a factor in any litigation regarding the meaning of under the subject to the jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and birthright citizenship.
Keep repeating that. I can translate into your native language...coo, coo, coo, coo.
 
Jul 2014
14,225
8,638
massachusetts
#20
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment is political jurisdiction, not legal jurisdiction, per the men who wrote the amendment. If anyone is confused about this, the men who wrote the clause explained is nicely.
Apparently you misread that too.
Because, to speakers of English, what he said doesn't mean what you think it does.....