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

quote:

---

This is LITERALLY a reference to Indian Reservations located within the geographical US.

---

Because Indian reservations were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. I already posted the quote but they were considered a separate, alien nation within the geographical boundaries of the US.

quote:

---

it LITERALLY constitutes a definitive obliteration of the birthrights-for-illegals argument.

---

Were they born in an area not subject to US law within our geographical boundaries?

Note

quote:

---

the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,

---

On US soil is not "within the domain of that (whatever foreign nation their parents illegally migrated from) government". It's within the domain of the US government.

quote:

---

Only diplomats that are here under diplomatic immunity. Their staff and other personnel, should they have a child, while serving, would have US citizenship.

---

And if you read the historical analysis, this was always the case in English common law and was the primary reference to the "subject to the jurisdiction" language. The other example is if a person was born within a territory under hostile conflict where the sovereign had lost its sovereignty, being occupied by the hostile-alien force.

Although Wong Kim Ark did not specifically address the new distinction of "illegal" presence, you still have to fit the argument against illegals within these 2 examples in order for the language not to apply. Clearly, illegals are neither diplomats nor occupying areas via hostile conflict, denying the sovereignty of the US.

These distinctions (legal, illegal, and the ability for naturalization) are legislative and subservient to Constitutional mandates. Congress cannot override the language of the 14A (or the judicial interpretation of the 14A by the USSC). So, flowing from this, Congress cannot create a status legislatively that could deny this grant of citizenship. Congress certainly can grant citizenship beyond the minimum requirements of the 14A (like they did with Indians following Elk v. Wilkins or the amnesty under Reagan).

On that note, just for another corollary under this legislative-constitutional paradigm, Wong's parents could never become citizens. This is somewhat equivalent to the status of illegal aliens, who also cannot ever become citizens while illegal.

quote:

---

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.

---

FYI

Children born here of diplomats, are not granted US citizenship

quote:

---

Although Wong Kim Ark did not specifically address the new distinction of "illegal" presence, you still have to fit the argument against illegals within these 2 examples in order for the language not to apply.

---

As we've discussed, the Indian birthright exception based on "political jurisdiction," and DESPITE unquestionably established US jurisdiction on reservations (General and Major Crimes Acts), can get you there.

quote:

---

A Court does not "have to fit the argument" of facts

---

You have this wrong. A court has to fit the facts within the legal argument.

As I said

quote:

---

you still have to fit the argument against illegals within these 2 examples

---

The 2 examples were legal parameters, not factual ones.

You have to somehow fit the facts around illegal aliens within those 2 examples to avoid birthright citizenship.

quote:

---

a person born on U.S. soil to lawful permanent residents to facts involving a person born on U.S. soil to parents here illegally.

---

Wong's parents were not "lawful permanent residents" as that distinction did not exist at the time. That's a new, legislative distinction of the modern era.

quote:

---

, but it can just as easily note the distinction and create a separate analysis for each class.

---

Only if that court rejects both textualism and the historical analysis behind textualism. For THIS court that would be a sight to see.

quote:

---

As we've discussed, the Indian birthright exception based on "political jurisdiction," and DESPITE unquestionably established US jurisdiction on reservations (General and Major Crimes Acts), can get you there.

---

Only if the illegal aliens were born on some portion of the US similar to the legal-political status of reservations at the time. Can you tell me where these areas are, exactly? A foreign embassy is the only area that would fit that I can think of that still exists in the US.

quote:

---

The Court is clear that the question before it in Wong Kim Ark concerned parents who were subject to the Chinese government but were permanent residents of the USA.
Your argument in this threat is using legal analysis from that issue presented.

---

And I listed the specific paradigms created by the case (without overturning the case itself).

As I already said

quote:

---

And if you read the historical analysis, this was always the case in English common law and was the primary reference to the "subject to the jurisdiction" language. The other example is if a person was born within a territory under hostile conflict where the sovereign had lost its sovereignty, being occupied by the hostile-alien force.

