hi phill,

i believe the authors of the 14th amendment as showed in their writings would vehemently disagree with you. their original intent was perfect clear. it was to disqualify children of citizenship if their parents weren't subject to the political juris diction of america.

In your own words, what does "weren't subject to the political jurisdiction of america" mean?

hello vaya,

it is certainly your right to characterize my opinion any way you please, but that being said let me try to be more clear in what i said pertaining to the plain text of the 14th amendment as you call it.

the authors of the "subject to the juris diction thereof" clause plainly said they put in in there to exclude foreigners that didn't subject themselves to the political will of america. i'll quote again:

Sen. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland explained during floor debate, for example, that "all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign power -- for that no doubt is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us -- shall be considered as citizens of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Howard, announced that the clause "will not, of course, include foreigners."

which part of "will not, of course , include foreigners" is difficult to understand? i'm guessing "will not include foreigners means "illegals" in today's parlance. these are the words of the author of the amendment leaving very little open to interpreting his original intent.

when considering the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment, excuse me for siding with their words and not vaya con dios's interpretation of the authors intent.

if that makes me dumb, so be it. and no offense taken.

hello phill,

when interpreting the constitution as a conservative, we should look at the original intent of the authors, so:

The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Howard, announced that the clause "will not, of course, include foreigners."

so, i guess my answer as a conservative would be "what he said".

but since i am a layperson i have a somewhat less restrictive view of what "subject to the juris diction thereof" means.

for example if a foreigner landed on these shores, entered legally through a legal point of entry declaring his interest in becoming a citizen and was willing to wait on line to become a citizen swearing the oath of allegiance, "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God", then i would allow a number of said foreign citizens to enter the country with the intention of becoming citizens.

imo these people would be "subject to the juris diction thereof" since they have sworn allegiance to america and i would allow their children to become citizens if they were born here even if their parents hadn't completed the entire naturalization process.

people's children who jumped the fence to get in wouldn't be eligible since their parents thumbed their nose at the juris diction of the usa by defying federal law and entering illegally.

foreigners who overstayed a visa or jumped the fence while pregnant with the intent of having an anchor baby would not satisfy the subject to the jurisdiction imo, because they have either thumbed their nose at federal law or have not relinquished their foreign citizenship and aren't truly subject to the juris diction thereof.

Stop pretending that these quotes apply specifically to the jurisdiction clause of the Amendment

So why didn't he write that, instead of just saying it?

Not that it matters, because laws are about what they wrote, not what they said afterward.

By way of example, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 says:

This law clearly excludes illegal immigrants.

But hey, maybe the meaning of the word "jurisdiction" changed as soon as Congress began debating the Fourteenth Amendment, and then immediately reverted back to its original meaning. Thats clearly the most likely explanation here.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/07/us...stitution.html

Here is an article that i had to check the date on at least 4 times. Its funny how the world works in cycles.

Anyway, referenced in that article, when the original 14th Amendment was passed not even the people who passed it were clear on whether it covers immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Its all well and good saying what the writer meant, but the language is so vague that it probably means it would have never passed in the first place when his original draft explicitly stopped immigrant children.

To defer to the judgement of one man who voted for it who held your position is easily quashed when i can refer to another man who voted for it who held the opposite view.

If someone is on US soil then they are subject to the laws of the US, period.

I agree with you, I posted the quote to support your argument

So, all you geniuses that want to give sanctuary to illegal immigants want to move to the areas [how about in pup tents] of AZ that have signs up about how it's not safe to be there b/c of the insecure border?

No, but there are lots of places I don't want to live.

Also, it'd be safer with an open immigration policy.

How about a policy where the USA is in control and we know who is in this country? We shoud decide who stays and goes.

We have such a policy. But like all policies, it's imperfect. I mean, we have laws against murder, but murders still happen. Most people who enter the country we know about, and we can admit or deny them as we see fit. However, not everyone leaves when they say they will, and some people cross through the desert or in cargo containers or in trunks. So, how much are you willing to invest to reduce this fault rate and/or what fault rate would you tolerate? And, of course, why are you willing to invest so much more than we already do, and why is your desired fault rate the optimal one? Bear in mind that a fault rate of zero is impossible even with infinite expenditure.

While reading the Wong Kim Ark wiki page, I found that birthright citizenship was not invented by the Fourteenth Amendment, it was also a provision of common law.

Also, the major decision Bob relies on, Elk v Wilkins, was regarding an Indian born on a reservation. The court's ruling was basically that the reservation was not subject to the jurisdiction, a rational decision because reservations were treated as foreign in many ways. Los Angeles is not a reservation.

Should have saved this for when istewart isn't banned

The "subject to US jurisdiction" language is means exactly what it says, because there are people within the US who are not subject to our jurisdiction: Diplomats and invading soldiers. Their children are not granted citizenship.

This would be safer:

Any idea how much 2000 miles of that would cost?

And it still wouldn't keep everyone out.

But would it be visible from space, like the Great Wall of China supposedly is? Might be worth it just for that.

You are wrong, many cities have Sanctuary policies that formerly benefited them. The opportunity costs for sanctuary cities like Phoenix have shifted. AZ and the majority of Americans neither can afford or have the desire to provide sanctuary anymore. Obama, Liberal Judges and the Democrats see an opportunity to switch focus to something other than jobs and spending, which are the number one concerns of Americans right now. Most of the people (those that are not Liberal Judges) want to do more about immigration, that does not mean they want to spend too much money on it, and definitely not "infinite" amounts.

As a one off purchase, they can just borrow the money from China and not invade Iran and they will be no worse off financially but with less dead soldiers and less illegals. It would even work out cheaper than pillboxes in the long run as you wouldn't have to pay wages for a guard every 40 metres until the end of time, no ammo and no court cases.

Anyway, it's only 5x the length of the Israeli security fence so it can't be that much.

How is it not worth $7.5 billion to solve the Mexico problem forever? That's like $200 per illegal.

One month's worth of Middle East war costs.

Sunk costs, now you have to man/maintain it forever