8 U.S. Code Section 1401. The following shall be NATIONALS and citizens of the U.S. at birth

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: luthier

I am pretty sure Occam was referring to the legal status of 'permanent resident.' IOW, a green card holder. You wouldn't be considered an "illegal" immigrant with permanent resident status.

Well considering green cards started around 1940 I doubt it

My point is that they were legally domiciled and residing in the U.S.

a reply to: luthier

Except there were. That was the whole point of Ark. The US said you can't come back to America. What do we call someone who can't come to America and does so anyways?

a reply to: luthier

It's not my argument, it's the Supreme Court's argument. Last I checked that's what matters.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Like about 8 million illegals? 4 to 5 million that own homes?

The point is Congress writes what that means. In the 1800's ot sure wasn't illegal. Today it is.

The real problem however is Republicans and Democrats over looked 11 million under the table workers because they both benefited from reducing the rights of the cheaper labor.

Here is something interesting...

The purpose of the 14th was to protect recently freed slaves. Before the 14th there was only state citizenship, not Untied States citizenship, so many states were not giving recently freed slaves citizenship and that is why it is worded as it is. This was a time with many people born in the US as slaves to parents that were born here too or brought here as slaves and so were not citizens of any state. The 14th was needed to fix that, but today it is not needed, and was not needed before freeing the slaves. This example of that was considered a citizen before the 14th written by Thomas Jefferson for the state of Virginia is a little clearer as to what represents a citizen of a country.

The State of Virginia outright rejected the common law doctrine in 1777 when it adopted the following doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson:

[A]ll infants, whenever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

edit on 1-11-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

It isn't necessary but there is a painful process to remove it that should be used or every vague wording in the constitution can be challenged by EO. Maybe the right to bare arms doesnt mean that any more because of when it was written....

The founders made the system for a reason, they also chose the words in the constitution whether specific or vague with purpose.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The purpose of the 14th was to protect recently freed slaves.

If that's the case, then the 14th Amendment wasn't even needed, and should have been a temporary edict. Because, the slaves that were freed and their children gained automatic citizenship, and their unborn children would have been the children of citizens, who already gained citizenship. So, the 14th Amendment would only be useful for a few years, at most.

Since the legislators went to so much trouble to make this an amendment, and not a temporary edict to protect recently freed slaves, to make sure this amendment existed in perpetuity, one must infer that the authors meant what they said, in perpetuity.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It was needed, that's why we have it. It ensured the freed slaves would remain that way.

a reply to: luthier

No one cares what Trump thinks or what you think. The SC will rule. Last I checked that isn't a bad thing.

a reply to: luthier

Yes it was written for people that had a reason to be here, we make an agreement with nations for the purpose of diplomacy, not for those trying usurp our laws.

A tourist is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction they reside in, it doesnt make them a subject of that jurisdiction. We have the jurisdictional authority to charge them with crimes and the authority to provide a certain amount of safety, until they return to the nation they are a subject of (citizen).

a reply to: luthier

Property ownership has nothing to do with being domiciled.

originally posted by: luthier
It isn't necessary but there is a painful process to remove it that should be used or every vague wording in the constitution can be challenged by EO. Maybe the right to bare arms doesnt mean that any more because of when it was written....

The founders made the system for a reason, they also chose the words in the constitution whether specific or vague with purpose.

We constantly challenge wording..."The Right To bear Arms" is a good example. Why not challenge this to suggest that at least one parent must be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to be considered a citizen.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Where, why, how did the legal concept of 'US nationality' come to be separated from US citizenship.

Why is nationality NOT conferred to those born in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, via the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1. 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.

Yet, Congress expressly confers nationality at birth to people born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (and under many other qualifying circumstances), when they passed the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act?

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(etc…)

Link

The only way to acquire US nationality is via the operation of laws created by Congress. However, you can be born a citizen by virtue of the US Constitution.

The fact is, in 1952, Congress created a situation where people could be born citizens, but not be born nationals.

Why would Congress do such a thing? Why would they create a situation where a person could enjoy the benefits of citizenship without the burden of allegiance through nationality?

To me, that seems reckless and very curious given the events current to the 1950s.

All of our laws regarding eligibility for a government office depend, in part, on citizenship and none expressly require nationality.

Why would Congress create a way to bypass eligibility laws by making it so someone who owes no allegiance to the US could be born a citizen?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Especially when we have 2 rulings both of which touch on illegal immigration and neither confirms illegals' children are granted citizenship at birth.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Nationals are born here they do not need to earn their citizenship. For others citizenship can be obtained by hard work study and dedication to the constitution.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do you honestly believe that every person who is an american holds allegiance to this country?

You do not have to love America to be an American.. Thats the best thing about living here. You are not forced into any kind of allegiance.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Nationals are born here they do not need to earn their citizenship. For others citizenship can be obtained by hard work study and dedication to the constitution.

Not at all nationals are citizens.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


If that's the case, then the 14th Amendment wasn't even needed, and should have been a temporary edict. Because, the slaves that were freed and their children gained automatic citizenship, and their unborn children would have been the children of citizens, who already gained citizenship. So, the 14th Amendment would only be useful for a few years, at most.

Since the legislators went to so much trouble to make this an amendment, and not a temporary edict to protect recently freed slaves, to make sure this amendment existed in perpetuity, one must infer that the authors meant what they said, in perpetuity.

It is because there are 5 sections to the 14th not just what we are talking about. In any case it was all about bringing the confederacy back under full jurisdiction. Freed slaves did not gain automatic citizenship since as I said before citizenship was state level before the 14th and many (democratic) states refused to give citizen rights to prior slaves.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do you honestly believe that every person who is an american holds allegiance to this country?

You do not have to love America to be an American.. Thats the best thing about living here. You are not forced into any kind of allegiance.

Well, you are actually forced into an allegiance and I assume you want to force it on every child born in the US, too?

But, if you aren't feeling it, then you can always renounce your US nationality and therefore your citizenship. Otherwise you have tacitly agreed to your US allegiance...if you qualified for citizenship and nationality under 8 US code section 1401, that is.

IOW, I am discussing concrete legal concepts...you're talking about your emotions.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

No one cares what Trump thinks or what you think. The SC will rule. Last I checked that isn't a bad thing.

How? Do presidents normally bring up lawsuits against the states or government to challenge the constitution?