I found an interesting map on this, and was surprised at the result. Is the concept that "It's all 'New World' countries that needed settlers 150+ years ago" a reasonable one? I'm not going to the trouble to look up the laws of individual countries in the Western Hemisphere on this, but it seems logical. Time to rethink it.



Edit: Staff - Seemed worthy of its own thread, if not feel free to delete and I'll combine it with the other

We need to erode as many "perks" to illlegal immigration as possible. Repeal of this law would go a long way to getting that done.

Brush Country Ag said:

---

We need to erode as many "perks" to illlegal immigration as possible. Repeal of this law would go a long way to getting that done.

---

It's not a law, it's an amendment.

It's an interpretation of an amendment

B-1 83 said:

---

I found an interesting map on this, and was surprised at the result. Is the concept that "It's all 'New World' countries that needed settlers 150+ years ago" a reasonable one? I'm not going to the trouble to look up the laws of individual countries in the Western Hemisphere on this, but it seems logical. Time to rethink it.



Edit: Staff - Seemed worthy of its own thread, if not feel free to delete and I'll combine it with the other

---

It's not. That's precisely why it was done.

Urban Ag said:

---

It's an interpretation of an amendment

---

The text is pretty clear.

A bunch of countries that no one wants to be a citizen of in the first place, except for the US.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

It's an interpretation of an amendment

---

The text is pretty clear.

---

Of course, you know that the amendment was written for freed slaves, not people looking for free lunch.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

It's an interpretation of an amendment

---

The text is pretty clear.

---

Agreed. Strange that this court misread it.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

It's an interpretation of an amendment

---

The text is pretty clear.

---

The following court cases say HI:

Brown v. Board of Education
District of Columbia v. Heller
Katz v. United States
Lemon v. Kurtzman
McDonald v. City of Chicago
Miranda v. Arizona
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Obergefell v. Hodges
Riley v. California
Strickland v. Washington
Ashe v. Swenson

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

It's an interpretation of an amendment

---

The text is pretty clear.

---

So clear that the man who wrote it laughed at the idea that anyone would think it applied to illegal immigrants.

btw, I appreciate the new OPs like this because people tend to get tuned out of the ones that go on for weeks and months. Or they come and go and might miss stuff like this because the threads are so long.

There's another tier that's missing from that map. Restricted Birthright citizenship, of which there are about 30 countries.

Situations like unknown parents, or only one parent has to be a citizen, some countries allow it if the parents have been legal residents for 10 years or so.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-birthright-citizenship

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

It's an interpretation of an amendment

---

The text is pretty clear.

---

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.


Yes it is. Notice it says and not or so you have to meet both qualifications. If you are here illegally you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because you are violating our laws and should be deported and your citizenship would be from the country you are from. Not the United States.

Easy peasy

If we need a new amendment to cover this, then I think that is what needs to happen, but you cannot allow anchor babies.

Being in the same grouping as Chad, Tanzania and Pahkeestahn is not something we should strive for...

All persons born

Can someone explain "rule of the blood" to me? Does that just mean if your parents were born in Pakistan and illegally immigrated to Great Brittain, and you were born there, they consider you a Pakistani citizen?

That is why I say the Constt is a dusty old 1788 book and needs revision to get it up to 2025.
Else we will become another archaic Islamic country who goes by a 700AD book.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Can someone explain "rule of the blood" to me? Does that just mean if your parents were born in Pakistan and illegally immigrated to Great Brittain, and you were born there, they consider you a Pakistani citizen?

---

Means you are a citizen based on blood - your parents. If you parents are foreigners, you are too, even if you are born in a different country. So no birthright citizenship. Of course at some point, you can apply to be a citizen.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

All persons born

---

AND subject to jurisdiction thereof. You can't leave that out. The question that must be decided once and for all, is if a person here illegally is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. when they have no legal right to be here. When you have a legal right to be here that is the moment you are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. it is why section one goes immediately into addressing CITIZENS of the U.S.

