The 14th Amendment was intentionally misinterpreted for 120+ years and SCOTUS was too much of a pussy to make a ruling on it for 120+ years due to the US needing; cheap labor, suppressed wages, and the real estate lobby, being the largest lobby in the country, needing ever increasing demand for housing as the US was expanding in the industrial revolution and the post WWII era.

Those laborers are no longer needed now as the industrial revolution is ancient history and everything is moving towards automation and the need has arisen for a highly specialized and technical workforce (read: intelligent) that would be capable of maintaining such complex systems, THEREFORE; the "citizenship" status granted to these low skill, low IQ, migrants will be revoked RETROACTIVELY; they will be relocated to Third Party Nations in the case that they become stateless; Palantir will be needed and has already been funded for this project through the BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL; America can move into the 21st century, housing can become affordable again; wages will increase as demand for high skill labor will increase, and the country will be happier, healthier, and more prosperous, and finally any high skill laborers who wish to come to the US and become PERMANENT RESIDENTS (Green Card or Gold Card which can be bought for the price of $5 Million) will be eligible to produce Citizen offspring if they come here LEGALLY and obtain one of those cards.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

>>509512632 (OP)
i love how lawyers like that legal eagle faggot try to tell us what the law means based on 120 years of jewish tricks only for the supreme court to overturn it the next day based on the actual text of what the document fucking says

mexicans are lucky that donald trump is the president.. they guy after trump will be very different from him

>>509513612
True, Donald Trump is one of the most empathetic, kind, caring, and fair presidents in US history.

>>509512632 (OP)
based Mississippi

>>509512632 (OP)
>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.
>All persons born in the United States, are citizens of the United States
explain how this has been misinterpreted

>>509514688
The following is a quote from Charles J. Cooper from Cooper & Kirk Law Firm which testified UNDER OATH in front of the House Judiciary Committee on February 25th, 2025.

>COOPER: Why did its framers choose such a strange way to say that (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof)? Why didn't they just say subject to the laws of the United States? Doing so would've been quite natural given that this straightforward, unambiguous phrase is used in both Article III and Article VI.

>The clause also ensures that birthright citizenship makes newborns citizens of both the United States. And of the states wherein they reside, that is where they live, their home. This word standing alone implies a lawful permanent residence, and it plainly excludes tourists and other lawful visitors, as well as illegal aliens who are prohibited by law from residing in a state.

>Although they all must obey our laws.

The full Transcript can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/119/chrg/CHRG-119hhrg59353/CHRG-119hhrg59353.pdf

>>509515062
In The United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) it is stated in the majority SCOTUS ruling that (emphasis mine):
>The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, IN THE ALLEGIANCE AND UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE COUNTRY, including all children here born of RESIDENT ALIENS, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns and their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes OWING DIRECT ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR SEVERAL TRIBES.

For a person born within the territory of the United States to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", it appears from the above passage that the person MUST at birth owe a sufficiently direct duty of allegiance to the sovereign in return for the sovereigns reciprocal obligation to protection. The child of members of an Indian tribe who owe direct allegiance to their tribe does NOT qualify, although clearly born within the territory of the United States.

>NOR DO THE CHILDREN OF ALIENS WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.

>>509514688
>>509515062
>>509515097
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means no people with foreign allegiances.
This technically also expands to anyone with dual citizenship as well being ineligible for birthright citizenship.

>>509515062
That someone testified under oath isn't a measure of truth. Plenty of tards have testified under oath that pi = 3 or other such nonsense.
Illegals are subject to the jurisdiction they are in. Otherwise you'd have gangbangers claiming immunity every time they shoot up the block. same thing with dual citizenship. This clause is meant to exclude the children of foreign diplomats who do enjoy diplomatic immunity.
there is no mention of home so your tardo interpretation of that as lawful permanent residence is irrelevant.
>although they all must obey our laws
They are either subject to the jurisdiction they are in or they aren't. Definitionally, you can't pick and choose.

>>509512632 (OP)
Palantir: Brought to you by Alex Karp.

