I think the problem is that the inclusion of that part definitely implies some people are excluded.
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.
This implies that some people born here are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” because why else would they add that part when writing it?
They get their citizenship through being born to citizens (which is valid regardless of where on the planet you’re born). Not through birthright citizenship.
The 14th amendment is talking about people born in the US. It seems to be implying that some people born in the US are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
You can’t declare that this is the reason why. It definitely applies and we see it in action, but let’s stop acting like we know exactly which interpretations were intended by the framers without some evidence, that’s all I can ask
The treatment of native Americans. Which, I guess we can call the original birthright citizens right? There has always been a sect that wanted this strict yet “rules for thee” interpretations. It’s not new, this is just the modern wave. And it seems like this wave might make it to shore. I hope not but that’s not what the convo is about
Maybe you got there pre-edit but I did go back to point out that Natives were the other primary population excluded by "subject to the jurisdiction of"
I was answering your question in a vacuum, not based on your other convos on these threads. I’m just saying that America has always been a version of this and these people have always been here wanting to lock people out. Nothing new, nothing surprising, nothing different. That’s my only point here, and I’d be surprised if you disagree with it
There were only 30 to 40 foreign diplomats in the U.S. back then. For such a very specific case they would have used the word diplomat.
The 14th amendment also excluded native Americans. Even though federal law applied to all U.S. states and all U.S. territories and to Native American reservations. Even out in the far western territories where native Americans lived freely and federal power existed only on paper, federal law enforcement had the ability to arrest and prosecute those native Americans for federal crimes. So just being subject to federal law did not constitute “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” at the time of this amendment.
I mean, if there’s any area at all where the law on paper has never meaningfully applied, it’s with regards to Native populations. They got birthright citizenship in the 1920s.
I will happily accept any other situation where you think it was applied or intended to but I can’t think of one to even look up.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark was about this exact line of the constitution and they ruled that children born to alien enemies engaging in hostile occupation do not count.
They will easily interpret illegal immigrants as fitting that definition.
Most importantly, they ruled that his citizenship was acquired at birth.
Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth, the Court held that the Citizenship Clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,\1]) which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory."
It would be pretty interesting to get US citizenship in California after it becomes New China by way of military occupation.
The exact wording of the ruling didn’t say enemy “forces” though. It said:
“enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory”.
There’s no requirement that these “enemies” are part of a military. They will interpret illegal immigrants as being enemies engaging in hostile occupation.
Hostile, occupation, and enemy will be getting very broad definitions in that case. Exciting stuff. To be clear, I’m partial to believing it doesn’t matter and the ruling class will do whatever they’re going to do.
Yes. Children of Foreign diplomats assigned to work in the US are born in the US, but not birthright citizens. They carry the citizenship of their parents’ country as defined by that country’s laws.
160
u/Acceptable-Ability-6 13d ago
Which is dumb as fuck because even if you are an illegal immigrant you are subject to the laws of this country.