Ron Paul, anyone?
- Thread starter Haterade
- Start date
mrawesome22
New member
No, it doesn't. Neither does any of
it's amendments.
Last edited:
14th Amendment: Section. 1. 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.
Note: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" If the parents (at least one) is not a citizen, the baby is NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
We just HAVE to quit twisting around the words.
Note: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" If the parents (at least one) is not a citizen, the baby is NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
We just HAVE to quit twisting around the words.
And this is according to..........who? How is the baby not subject to the jurisdiction of the US if it's on US soil?
It wouldn't but you're not going to repeal that amendment, especially considering the rest of its very important and necessary sections, any sooner than you're going to repeal the 2nd.
There's another side to the story of how we got the 14th amendment, and what it implies...
mrawesome22
New member
The baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because its parent is not.
So now you're saying once you stand on U.S. soil you should automatically be a U.S. citizen?
An illegal alien in the U.S. does not reside in the U.S. They officially reside in whichever country they were a legal citizen before they came to the U.S. illegally.
Last edited:
Redworm, let's look at this using logic and English.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...
Notice the AND. Just being born here is not enough. There has to be something more. What that is may be up for discussion, but there also has to be something that disqualifies them from citizenship. Gee, how about illegal entry by the parents?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...
Notice the AND. Just being born here is not enough. There has to be something more. What that is may be up for discussion, but there also has to be something that disqualifies them from citizenship. Gee, how about illegal entry by the parents?
Wait, you're telling me that even if I'm in the country I'm not subject to its laws? Because unless I'm mistaken that's what jurisdiction means. So if the parent is on US soil then the parent is subject to the laws of the US and thus within the jurisdiction of the US. Even someone here illegally is still subject to the law.
If you stand on it the moment after your birth, yes.
Where does this "officially reside" concept come from? Maybe we have different definitions of 'reside' as well because if an illegal is renting an apartment and that illegal lives in that apartment then that illegal most certainly resides in that apartment. If that apartment is in the US then that illegal resides in the US and is subject to its laws, hence within the jurisdiction of the US. Yes, "and". We already know what that something more is. Jurisdiction. The US has jurisdiction over all people within its borders.
If there's some case law or statute or something else that refutes all this, by all means enlighten me because all I have is the words in that amendment. That being said, I do believe any person born on US soil should be a citizen automatically and if Paul will truly try to repeal that he will lose my vote as if he were trying to repeal the 2nd amendment or the 1st or the 4th or the 5th/8th/9th/10th/etc. I believe it's very important to retain that birthright citizenship.
mrawesome22
New member
You offically reside in the country where you are a citizen. If you are in the U.S. illegally, everything you do is illegal. Including your illegal residence.
Exactly. Say your from Mexico, living here illegally in the U.S. and get busted for selling drugs. Since you are an official Mexican citizen, Mexico has the first say in what happens to you. The U.S. would call up Mexico, say "We caught one of your citizens illegally in our country selling drugs. Do you want us to extradite him or do you want to give us permission to punish him under our law?".
They would probably say "We give you permission to punish him under your governments laws since bringing him back here would just cost us money we don't have, plus we want to remain buddy, buddy with the U.S.".
But on the flip side, Mexico could easily say "Send him back to our country immediately! That is one of our officials nephew!". Now this guy goes back to Mexico, gets a slap on the wrist, and is back in San Diago next week.
The only people under U.S. jurisdiction are legal U.S. citizens.
Did I clear that up for you?
Exactly. Say your from Mexico, living here illegally in the U.S. and get busted for selling drugs. Since you are an official Mexican citizen, Mexico has the first say in what happens to you. The U.S. would call up Mexico, say "We caught one of your citizens illegally in our country selling drugs. Do you want us to extradite him or do you want to give us permission to punish him under our law?".
They would probably say "We give you permission to punish him under your governments laws since bringing him back here would just cost us money we don't have, plus we want to remain buddy, buddy with the U.S.".
But on the flip side, Mexico could easily say "Send him back to our country immediately! That is one of our officials nephew!". Now this guy goes back to Mexico, gets a slap on the wrist, and is back in San Diago next week.
The only people under U.S. jurisdiction are legal U.S. citizens.
Did I clear that up for you?
