On Monday, January 5, 2015 10:38:35 PM UTC-5, Martin Eastburn wrote:
On 1/5/2015 7:36 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
benj wrote:
On 01/05/2015 04:40 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 1/5/2015 1:30 PM, hal lillywhite wrote:
On Monday, January 5, 2015 12:11:40 PM UTC-8, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Much as I am in sympathy with this, I must disagree. The reason that
the Constitution requires birth and subject to our law is that there
are diplomats not subject to our law. Their children born here are
not automatically citizens.

The wording of the citizenship clause was not necessary to exclude the
US-born offspring of diplomatic personnel. That was already a
universal
feature of international law.

Sorry, I cannot agree with that.

I don't care if you "feel" you can or cannot agree with it. It's a
fact. No other nation has wording like that in its citizenship or
nationality law - because it's superfluous.


The wording is rather clear. Child is born here and our law applies to
that child, he is a citizen.

Sorry, but no - being subject to the law does *not* mean being subject
to the full and complete jurisdiction of the country. You're simply
wrong about it, and you refuse to learn. It is painfully obvious that
you didn't even read the original post, which was a /verbatim/
reproduction of a piece on the topic by noted constitutional scholar
John C. Eastman. He elaborates on the discussion of the "subject to the
jurisdiction" clause, and you didn't read it or didn't understand it. He
also points out that in the first Supreme Court case in which the
meaning of the clause was cited in the decision's holding - Elk v.
Wilkins, 1884 - the court expressly acknowledged the meaning of the
clause as understood by the Senate at the time of passage. In the words
of Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the judiciary committee where the
amendment first was debated:

"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means
'subject to the *complete* jurisdiction thereof.' [emphasis added]
... What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

If you are going to say that a Mexican illegal border jumper owes
allegiance to the U.S. simply by virtue of jumping the border, you are
wrong and ignorant.

You seem to have a directional problem. There "owing allegiance to"
where the person is pledging allegiance to the country and there is
"under the jurisdiction of" where by the country is setting laws for the
person.

So anyone that walks into the country with permission or not is
obviously under the jurisdiction. They can collect welfare, get medical
attention, drive cars, get work, send kids to schools, vote, etc. But
there is no "allegiance" since they don't have to pay taxes, register
for draft, or take the normal responsibilities of citizenship.

What hole have you been living in?

Aliens not holding a "green card" may not collect welfare, work, or vote
- except in a few renegade New Hampshire townships. Similarly they must
pay taxes and register for the draft if they meet the gender and age
requirements and are not here on a student or visitor visa.

In all but a handful or states they are ineligible for driver's licenses
and thus may not drive legally .

The only thing you got right is the "sending kids to school" bit.

I think we may safely ignore your "contributions" from here on in.

The far left wing city of San Francisco passed a ruling that
allowed 'residents' to vote. e.g. You flew in from Moscow on the 6pm
plane from London. By 7pm you have voted for city officers and
anyone else running in the state on the ballot. It isn't
right. Not legal.

Leftist business leaders and government officials and their enthusiastic supporters in progressive yuppie places like San Fran and Vermont decide what's best in their working and residential environments.

If you rightists dislike that, then run out to the hills and live in the middle of nowhere.