Was this even an option? Well apparently there will be some (((legal dispute))) about whether he can even do this (deny citizenship to american born children of illegals) but we shall see.
[ - ] Bonanza 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 08:56:55 ago (+1/-0)
Gave this a lookup, and actually they don't. Only Canada has Birthright Citizenship similar to what's practiced in the U.S.
The other countries you mentioned confer citizenship based on some combination of Jus Sanguinis (right of blood) and Jus Solis (right of soil). Which basically means you have to be born in the country to one or more parent who already is a citizen.
What I did find interesting is there are indeed other countries that offer birthright citizenship pretty much exactly like it's practiced in the U.S., and they're all in North America and Latin America.
Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, among others and most Caribbean island nations offer unrestricted birthright citizenship. The article I got this info from postulated that this was a carryover from colonial days when large populations of people needed to be imported and assimilated. I've no idea about that.
I think the main reason we're under the misconception that the U S. is the only country with BRC is that everyone wants to come here for all the gravy train free bennies and the Dems have been actively encouraging it for votes. This is also true for the EU of course, but they just facilitate it in a different manner.
This is so frustrating, he's not changing the definition of Birthright Citizenship you fuckheads!
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.
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
It's always been there! ALWAYS. The problem is that for decades those in power chose to ignore it for their own personal objectives.
Everyone, historically, has had a home country and it's usually determined by your parents citizenship or where you are born.
A nation has jurisdiction over it's territory a d it's citizens which is why when you get into trouble in a foreign country the state department intervenes.
People who jump the border are doing so illegally and much like other US laws this fruit of the poisonous tree.
Not sure if fruit of the poisonous tree is applicable. Isn’t that more about constraining the state in their investigations of a crime? Not sure you can apply it to a kid who is on us territory because of a crime their parent committed. I mean, I sure as fuck don’t care if they do, but the question is, is the average law school grad going to buy the argument?
The logical reading of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is if you were born to alien parents in the US you are subject to the jurisdiction of the country of their origin and can't be subject to the jurisdiction of two countries. Therefore birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.
Interesting. I had interpreted it as “subject to a set of of laws” i.e., if I go to Japan on vacation, I am subject to japanese law while there. But perhaps that is not the original intent.
If you move four letters in the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and make it "and subject of the jurisdiction thereto", it clarifies the intent. Unfortunately, it wasn't written that way.
One more point for the record: One definition of a jurisdiction is a geographical territory with set boundaries. A country or a state can be referred to as a jurisdiction.
[ - ] Bonanza 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 11:00:20 ago (+1/-0)
Here is an AI generated response to how the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been previously interpreted by the courts. Apologies for the length, but I think context is important here...
Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof: Interpretation: The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been the focal point for debate. Historically, it was understood to exclude only: Children of foreign diplomats (who are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction because of diplomatic immunity). Children of hostile forces occupying U.S. territory during wartime (based on the understanding that such individuals are not subject to U.S. law). Supreme Court Ruling: The landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) clarified this clause, ruling that children born to immigrant parents (even if those parents were not U.S. citizens or lawful residents) were indeed U.S. citizens if born on U.S. soil. Wong Kim Ark, born to Chinese parents in the U.S., was recognized as a citizen despite the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred his parents from becoming naturalized citizens.
Modern Application: Children of Undocumented Immigrants: Since Wong Kim Ark, the interpretation has generally extended to include children born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S., as these children are considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Political and Legal Debates: Despite this legal foundation, there have been ongoing debates, especially in political spheres, about whether this should apply to children of undocumented immigrants. Proposals to change this aspect of birthright citizenship would require either a reinterpretation by the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment, neither of which has occurred.
This all pretty much gels with what I've heard before on the subject, which basically means this is going to be a long and protacted legal fight which probably ends up before SCOTUS, and with the Roberts' Court's history of cucking, any real change doesn't look promising. ☹️
aha. So it hinges upon a precedent from Wong Kim Ark. Another reason for me to hate chinks. Yes Roberts cucked. But I hear that Sotomayor is not looking so well. Come on, Lord Beetus!
Idgaf about some lawyer either but they will be the ones making the decision since neither you nor me has gone out and murdered them. The law is made by lawyers, until you take away all their money and or kill them. Its a recognition of reality
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 6 points 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 00:44:09 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] NoRefunds
[ - ] NoRefunds 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 06:10:38 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 08:17:25 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Bonanza
[ - ] Bonanza 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 08:56:55 ago (+1/-0)
The other countries you mentioned confer citizenship based on some combination of Jus Sanguinis (right of blood) and Jus Solis (right of soil). Which basically means you have to be born in the country to one or more parent who already is a citizen.