From:http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/birthrightcitizenship.htm
"The jurisdiction requirement was added to the original draft of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate after a lengthy and acrimonious debate. In fact, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. Sen. Howard noted that the jurisdiction requirement is "simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already." Sen. Howard said that "this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.""
"The Supreme Court, however, has never decided the issue. The closest it has come is a case involving the U.S.-born child of lawful permanent residents in which, of course, it held the child to be a U.S. citizen. In the absence of a ruling by the Supreme Court, it will remain up to Congress to clarify the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment or to accept the status quo."
"The jurisdiction requirement was added to the original draft of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate after a lengthy and acrimonious debate. In fact, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. Sen. Howard noted that the jurisdiction requirement is "simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already." Sen. Howard said that "this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.""
"The Supreme Court, however, has never decided the issue. The closest it has come is a case involving the U.S.-born child of lawful permanent residents in which, of course, it held the child to be a U.S. citizen. In the absence of a ruling by the Supreme Court, it will remain up to Congress to clarify the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment or to accept the status quo."
mrawesome22
New member
No. We have jurisdiction over them once the U.S. and their country of citizenship come to an agreement. If you are a legal U.S. citizen then, and only then, does the U.S. government have total jurisdiction of you.
miboso,
That's fascinating reading! Thanks for the link.
Publius,
There's a very similar story behind the ratification of our Constitution, so I'm not so sure that attacking the legitemacy of the 14th Amdt is going to lead anywhere pleasant.
Directed to nobody in particular,
Very clearly, the Supremes have not spoken on the matter of birthright, so politicians are free to interpret it without precedent simply by the original intent. It seems very clear that the original intent was that mere birth on American soil isn't enough to confer citizenship.
Paul is well within the scope of the Constitution to advocate this policy. This opinion is one of a few that I'm personally at odds with, but I can't fault his legal basis. If forced to choose, I'd rather have policy that I disagree with than policy that the Constitution disagrees with.
That's fascinating reading! Thanks for the link.
Publius,
There's a very similar story behind the ratification of our Constitution, so I'm not so sure that attacking the legitemacy of the 14th Amdt is going to lead anywhere pleasant.
Directed to nobody in particular,
Very clearly, the Supremes have not spoken on the matter of birthright, so politicians are free to interpret it without precedent simply by the original intent. It seems very clear that the original intent was that mere birth on American soil isn't enough to confer citizenship.
Paul is well within the scope of the Constitution to advocate this policy. This opinion is one of a few that I'm personally at odds with, but I can't fault his legal basis. If forced to choose, I'd rather have policy that I disagree with than policy that the Constitution disagrees with.
so out of curiosity, how does this jive with his beliefs in liberty? 
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Homeland_Security.htm#2006-103
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Homeland_Security.htm#2006-103
So if we have two hypothetical pregnant women, and both want to come and be Americans, and have their children grow up Americans. One has been working through the proper channels for years, and may get to come here in a year or two, and may even get to stay, and her child may then become an American. The other just runs across the border illegally and has the child, who is then an American.
Why is protecting the child who was born here to a criminal so much more important than looking out for the interests of the one whose mother obeyed the law?
Why place that importance on protecting the progeny of lawbreakers, even though the comments made by legislators who actually wrote the amendment say they never intended that result? Is failing to protect someone who is going around the law really on the same moral ground as owning other humans?
And speaking of going around the law, wasn't that border runner declaring herself ABOVE the law, not under the jurisdiction of the law, when she broke the law?
On the intelligence gathering vote, who voted no on that one AND is a better all around choice for protecting our liberties than Paul? Got a candidate in mind?
JuanCarlos
New member
The child != the border crosser. It's a separate human being, that at the time of its birth had broken no laws. As far as earning citizenship, it has earned it the same way most of us have earned it...it was born directly above the right piece of land.
Now, send mom back, that's fine. Prevent any such child from sponsoring family members for citizenship, I'm there. But if you're born here, you're s citizen...both in my opinion and from what I consider a very reasonable interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Also, I find it amusing that all these attempts to twist the words of the 14th to deny birthright citizenship sound oddly reminiscent of anti-gun folks getting all wrapped around the axle about that first clause in the 2nd.
EDIT: I actually wasn't aware of Paul's position on this...I already had some issues with some of his positions that I was willing to accept, but this would probably push me over the edge. I think he just went from "guy I wouldn't mind seeing president but never will be" to "guy who thank God won't ever be president."