>>509516203
You're getting deported akshit.
You can either leave now and take the Apple gift cards back to India or you can get deported and we give the money back to the boomers you scammed.

Cool thread, OP. Looking forward to deporting these beaner retards and restoring the ethnic character of our NATION NATION NATION. Hopefully this precludes niggers, as well. Although it could be a good idea to keep them and force them to invade with old equipment after the beaners go, as a means to prove their allegiance and worth while we push the border to Mazatlan, at which point we can turn our attention to the chinks and jeets up nort. a great opportunity to get those noble white warriors on our side, and Canada under our flag and its constitutional jurisdiction. AMERICA! WHITE POWER!! YEEEEEHOOOOOO

YOU NEED TO GO BACK

>>509514688
If it doesn't include foreign diplomats, why would it include illegals?

>>509512632 (OP)
>>509513196
>>509513721
>>509514089
Deport
Deport
Deport

Concerning the 14th amendment and the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof I believe there are only two interpretations.

Does it mean merely subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the United States? That is, subject to the laws of the United States as is virtually everyone on US soil including aliens who are here illegally, or are here for the purpose of bearing a child to make it an American Citizen, or does the "jurisdiction" of the United States mean something more than that?

The full and COMPLETE jurisdiction, requiring an allegiance that comes from a permanent lawful commitment to make the US ones home, the place where one permanently and lawfully resides. I believe this latter interpretation is compelled by the citizenship clauses text structure and history as well as by Common Sense.

If "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means nothing more than the duty of obedience to the laws of the United States then why did its framers choose such a strange way to say that? Why didn't they just say "subject to the laws of the United States"? Doing so would have been quite natural given that this straightforward unambiguous language is used in both Article VI and Article III of the US Constitution.

The clause also makes sure that it makes Citizens the newborns in both the United States and of the "states wherein they reside", that is where they live, their home, these words standing alone implies lawful permanent residence, and it plainly excludes tourists, as well as other lawful visitors, as well as illegal aliens who are prohibited by wall from residing within a state although they all must obey our laws

>>509516203
Ok, round up all of the illegals, retroactively recognize them as foreign diplomats so therefore their anchor babies aren't actually citizens. Then immediately declare them to have persona non grata status and deport them out of the US.

>>509514688
>>509515553
>subject to the jurisdiction thereof
This is the key phrase.
Currently, this clause only applies to diplomats, but logically applies to illegal immigrants.
Technically, seasonal workers and tourists are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" but by reasonableness should only apply to Green Card Holders, H1B/OPT, education visas.

>>509516203
Sorry, Gonzales. Oh, and take your goblina and spiclets with you when you leave.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

>>509512632 (OP)
>pasta
so you agree that the US itself caused this problem, that's good, I look forward to those that profited from hiring illegals facing stiff jail time and hefty fines, word is that 47 himself has illegals in his employ and has done for many, many years. also his father, who used taxpayer money to grow his fortune, used illegal labor often! please write about this too and let the people know about these injustices! thanks for your attention to this matter!

>>509512632 (OP)
The genius thing he has done here is that now he has made it a solid difference between right and left, if you vote democrat this is going to be overturned and illegals will flood back.

So unless you're pro illegal you can't vote anything but republican now.

>>509516562
because foreign diplomats are specifically not subject to the jurisdiction they are in, while illegals are. hope this helps retard

>>509516810
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are Citizens”. Vattel (Law of Nations)

“The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers.” Vattel (Law of Nations)

“To what nation a person belongs is by the laws of all nations closely dependent on descent. It is almost a universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it, that of the father where children are lawful, and, where they are bastards, that of their mother, without regard to the place of their birth; and that must necessarily be recognized as the correct canon, since nationality is in its essence dependent on descent.” Bar (International Law , No. 31)

>>509516747
wait a minute. what race was it?

>>509516810
The civil rights act became law on April 9, 1866, and provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In 1884, 16 years after the 14th amendment was ratified, John Elk, who was an Indian (feather not •) went to the Supremes to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States. He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supremes ruled that the 14th amendment did not grant Indians, or the children of non-citizens, citizenship.

