Birthright citizenship supporters get the law wrong by ignoring obvious evidence

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Reagan]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Personally I think it's quite obvious what it was meant for.  It was meant for the freed slaves to be able to become citizens of the US.  Now, I don't think it's a coincidence that the 13the Amendment freed the slaves.  Then the 14th makes sure they get citizenship.  But the telling part is:  "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"!  If a tourist comes and gives birth, that person is not "subject to our jurisdiction."  I really don't think our founding fathers had this is mind.  But why has it been perverted over the years.  Could just be ignorance.  Could be fraud involved.  Who knows?  But I think the Supreme Court will right this wrong!   

[Big girl]

On 12/29/2025 at 12:31 PM, Reagan said:

Personally I think it's quite obvious what it was meant for.  It was meant for the freed slaves to be able to become citizens of the US.  Now, I don't think it's a coincidence that the 13the Amendment freed the slaves.  Then the 14th makes sure they get citizenship.  But the telling part is:  "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"!  If a tourist comes and gives birth, that person is not "subject to our jurisdiction."  I really don't think our founding fathers had this is mind.  But why has it been perverted over the years.  Could just be ignorance.  Could be fraud involved.  Who knows?  But I think the Supreme Court will right this wrong!   

Anyone on US soil is subject to our jurisdiction.  If a tourist came here and killed someone. He is going to jail

[OlDawg]

11 hours ago, Big girl said:

Anyone on US soil is subject to our jurisdiction.  If a tourist came here and killed someone. He is going to jail

Not the same ‘jurisdiction’. Please read the link below for a better understanding of the arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’ automatic birthright citizenship for anyone on U.S. soil.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

A really simple explanation about citizenship is found in the final act of an immigrant becoming a citizen the LEGAL way. The last thing they have to do?

Say the Pledge of Alllegiance, or the Oath of Allegiance.

Now, they are fully under the jurisdiction of the United States.

(Remember the Pledge of Allegiance? What we all had to say in school before the liberals decided they’d prefer a multicultural, non-cohesive country with no identity, pride, or patriotism because it was all offensive to someone?)
 

 

[tvc184]

20 hours ago, Big girl said:

Anyone on US soil is subject to our jurisdiction.  If a tourist came here and killed someone. He is going to jail

Not according to a Supreme Court ruling.

Native Americans born on US were not citizens if born on an Indian reservation. It literally took an act of Congress under Article I to make them citizens.

Although born on US soil, they were subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the Indian nation to which they belonged.  

[Reagan]

22 hours ago, Big girl said:

Anyone on US soil is subject to our jurisdiction.  If a tourist came here and killed someone. He is going to jail

Big girl, you need to start thinking with your mind instead of your heart!

[OlDawg]

For those that believe this debate began recently with Trump, this opinion is from 2015 in the NYT.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, OlDawg said:

For those that believe this debate began recently with Trump, this opinion is from 2015 in the NYT.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

It only starts with Trump if he was born about 1820. The first major case of birthright citizenship was in 1884 in which case the Supreme Court denied birthright citizenship for Native Americans who belonged to a tribe because they were under Native American jurisdiction, not the US.

Louder for those in the back of the room, the Supreme Court ruled against birthright citizenship if you owed allegiance to another country, even if Native American born on US soil. 

[Big girl]

On 1/1/2026 at 7:29 PM, Reagan said:

Big girl, you need to start thinking with your mind instead of your heart!

The most definitive court case on the subject is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that a person who is born in the United States, of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power, whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject is considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a citizen of the United States by birth under the 14th Amendment.

Isn't this considered precedence?

[tvc184]

4 hours ago, Big girl said:

The most definitive court case on the subject is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that a person who is born in the United States, of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power, whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject is considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a citizen of the United States by birth under the 14th Amendment.

Isn't this considered precedence?

Wong Kim Ark was about people lawfully in the country. They immigrated lawfully and had been granted permanent residency.

 This current case is not about legal immigration. Wong Kim Ark’s family did not commit a crime to enter the United States. In the current case it is about a person entering the United States while committing a crime.

Precedents don’t really matter  They only matter in trials and lower court rulings. For example locally in Jefferson County, if the police arrest a person and then take a sworn confession from him but the police did not advise the person of his constitutional rights under Miranda, it is an unlawfully obtained confession. Precedent tells the trial judge to disallow the statement and any evidence gathered from the unlawful statement. 
 

The Supreme Court however doesn’t have to go by precedent and can overturn its own decisions.

An example is that Roe v  Wade said that states could not stop abortions within certain limits but in Dobbs v  Jackson WHO the precedent was overturned. Some people cried foul because Roe v. Wade had been precedent for 49 years. That can’t be!!

But let’s take a trip down memory lane. In 1896 the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson said that segregation was lawful as long as accommodations were equal. That gave us the phrase separate but equal. Colored water fountains, lunch counters, etc., were constitutional  Then in 1954, almost 60 years later, the Supreme Court in Brown v  Board of Education said that segregation in schools was unconstitutional, effectively overturning Plessy v  Ferguson.

Awesome! The Supreme Court overturned a bad ruling in Plessy. Precedents should not be locked into stone. Oh, guaranteed abortions were overturned? Supreme Court precedents should be locked in stone! 

So apparently one side of the aisle thinks that precedents should stand!! Well, except the ones that we don’t like…..