The Second Amendment, Gun Control, and School Shootings.

[KimGordon67]

In comment 626 you reiterated there is 1 of 4 ways to become a US citizen. Something the LWCJ so readily overlooks and why they don't understand illegal immigration.

Yes, and one of those four ways is being born in the US.
If you're born in the US, you are a US citizen. You don't then have to satisfy the other three means of becoming a citizen - they're all standalone criteria.

 

[Rightguide]

You need to understand "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the context of TWO Supreme Court cases: Elk v. Wilkins and U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Elks is about indians. It's a special case given the predating of a culture prior to the establishment of America as a sovereign nation. Wong is basically about everyone else born here and the fact that, for the most part and with few exceptions, those born here can CHOOSE jurisdictional subservience to the United States independent of the birthplace of their parents.

Here is the Wiki entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause) and the most relevant paragraphs within it:



Now go back and read that last paragraph again. The 2010 CRS report argues that while the terms of citizenship must legally be consistent with the Court's holding in Wong Kim Ark, the numerated powers of Congressional legislation under the Constitution give it broad authority in the area of immigration re "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Don't confuse the two applications of the phrase.

You might take note of this analysis:

"The origins of this language are a bit hazy, but it must be recalled that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to correct the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) and recognize citizenship for the newly-freed slaves (but not members of Indian tribes living on reservations). The language of the Citizenship Clause derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators (the 39th Congress) who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” (Emphasis added.) Foreign nationals resident in the United States, and children who become citizens of a foreign country at birth (by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) would obviously be excluded from this definition.

Granted, the language of the Citizenship Clause deviates slightly from that of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but there is no compelling evidence that the 39th Congress intended a different meaning. In fact, the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), stated that its language “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” explaining that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” (Emphasis added.)

The record of the debate in 1866 is illuminating. When Senator ***** Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.” (Emphasis added.) Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its “jurisdiction” in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted into the armed forces of the United States, or prosecuted for treason if they take up arms against it.

Senator Howard agreed with Trumbull’s explanation, saying:

I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, . . . ; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."


In regard to your cites of jurisprudence:

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The oft-cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) involved the offspring of a Chinese couple present in the United States legally. And the frequently cited language from Plyler v. Doe (1982)—a 5 to 4 decision written by the activist Justice William Brennan, hardly a strong authority—is dicta contained in a footnote! Automatic birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal immigrants is an anomaly; the United States and Canada are the only developed countries in the world to recognize it. No European country does. American voters overwhelmingly oppose birthright citizenship, by almost 2 to 1 according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Regardless whether one supports Donald Trump for President, he has raised an important issue and provoked a long overdue discussion of the subject of birthright citizenship. For that, he deserves credit.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/...-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You might take note of this analysis:

"The origins of this language are a bit hazy, but it must be recalled that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to correct the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) and recognize citizenship for the newly-freed slaves (but not members of Indian tribes living on reservations). The language of the Citizenship Clause derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators (the 39th Congress) who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” (Emphasis added.) Foreign nationals resident in the United States, and children who become citizens of a foreign country at birth (by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) would obviously be excluded from this definition.

Granted, the language of the Citizenship Clause deviates slightly from that of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but there is no compelling evidence that the 39th Congress intended a different meaning. In fact, the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), stated that its language “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” explaining that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” (Emphasis added.)

The record of the debate in 1866 is illuminating. When Senator ***** Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.” (Emphasis added.) Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its “jurisdiction” in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted into the armed forces of the United States, or prosecuted for treason if they take up arms against it.

Senator Howard agreed with Trumbull’s explanation, saying:

I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, . . . ; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."


In regard to your cites of jurisprudence:

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The oft-cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) involved the offspring of a Chinese couple present in the United States legally. And the frequently cited language from Plyler v. Doe (1982)—a 5 to 4 decision written by the activist Justice William Brennan, hardly a strong authority—is dicta contained in a footnote! Automatic birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal immigrants is an anomaly; the United States and Canada are the only developed countries in the world to recognize it. No European country does. American voters overwhelmingly oppose birthright citizenship, by almost 2 to 1 according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Regardless whether one supports Donald Trump for President, he has raised an important issue and provoked a long overdue discussion of the subject of birthright citizenship. For that, he deserves credit.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/...-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/

Yes, that very language and legislative intent with regard to "not subject to any foreign power" vis-a-vis "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was duly analyzed by and formed a substantive part of the dissenting opinions of Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan in Wong Kim Ark.