>>509516810
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” – John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section

“All from other lands, who by the terms of congressional laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”- (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

>>509517077
It'll be upheld in the supreme court. This isn't a red vs. blue issue.
Historically the US has never acknowledged dual allegiances in any capacity. Birthright citizenship hinges on the parents being citizens with allegiances only to the US.

>>509516891
>retroactively recognize them as foreign diplomats
>No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
try again cletus
>>509516909
>logically applies to illegal immigrants
if illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction they are in, then nothing they do here is technically illegal as they are not subject to those laws. Is that really the argument you want to make?
>>509516943
I'm not hispanic, black, chinese, indian, or whatever brownoid you want to believe I am to cope
come up with an actual argument

>>509516203
As far as I'm aware if you're a citizen of another country there are certain obligations you're required to make to them, they make you pay taxes, you maintain a passport with them, they can obligate you to service. If any of that applies to you, you're not a US citizen. Everyone fucking knows they worded it that way because the slaves didn't have a country of citizenship and after being freed had zero allegiances. It's funny too because you spics fly the Mexican flag absolutely showing your real allegiance and that is why you shouldn't get birthright citizenship.

>>509517509
the us has never acknowledged dual citizenship because their jurisdiction only extends to their own citizens, who they define as all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction of it. it wouldn't make sense for zambia to define who is and isn't a citizen of china, would it?

>>509512632 (OP)
>will be revoked RETROACTIVELY; they will be relocated to Third Party Nations

Two more weeks maggot lol

>>509517739
wow, if they meant that why didn't they write that then instead of saying that 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?
>spic
I'm an american, I was born here and I don't fly the mexican flag

Second, the history of 14th Amendment, the clause was framed by the 39th congress to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had been passed by that same congress just two months earlier. The 1866 act explicitly denied Birthright Citizenship to persons "subject to any foreign power" and to "Indians not taxed". It is clear in the debate in the 39th congress that congress decided to replace this language with "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" NOT because congress suddenly and without any comment decided to radically broaden the scope of Birthright Citizenship but rather that Congress was concerned that the phrase "Indians not taxed" generated uncertainty about the children of Indians, primarily rich and poor Indians.

The dispute is best captured I think by this comment from Senator Trumble who wanted to replace the words "Indians not taxed" even though he was the principle author of those words in the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Senator Trumble had this to say: "I am not willing to make citizenship in this country depend on taxation, I am not willing, if the Senator from Wisconsin is, that the rich Indian residing in New York shall be a citizen and the poor Indian residing in the state of New York shall not be a citizen."

>>509517168
So foreign diplomats can break US laws but beaners can't, so beaners are citizens? Very retraded, brown-coded take. The morale of the story is that Huwhite Europeans get to be Americans, "Natives" get their resies, and all brown-coded, brown-SKINNED retard stink niggers can either leave or die/imprisoned. Hope that helps sweaty ;) VJKVJ

>>509518076
SCOTUS has already ruled on that one sweaty

>>509518188
diplomats who break laws don't get jailed, but will typically be recalled or have their immunity cancelled as part of the diplomatic process from their actual nation.
Did I say that illegals are citizens? no, I said that they are subject to the jurisdiction they are in, which they are. If they were not subject to the jurisdiction, then the laws would not apply to them. the laws do apply to them, ergo they are subject to the jurisdiction. An illegal was not born here, so they would not be a citizen, regardless of being subject to the jurisdiction. but the child of an illegal would be both 1. born in the united states, and 2. subject to the jurisdiction they are in, so the child would be a citizen.
this is not exactly complicated logic

>>509512632 (OP)
>THEREFORE; the "citizenship" status granted to these low skill, low IQ, migrants will be revoked RETROACTIVELY
As much as I'd love to see it, Trump is already talking about giving blatantly illegal migrant workers some kind of protected status. You really think he's going to have the balls to strip the citizenship of people who were born here, deport them, and deal with the ensuing PR shitstorm?

