14th. "....and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

[sirs]

That seems to be the part folks like xo continually ignore, in the clear wording of the 14th amendment...as in SETTLED LAW. 

Illegal immigrants are NOT subject to our jurisdiction.  There's a whole host of legal parameters that Citizens and LEGAL Immigrants sre subject to, that ILLEGAL immigrants are not.  Among them include that they can not vote, nor can they serve on jury duty.  Yes, they're supposed to follow what laws are in place, but being they broke the law to come here in the 1st place, and as such are NOT completely subject to our jurisdiction, is precsiely why this issue needs to be clarified thru subsequent legislation, or a court case in front of the Supreme Court. 

It's also  why the ongoing reference of the Ark case is moot, since the individual in that case WAS subject to the jurisdiction of this country, because they were.......wait for it.....A LEGAL IMMIGRANT.  Thus no need to rehear that case, nor any need for a Constitutional amendment

[Xavier_Onassis]

Wong was a legal citizen, because he was born in the US.
He was NOT an immigrant, because he was born here: no one born here can be an immigrant.
Everyone born here is a legal citizen, other than diplomat's children.

I would think that anyone in California, where there are LOTS if Chinese would know that a Chinese person named Wong Van Ark would have the surname WONG, as in China, as in Japan and Hungary and many other places, the surname comes first. So he is Mr. Wong, not Mr. Ark.

Next time check with the local Chinese restaurant and you can conform this.

You have much to learn, grasshopper.
With this one, the Force weak is.

[sirs]

And Ark's parents were LEGAL Immigrants, thus subject to the full Jurisdiction of this country, which is consistent with the 14th amendment's wording.  We're talking about the parent, xo, not the child

[Xavier_Onassis]

The 14th amendment says NOTHING about the parents of anyone born in the US.

[sirs]

Where the hell did the baby come from??  Immaculate Conception??  A Yellowstone Geyser just spouted a baby??  The 14th was SPECIFIC in trying to protect children that had just been given birth by newly freed slaves.....AS IN THEIR PARENTS.  The role of the Parents is implicit within the 14th, when you acknowledge who is being subject to the jurisdiction thereof  It's not the baby, its the parents. 

And per the clear wording of the 14th, any child born to parents who are subject to the full jurisdiction of this country, in turn, is granted automatic citizenship to this country.  That would include any and all LEGAL Immigrants/Foreigners

[Plane]

Where the hell did the baby come from??  Immaculate Conception??  A Yellowstone Geyser just spouted a baby??  The 14th was SPECIFIC in trying to protect children that had just been given birth by newly freed slaves.....AS IN THEIR PARENTS.  The role of the Parents is implicit within the 14th, when you acknowledge who is being subject to the jurisdiction thereof  It's not the baby, its the parents. 

And per the clear wording of the 14th, any child born to parents who are subject to the full jurisdiction of this country, in turn, is granted automatic citizenship to this country.  That would include any and all LEGAL Immigrants/Foreigners

    I think you are in error , in that anyone that is located on US territory is subject to US jurisdiction. The visit may be brief , but during the time that the person is in the jurisdiction , that person is "subject".

[sirs]

Subject to laws, but not jurisdiction, as i provided in a pair of examples.....No Jury Duty, No Voting.  And don't get me started on Sanctuary Cities

[Plane]

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=jurisdiction+definition


   I think our disagreement is in the meaning of the word, jurisdiction.

    A non citizen can be within the jurisdiction of the USA easily and often, if they have legitimate business in the USA it behooves them to learn the laws of the nation and the state and city(s) they will be in because there may be things legal at their home and not here.

    I understand that it is popular for Japanese tourists to visit gun ranges and rent firearms for an experience that they can't have at home.

    If you are a Nudist you might enjoy the beaches of Germany.

     Entering the differing jurisdictions closes one rule book and opens another.

ju·ris·dic·tion


/?jo?or?s?dikSH(?)n/


noun

noun: jurisdiction




the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
"federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case"


synonyms: authority, control, power, dominion, rule, administration, command, sway, leadership, sovereignty, hegemony
"an area under French jurisdiction"




•the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments.
"the claim will be within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal"



•a system of law courts; a judicature.
plural noun: jurisdictions

"in some jurisdictions there is a mandatory death sentence for murder"



•the territory or sphere of activity over which the legal authority of a court

[Xavier_Onassis]

This is just babbling, sirs.. You may continue to babble.

But you are wrong. It will take a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. And not even that could be retroactive, so there is no legal way that anyone born here prior to the amendment being enacted could be deported.

[sirs]

Of course it would take a constitutional amendment to "end birthright citizenship".  That however HAS NEVER BEEN WHAT I'VE BEEN REFERRING TO, and as such wouldn't require such a Judicial effort.  SCOTUS merely needs to better clarify the current Federal statutes as it relates to the 14th, which would continue to bestow birthright citizenship, to ANY child born to those who are subject to the full jurisdiction of this country......that being LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.  Nor would that be retroactive.  It would simply take effect upon the date of the ruling

[Plane]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/more-chinese-hiring-us-surrogates-for-babies/vi-BBm1KkA


Science outruns the law .

[Xavier_Onassis]

Suppose an undocumented immigrant runs a red light. The cop stops him and gives him a ticket.

He goes to court and says "I do not have to ay this ticket, because I am NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION of the US government".

So of course, because sirs is right, the judge says "You're right, you aren't, you got me there!"

How likely is this scenario?

Anyone in this country is under the jurisdiction (ie the Legal system) of its laws.

Perhaps the Ambassador of Belarus would not have to pay the fine, okay. But he is clearly a diplomat, and diplomats are exempt.

When I lived in Mexico, my friend Thierry Brachet, who despite the name and the fact that he was half Greek and half French, was a Mexican citizen. He drove an old Land Rover, and he never got a ticket for parking or driving in Mexico City, because his old Land Rover had Diplomatic Plates from the Belgian Embassy, where Thierry's brother worked.

[sirs]

ANY criminal, be it a rapist, murderer, kidnapper, or tresspasser, that commits a crime within our borders, is within our jurisdiction of prosecuting them. 

That's not the same thing the 14th is referencing, when a person is subject to the jurisidiction thereof.  It implicit to anyone legally here, who has standing to be here, and may be mandated to perform functions of the citizenry, that a criminal would not be able to perform, because they are in fact, a criminal

[sirs]

.....this is again why SCOTUS should be presented a case, that make this point abundantly clear, as it relates to who specifically the Founders intended jurisidiction to be encompassing, so that the ongoing abuse of the 14th can be ceased

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Founders had nothing really to say about who is a citizen. They may not have thought of their slaves as citizens or of Indians not taxes as citizens, but anyone who was not an Indian or and African born here was clearly a citizen, because that was English Common Law and it is the basis for all our laws.

In 1785, the US was underpopulated and they were certainly not in the mood to turn down anyone.

The 14th Amendment said if you are born here, you are a cirtizen, period. It did not say the words "slave", "former slave" , "Black:, "Negro, "Colored Person" or "person of African descent".

And then the Wong case said nothing at all about the nationality of Wong's parents. It simpley said "Wong was born here: despite Chinese exclusion act, Wong stays: Wong is American." How come Wong American? WONG BORN HERE!

Everyone born here, American!


First you say that the Courts do not even have to hear the case. Now you think that they have to.

I see this as a sign that you know you have lost the argument.  OOOO! That must hurt!