They lost. Get over it.

The lack of recognition of birthright citizenship by European nations is irrelevant for the purposes of OUR governance as is the 2 - 1 American "public opinion" majority if that American majority does not see fit to change it by legal means.

Birthright citizenship to children born on American soil to a parent (most particularly a mother) who is here illegally is NOT irrelevant because it is NOT altogether clear that the Wong Kim precedent (which was ALL about LEGAL residency by both child and parent) applies to a child OR parent who is here illegally.

We know what the law IS with regard to children born here whose parents are here legally, regardless of where those parents happen to be citizens. That child, quite likely, holds dual citizenship afforded BOTH by his birth in the United States AND the laws of the nation in which his parents are citizens. That child invariably has the CHOICE of choosing the "jurisdiction thereof" to which he will affix his allegiance AND enjoy whatever fruits may flow from his legal citizenship. And the "other" country be damned. Often quite literally.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, that very language and legislative intent with regard to "not subject to any foreign power" vis-a-vis "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was duly analyzed by and formed a substantive part of the dissenting opinions of Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan in Wong Kim Ark.

They lost. Get over it.

The lack of recognition of birthright citizenship by European nations is irrelevant for the purposes of OUR governance as is the 2 - 1 American "public opinion" majority if that American majority does not see fit to change it by legal means.

Birthright citizenship to children born on American soil to a parent (most particularly a mother) who is here illegally is NOT irrelevant because it is NOT altogether clear that the Wong Kim precedent (which was ALL about LEGAL residency by both child and parent) applies to a child OR parent who is here illegally.

We know what the law IS with regard to children born here whose parents are here legally, regardless of where those parents happen to be citizens. That child, quite likely, holds dual citizenship afforded BOTH by his birth in the United States AND the laws of the nation in which his parents are citizens. That child invariably has the CHOICE of choosing the "jurisdiction thereof" to which he will affix his allegiance AND enjoy whatever fruits may flow from his legal citizenship. And the "other" country be damned. Often quite literally.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

We know what the "present interpretation" of the law is and it could change either by another court decision or simply amended by congressional legislation which is allowed for in the text of the 14th.

 

[phrodeau]

We know what the "present interpretation" of the law is and it could change either by another court decision or simply amended by congressional legislation which is allowed for in the text of the 14th.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

 

[Hypoxia]

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

If wishes were horses, we'd be over our heads in horseshit.

Oh wait, we already are.

So it's true.

Meanwhile, I fail to see how immigration laws relate to school shootings and the 2nd Amendment flap. Hey, the 2nd has already been overturned. We have no well-regulated militia; a white citizens' militia to suppress slave revolts isn't necessary now (hopefully); and weapons-bearing is severely infringed and regulated. A dead horse, there. Where do immigrants come in?

 

[richard_daily]

If wishes were horses, we'd be over our heads in horseshit.

Oh wait, we already are.

So it's true.

Meanwhile, I fail to see how immigration laws relate to school shootings and the 2nd Amendment flap. Hey, the 2nd has already been overturned. We have no well-regulated militia; a white citizens' militia to suppress slave revolts isn't necessary now (hopefully); and weapons-bearing is severely infringed and regulated. A dead horse, there. Where do immigrants come in?

You've been shown a half-dozen times how the 2nd amendment isn't about militias, but you keep peddling that worn-out bullshit.

You WANT it to be about militias, but it isn't, and that's been proven in case law for over 100 years.

Please stop lying.

 

[IG_88]

If wishes were horses, we'd be over our heads in horseshit.

Oh wait, we already are.

So it's true.

Meanwhile, I fail to see how immigration laws relate to school shootings and the 2nd Amendment flap. Hey, the 2nd has already been overturned. We have no well-regulated militia; a white citizens' militia to suppress slave revolts isn't necessary now (hopefully); and weapons-bearing is severely infringed and regulated. A dead horse, there. Where do immigrants come in?

I'd like to say you aren't this fucking dumb but we all know you are.

 

[Hypoxia]

I'd like to say you aren't this fucking dumb but we all know you are.

My, aren't you eloquent. You may perform oral sex on me now. After you use mouthwash, the strong stuff.