What I did find interesting is there are indeed other countries that offer birthright citizenship pretty much exactly like it's practiced in the U.S., and they're all in North America and Latin America.
Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, among others and most Caribbean island nations offer unrestricted birthright citizenship. The article I got this info from postulated that this was a carryover from colonial days when large populations of people needed to be imported and assimilated. I've no idea about that.
I think the main reason we're under the misconception that the U S. is the only country with BRC is that everyone wants to come here for all the gravy train free bennies and the Dems have been actively encouraging it for votes. This is also true for the EU of course, but they just facilitate it in a different manner.
[ + ] WTFisthisshit
[ - ] WTFisthisshit 3 points 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 01:51:51 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] NeonGreen
[ - ] NeonGreen 2 points 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 03:36:26 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger 3 points 3 monthsJan 20, 2025 22:55:40 ago (+4/-1)
meanwhile the big corps keep hiring illegals and H1B's
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena [op] 0 points 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 09:55:26 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Ragnar
[ - ] Ragnar 2 points 3 monthsJan 20, 2025 23:54:04 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 05:52:07 ago (+1/-0)
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
It's always been there! ALWAYS. The problem is that for decades those in power chose to ignore it for their own personal objectives.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena [op] 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 09:59:33 ago (+1/-0)
ELI5, how does this clause make a difference? Are foreign illegals subject to so other other country by virtue of being citizens there?
I understand there is a difference in interpretation and he is challenging the status quo interpretation.
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 10:20:42 ago (+1/-0)
Everyone, historically, has had a home country and it's usually determined by your parents citizenship or where you are born.
A nation has jurisdiction over it's territory a d it's citizens which is why when you get into trouble in a foreign country the state department intervenes.
People who jump the border are doing so illegally and much like other US laws this fruit of the poisonous tree.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena [op] 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 10:29:50 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] BoozyB
[ - ] BoozyB 2 points 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 12:48:17 ago (+2/-0)
We can hope.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena [op] 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 12:56:31 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] BoozyB
[ - ] BoozyB 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 13:10:14 ago (+1/-0)*
The Framers would have used "subject" in that context because at the time they had recently been subjects of the British Crown.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena [op] 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 13:45:49 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] BoozyB
[ - ] BoozyB 0 points 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 14:13:05 ago (+0/-0)
it clarifies the intent.
Unfortunately, it wasn't written that way.
[ + ] BoozyB
[ - ] BoozyB 0 points 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 21:48:39 ago (+0/-0)
One definition of a jurisdiction is a geographical territory with set boundaries.
A country or a state can be referred to as a jurisdiction.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena [op] 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 21:55:35 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Bonanza
[ - ] Bonanza 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 11:00:20 ago (+1/-0)
Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof:
Interpretation: The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been the focal point for debate. Historically, it was understood to exclude only:
Children of foreign diplomats (who are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction because of diplomatic immunity).
Children of hostile forces occupying U.S. territory during wartime (based on the understanding that such individuals are not subject to U.S. law).
Supreme Court Ruling: The landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) clarified this clause, ruling that children born to immigrant parents (even if those parents were not U.S. citizens or lawful residents) were indeed U.S. citizens if born on U.S. soil. Wong Kim Ark, born to Chinese parents in the U.S., was recognized as a citizen despite the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred his parents from becoming naturalized citizens.
Modern Application:
Children of Undocumented Immigrants: Since Wong Kim Ark, the interpretation has generally extended to include children born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S., as these children are considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Political and Legal Debates: Despite this legal foundation, there have been ongoing debates, especially in political spheres, about whether this should apply to children of undocumented immigrants. Proposals to change this aspect of birthright citizenship would require either a reinterpretation by the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment, neither of which has occurred.
This all pretty much gels with what I've heard before on the subject, which basically means this is going to be a long and protacted legal fight which probably ends up before SCOTUS, and with the Roberts' Court's history of cucking, any real change doesn't look promising. ☹️
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena [op] 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 12:59:49 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Bonanza
[ - ] Bonanza 1 point 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 13:11:56 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 0 points 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 15:30:20 ago (+0/-0)
Idaf about some law student/lawyer jew. The Law is the law and Subject to the jurisdiction of is and has always been clear.
Birthright citizenship is determined by the ability/OBLIGATION of the US government to protect and defend it's citizens.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena [op] 0 points 3 monthsJan 21, 2025 15:35:06 ago (+0/-0)