quote:
quote:
The 14th A was directly addressing former slaves. If it truly was about ANYONE borne in America, why didn't the 14A also grant American Indians citizenship???

That didn't happen until 1924.
If American Indians weren't considered citizens under the 14A, how can an illegals children be considered citizens?
Its the same damn principle.

Because reservations were considered quasi-sovereign jurisdictions, it's not the same principle. A more analogous example would be a non-diplomat Mexican national giving birth at the Mexican embassy

It's the same principle. A person here here illegally is not a citizen, therefore is still "under the jurisdiction of " their country of origin.
Other language used during the discussions about the 14A were "complete allegiance " and "incomplete allegiance ". A person who broke federal law as their first act of entering the US can't be considered as having "complete allegiance ". For obvious reasons.
The intent of the 14A was all about granting former slaves citizenship.
Period.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by lionward2014

New Orleans

Member since Jul 2015

14048 posts

Posted on 4/2/26 at 4:39 pm to lake chuck fan

quote:
A person here here illegally is not a citizen, therefore is still "under the jurisdiction of " their country of origin.

This theory works no where else in the law.

quote:
Other language used during the discussions about the 14A were "complete allegiance " and "incomplete allegiance ".

Maybe it was used and discussed but it didn't make it into the 14th so who cares?

quote:
A person who broke federal law as their first act of entering the US can't be considered as having "complete allegiance ". For obvious reasons.

Why is this obvious? What if the argument is that they are coming here to seek refuge therefore they would be completely aligned to the US for saving them? No matter, because "complete allegiance" means shite to this discussion.

quote:
The intent of the 14A was all about granting former slaves citizenship.

If that was the intent then they should have said it. There are plenty of other statutes where citizenship is conferred with temporal limitations and qualifications.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by lake chuck fan

Vinton

Member since Aug 2011

23778 posts

Posted on 4/2/26 at 4:53 pm to lionward2014

quote:
Why is this obvious? What if the argument is that they are coming here to seek refuge therefore they would be completely aligned to the US for saving them? No matter, because "complete allegiance" means shite to this discussion

Seriously??? There are legal means by which folks can seek refuge in our country. To do so illegally demonstrates that they aren't the type of folks we shoulf welcome.

As far as the terms "complete/incomplete allegiance " not having shite to do with this issue. Those debating the issue in 1868 would disagree.

quote:

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (ratified in 1868) contains the Citizenship Clause in 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."The key qualifying phrase—"subject to the jurisdiction thereof"—has long been debated in the context of birthright citizenship (jus soli, or citizenship by place of birth). This is where the concepts of "complete allegiance" and "incomplete allegiance" come into play. These terms are not in the Amendment's text itself but arise from historical debates, congressional records, Supreme Court interpretations, and ongoing legal arguments about what "jurisdiction" requires.

constitution.congress.gov

Core Meaning in Context"Jurisdiction" here is generally understood as more than mere physical presence or subjection to U.S. laws (territorial jurisdiction, where anyone in the country must obey the laws or face consequences like criminal prosecution).
Proponents of a narrower reading (often called the "political jurisdiction" or "complete jurisdiction" view) argue it requires complete (or full, direct, immediate, and exclusive) political jurisdiction. This involves a reciprocal bond: the person (or their parents) owes complete allegiance to the United States (no primary loyalty elsewhere) and can claim its full protection in return.
Incomplete allegiance refers to situations where a person owes primary or partial loyalty to a foreign sovereign, even while temporarily subject to U.S. territorial laws. In this view, such individuals (or their children) are not fully "subject to the jurisdiction" for automatic citizenship purposes.

None of this is hard to find, unless you have shite for brains! Lol.

Page 1 2 3 4 5