re: Who determines “jurisdiction” in the 14th amendment? The president?

Yeah.....no self respecting hospital will do that. Learn more.....post less.

quote:

---

Different type of jurisdiction, as states don't have the power to make that determination.

---

Is that outlined in the constitution somewhere? If not, then the 10th.

quote:

---

Yeah.....no self respecting hospital will do that.

---

Read my post again. I'm putting the burden more on the state not the hospitals. They would just be filling out state paperwork.

quote:

---

Read my post again. I'm putting the burden more on the state not the hospitals. They would just be filling out state paperwork.

---

Just so that I don't have to repeat myself, you can refer to my posts in this concurrent thread where I quote from the relevant case that addressed this issue in the 1800s

We all know the 13th and 14th were the Civil War amendments to free the slave and "jurisdiction" at the time was the governing bodies at the time controlling the slaves.

My recollection is that the SCOTUS only addressed this point in dicta, and the case dealt with American Indians - not illegal aliens.

“In the jurisdiction thereof” can and should be construed to mean legal permanent residents.

The language was designed to address slaves born here and who were not citizens. The 14th A naturalized them. It has nothing to do with illegal aliens.

To answer OP the president could clarify with executive order. Congress should do it with a statute so it’s permanent.

quote:

---

We all know the 13th and 14th were the Civil War amendments to free the slave and "jurisdiction" at the time was the governing bodies at the time controlling the slaves.

---

Here, I have a copy/paste from that thread I'll insert here. You're attempt at cleverness is bordering on stupidity, at this point. This should clear it up.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Parents were here legally, thus unquestionably under US jurisdiction.

---

That is not how the case defines the terms.

quote:

---

The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 18b; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent, Comm. 39, 42.

---

The court is specific. The words of the 14A exclude 2 classes of children:

Those born to diplomats.

Those born to soldiers in an active campaign on US soil or to occupied US citizens during an active war campaign and occupation on US soil.

The court explains its historical precedent to both scenarios:

1. Children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation:

quote:

---

In U. S. v. Rice (1819) 4 Wheat. 246, goods imported into Castine, in the state of Maine, while it was in the exclusive possession of the British authorities during the lase war with England were held not to be subject to duties under the revenue laws of the United States, because, as was said by Mr. Justice Story in delivering judgment: 'By the conquest and military occupation of Castine, the enemy acquired that firm possession which enabled him to exercise the fullest rights of sovereignty over that place. The sovereignty of the United States over the territory was, of course, suspended, and the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conquerors. By the surrender, the inhabitants passed under a temporary allegiance to the British government, and were bound by such laws, and such only, as it chose to recognize and impose. From the nature of the case, no other laws could be obligatory upon them; for, where there is no protection or allegiance or sovereignty, there can be no claim to obedience.' 4 Wheat

---

2. Children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state:

quote:

---

In the great case of The Exchange (1812) 7 Cranch. 116, the grounds upon which foreign ministers are, and other aliens are not, exempt from the jurisdiction of this country, were set forth by Chief Justc e Marshall in a clear and powerful train of reasoning, of which it will be sufficient, for our present purpose, to give little more than the outlines. The opinion did not touch upon the anomalous case of the Indian tribes, the true relation of which to the United States was not directly brought before this court until some years afterwards, in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) 5 Pet. 1; nor upon the case of a suspension of the sovereignty of the United States over part of their territory by reason of a hostile occupation, such as was also afterwards presented in U. S. v. Rice, above cited. But in all other respects it covered the whole question of what persons within the territory of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

---

---

LINK

quote:

---

My recollection is that the SCOTUS only addressed this point in dicta, and the case dealt with American Indians - not illegal aliens.

---

That was a different case, but discussed in Wong Kim Ark

quote:

---

“In the jurisdiction thereof” can and should be construed to mean legal permanent residents.

---

That has never been the interpretation, and Wong Kim Ark goes into historical and textual analysis of this phrase. That's why those who promote Textualism or historical analysis are going to have a hard time maintaining that philosophy if they try to overturn Wong Kim Ark. They'd be arguing with a literal temporal contemporary who already did the historical and textual analysis.

quote:

---

I would add to the EO a list of countries currently under AMUF. That would clearly exclude anchor babies from those countries.

---

Unless those countries are actively occupying the portion of the United States where those babies are born, that dog won't hunt.

quote:

---

So have Congress declare that we are in a state of war.

---

Already done.