- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is President Trump still intent on keeping his promise of ending birthright citizenship?
Posted on 6/22/17 at 8:49 am to skrayper
Posted on 6/22/17 at 8:49 am to skrayper
quote:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is the big sticking point. When the amendment was drafted, it was questioned whether or not it was meant to apply to Native American tribesmen living in U.S. territories. The answer was no, because they are subjects to the jurisdiction of their tribe, a sovereign nation. That treatment has been changed by statute which now recognizes Native Americans as having dual citizenship with the United States and their sovereign tribal nation.
Legal immigrants and those with temporary visas have been interpreted to be "subject to the jurisdiction therein" because they have purposefully gotten permission from the United States government to be here. This was decided in United States v. Wong By getting permission from the government to be here, they have thus "targeted the forum" and "availed themselves of the jurisdiction" under the Pennoyer v. Neff test for minimum contacts by which one is subject to the jurisdiction of a court.
No such SCOTUS ruling has ever been made regarding the status of the children of illegal immigrants, but our government has presumed that they are covered by United States v. Wong, but that is not certain until SCOTUS rules on it for certain.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 8:52 am to kingbob
quote:
When the amendment was drafted, it was questioned whether or not it was meant to apply to Native American tribesmen living in U.S. territories. The answer was no
Spot on Bob......that's why 60 years later the Indian Citizenship Act was written SO if the 14th covered everyone born on US soil then the ICA wouldn't have been needed.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News