Although Wong Kim Ark did not specifically address the new distinction of "illegal" presence, you still have to fit the argument against illegals within these 2 examples in order for the language not to apply. Clearly, illegals are neither diplomats nor occupying areas via hostile conflict, denying the sovereignty of the US.

---

Whatever factual distinctions you want to imagine or create have to fit within either of those 2 groups created by legal (not factual) analysis.

quote:

---

There is nothing that requires SCOTUS or any other Court from using the legal analysis of a fact pattern concerning a person born in the U.S. to permanent residents in a fact pattern where a person is born in the U.S. to someone here who is not considered equivalent to a permanent resident in the late 19th Century, whether we call them illegal aliens, asylum seekers, or somethinng else.

---

Those facts have to fit within the law of Wong (again, without overruling it entirely). Wong says there are 2 groups that fall within the language:

1. Diplomats
2. Persons born in areas of hostile conflict taken by the enemy of the US where the US lacks sovereignty at the time

There are also people born in areas of foreign/alien nations under those jurisdictions (which is obvious but NC is having problems accepting this).

Where do illegal immigrants fall within those legal paradigms? Create whatever pink elephant problem you wish to make the facts slightly different all you want, but those facts have to work within the legal aspects.

Illegal immigrants are clearly not diplomats
Illegal immigrants, as of today, are not part of an invading force of a hostile conflict, controlling areas of the country

So how do you fit them within those 2 legal distinctions?

quote:

---

Whatever factual distinctions you want to imagine or create have to fit within either of those 2 groups created by legal (not factual) analysis.

---

No they do not.
Any cursory review of Supreme Court law, or appellate law for that matter, makes clear that legal analysis can and does change on particular fact patterns.
Yes, a Court most certainly apply the same legal reasoning they did in Wong Kim Ark to a case that comes before them involving a person born to parents in the U.S. illegally. But they can also say the different facts require a different analysis. It is ConLaw 101. Really Law 101. Facts matter.

quote:

---

Negative.
The issue is jurisdiction, not geography.

---

We don't have jurisdiction in a foreign embassy.

quote:

---

However, in 1898, the US had jurisdiction over reservations.

---

You are arguing with the ruling still. That's not going to change the ruling.

quote:

---

Yet Indians were denied birthright citizenship until 1924.

---

Because your analysis wasn't (and still isn't) the law.

quote:

---

one can legitimately ask, in which instance among non US-allegiant groups is jurisdiction more at question: (a) Indians on a reservation, or (b) Illegal immigrants who we don't even know are here?

---

Wong makes it clear which it's more in question. The one with any sort of dispute as to the sovereignty/jurisdiction of the US. That's Indians on a reservation.

If an illegal immigrant has a child anywhere of clear American sovereignty/jurisdiction, what exactly is in question about American sovereignty/jurisdiction in that area?

quote:

---

Within the legal paradigm of precedent.

---

Precedent applies to the question presented. With a different question then there is no precedent.

quote:

---

Nothing about these facts do, though. Unless you want to argue the Constitution is a "living document" and the text doesn't matter.

---

There is clearly a potential difference. I cannot say what it is because the particular facts are hypothetical. But I can make one up.

The question before the Court in Wong Kim Ark was (quoting the case)

quote:

---

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

---

The legal analysis of that case and the precedent it sets applies to those facts.

Now suppose this question before the Court

quote:

---

Whether a child born in the US to parents who have no legal status in the US is a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment?

---

There is no precedent for such a question. The idea that such a basic a view of how the law functions requires a belief that the Constitution is a "living document" is bizarre. The Constitution does not change, the facts presented have changed. If the Court had made a ruling on the citizenship status under the 14th Amendemnt for former slaves why would that legal analysis apply to persons born here to parents without legal status?

This is not some weird esoteric belief. It is literally basic U.S. law