The amendment does not say all persons born on U.S. soil.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

All persons born

---

You should go watch Conjunction Junction on Schoolhouse rock.

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

It's an interpretation of an amendment

---

The text is pretty clear.

---

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.


Yes it is. Notice it says and not or so you have to meet both qualifications. If you are here illegally you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because you are violating our laws and should be deported and your citizenship would be from the country you are from. Not the United States.

Easy peasy

---

^^^^ THIS.

Easy peasy.

Child of a LEGAL resident = Citizen
Child of an ILLEGAL resident = not Citizen

If you are here, OUTSIDE of the legal jurisdiction, then you are NOT SUBJECT to the jurisdiction.

I'm not sure that's what the EO says though...

Then how can an illegal alien be arrested, charged, and sentenced for murder if they aren't subject to our jurisdiction?
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/illegal-alien-honduras-ice-detainer-sentenced-45-years-prison-murder#:~:text=HOUSTON%2520%E2%80%93%2520An%2520illegal%2520alien%2520from,in%2520Montgomery%2520County%2520(Texas).

Urban Ag said:

---

It's an interpretation of an amendment

---

This.

An interpretation that goes against the actual words of the guy that wrote it and goes against what everybody and their uncle knew what the intent of the admendment was.

infinity ag said:

---

That is why I say the Constt is a dusty old 1788 book and needs revision to get it up to 2025.
Else we will become another archaic Islamic country who goes by a 700AD book.

---

Hell fuggin NO.

Can you imagine what the quality of our politicians today, combined with the absolute stupidity of people today, would put in a document that became the law of the land?

No. Absolutely not. In no way, shape or form.

The Constitution is as valid today as it was the day it was written and signed. The difference is that we have way too many morons that cannot read that think we should do exactly what you are proposing here.

No.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

All persons born

---

You lack fundamental reading and comprehension skills
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

HTownAg98 said:

---

Then how can an illegal alien be arrested, charged, and sentenced for murder if they aren't subject to our jurisdiction?
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/illegal-alien-honduras-ice-detainer-sentenced-45-years-prison-murder#:~:text=HOUSTON%2520%E2%80%93%2520An%2520illegal%2520alien%2520from,in%2520Montgomery%2520County%2520(Texas).

---

Laws =/= jurisdiction

This is an elementary school concept here, the fact that you don't seem to understand that is pretty sad.

Example:

You are not under the jurisdiction of, say, Australia. You are not Australian, you are not a citizen, you owe no allegiances to Australia, you do not pay taxes to Australia, you are not eligible to be conscripted into the Australian military, you cannot voluntarily join the Australian military, you are not eligible to run for office in Australia or serve in any capacity in their government. You cannot vote in elections for Australian government. You are not under their jurisdiction.

But you decide to go to Australia on vacation, get drunk at a bar and on the way back to the resort you swerve your rental car into another one and murder somebody. You have violated Australian statutes and laws are are subject to punishment via their legal system as they deem appropriate. Simply because you are not an Australian citizen or under the jurisdiction of the Australian government does not mean you are exempt from following their established laws while in the borders of their country or territories thereof.

Again...not really a hard concept here. I can simplify it more for you if necessary.

schmellba99 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Then how can an illegal alien be arrested, charged, and sentenced for murder if they aren't subject to our jurisdiction?
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/illegal-alien-honduras-ice-detainer-sentenced-45-years-prison-murder#:~:text=HOUSTON%2520%E2%80%93%2520An%2520illegal%2520alien%2520from,in%2520Montgomery%2520County%2520(Texas).

---

Laws =/= jurisdiction

This is an elementary school concept here, the fact that you don't seem to understand that is pretty sad.

Example:

You are not under the jurisdiction of, say, Australia. You are not Australian, you are not a citizen, you owe no allegiances to Australia, you do not pay taxes to Australia, you are not eligible to be conscripted into the Australian military, you cannot voluntarily join the Australian military, you are not eligible to run for office in Australia or serve in any capacity in their government. You cannot vote in elections for Australian government. You are not under their jurisdiction.

But you decide to go to Australia on vacation, get drunk at a bar and on the way back to the resort you swerve your rental car into another one and murder somebody. You have violated Australian statutes and laws are are subject to punishment via their legal system as they deem appropriate. Simply because you are not an Australian citizen or under the jurisdiction of the Australian government does not mean you are exempt from following their established laws while in the borders of their country or territories thereof.

Again...not really a hard concept here. I can simplify it more for you if necessary.

---

This.

legal jurisdiction =/= political jurisdiction

HTownAg98 said:

---

Then how can an illegal alien be arrested, charged, and sentenced for murder if they aren't subject to our jurisdiction?
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/illegal-alien-honduras-ice-detainer-sentenced-45-years-prison-murder#:~:text=HOUSTON%2520%E2%80%93%2520An%2520illegal%2520alien%2520from,in%2520Montgomery%2520County%2520(Texas).

---

I don't think under jurisdiction means what you think it means.

If an invading army crosses our border they are clearly not under our jurisdiction. Same logic applies if an individual crosses our border

HTownAg98 said:

---

Then how can an illegal alien be arrested, charged, and sentenced for murder if they aren't subject to our jurisdiction?
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/illegal-alien-honduras-ice-detainer-sentenced-45-years-prison-murder#:~:text=HOUSTON%2520%E2%80%93%2520An%2520illegal%2520alien%2520from,in%2520Montgomery%2520County%2520(Texas).

---

Explained a bit already. But consider someone that commits a crime in the US and flees to Mexico. The US can charge that person and bring them to trial. The duties/obligations of the US and more specifically Mexico in that instance regarding extradition depends significantly on whether that person is a us or Mexican citizen. But they can be charged and tried regardless.

If a Mexican citizen is arrested in the US, Mexico can send consulate help. They ain't doing that for a US citizen arrested in America (duh).

If the 14th wanted "birthright citizenship," then it wouldn't have added the qualifier "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Which obviously is intended to mean something.

And the 14th presupposes some type of bloodline/lineage "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." (It is talking about someone being born and presupposing the newborn's "jurisdiction" is provided by the mother).

This whole "well then how can they be charged" is not the gotchya Reddit thinks it is. It might be over there.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Then how can an illegal alien be arrested, charged, and sentenced for murder if they aren't subject to our jurisdiction?
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/illegal-alien-honduras-ice-detainer-sentenced-45-years-prison-murder#:~:text=HOUSTON%2520%E2%80%93%2520An%2520illegal%2520alien%2520from,in%2520Montgomery%2520County%2520(Texas).

---

A "subject to a jurisdiction" means you have an allegience to that jurisdiction. It is derived, historically, from being a "subject of the crown" or someone who was loyal to the monarch, but since the US is not a monarchy, "subject to the crown" would not be applicable thus the difference in verbiage.

Neither an illegal alien nor a tourist is subject to a jurisdication that they are not a citizen of. One can argue a legal resident alien might be subject to the crown.

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

That is why I say the Constt is a dusty old 1788 book and needs revision to get it up to 2025.
Else we will become another archaic Islamic country who goes by a 700AD book.

---

Hell fuggin NO.

Can you imagine what the quality of our politicians today, combined with the absolute stupidity of people today, would put in a document that became the law of the land?

No. Absolutely not. In no way, shape or form.

The Constitution is as valid today as it was the day it was written and signed. The difference is that we have way too many morons that cannot read that think we should do exactly what you are proposing here.

No.

---

What about in 1000 years? 2000 years?
What is the expiry date for the constitution in your mind?

If "subject to the jurisdiction" simply meant "because you're here", then there would not have been any reason to include that line. Combine that with what the stated intent of the amendment was, and it is easy to see what it means.

Im going to revisit an area I mentioned in a different thread. We have well into 7 figures of "migrants" who are permitted to be here until their court dates. How do they fall? I don't trust the courts to treat them as they should. There's time to throw out lots of anchors between now and their dates.