Moreover, this is assuming SCOTUS won't completely cuck out. There is historical precedent for SCOTUS to ignore the actual letter of the law/avoid dealing with complex issues in favor of preserving social order or institutional legitimacy--they arguably did this during the 2020 election steal. I suspect that, at BEST, birthright citizenship will no longer apply to the children of illegals going forward, but the ones that are here are probably here to stay--whether that's because SCOTUS says it doesn't retroactively apply, or because the government cucks out and grants them all amnesty.

instead of enlisting in the military, look up ICE and DHS

>>509518649
I think you underestimate Trump and you definitely underestimate SCOTUS. SCOTUS decision to allow trumps EO to go into effect in 28 states signals that they are willing to side with Trump on this issue.

>>509516810
https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1866FirstCivilRightsAct.pdf

>>509512632 (OP)
She sure is "American" but "Meso-" or "South-" not "North-" not "US-".

>>509518507
I think you should read the language because you don't seem to understand

>>509518982
I do understand that you don't want brown people to be citizens but your argument for how that is true (and technically has always been true) does not make any sense.
Please explain how the child of an illegal immigrant is both:
1. not born in the united states
and
2. not subject to the jurisdiction thereof

>>509518143
Senator Trumbles language illuminate two important points about the intended meaning of the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by its authors. First, they intended that the children of Tribal Indians who resided on reservations and owed their direct allegiance to their tribes would not be entitled to Birthright Citizenship, but the children of assimilated Indians, who had left their reservations, who had established a PERMANENT RESIDENCE among the body politic of the states would be entitled to birthright citizenship.

Second, it is not at all plausible that the framers of the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment intended that tribal Indians to be able to evade this limitation on Birthright Citizenship for their children by the simple expedient of leaving the reservation long enough to give birth to a child.

The KEY DISTINCTION between the tribal Indians and the assimilated Indians was ALLEGIANCE. Tribal Indians owed their direct allegiance to the Tribe while an Indian who had established a permanent domicile within the state and assimilated into the body politic committed his PRIMARY ALLEGIANCE to the United States.

>>509516267
OP is a turbo faggot shill who sucks ZOG cock and chugs Jewish cum. He spams the same thread several times a day, shills Palantir and low-key shills pro Israel talking points while pretending to be against ZOG. His threads start off being about birthright citizenship, but they somehow change topics very quickly, and OP can't help shilling boomer tier pro-Israel talking points about how Iran was 2 weeks away from getting a nuke and how Twelver shia Islam justifies Trump and Netanyahu continuing the legacy of John McCain.
It's fucking weird

Also, his take on birthright citizenship is hopium.

Seething paid shills have entered the thread and will attempt to derail shortly.

>>509519621
You're getting deported Pablo.

>>509520199
I'm white and a citizen which is more than I can say for you, Muhammad

>>509521212
>I'm white
>doesn't capitalize the word White
shalom, rabbi.

>>509514688
>explain how this has been misinterpreted
>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Implies there's a state of being that they are present but not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Like being in the US illegally.

>>509518507
>Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States

https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1866FirstCivilRightsAct.pdf

Kamala Harris was a subject of Jamaica and India at the time of her birth because neither of her parents were naturalized. Therefore, Kamala Harris was never a citizen of the United States.

>>509521287
Shalom rabbi boomerstein

>>509516909
>Currently, this clause only applies to diplomats, but logically applies to illegal immigrants.
this means then you can't charge them for any crimes, only deport them
if an illegal murders your family they wont go to jail
this is how it is for diplomats

>>509512632 (OP)
>You can't just take away someone's birthright
I thought spics read their bibles, kek
That's a recurring theme

>>509521749
>an illegal murders your family they wont go to jail
>this is how it is for diplomats
No diplomatic immunity doesn't grant immunity from criminal prosecution.

>>509515097
>of enemies within and during hostile occupation of part of our territory
Great, so Mexicans have to go back.

>>509512632 (OP)
Null and void.
Birthright through illegal actions cancels all.
Return to your parents native land and return properly.

>>509515553
stop with the antisemitism

>>509512632 (OP)
14th amendment should be removed. It's a product of martial law.

>>509513721
Yep

>>509521984
Diplomatic immunity grants immunity from criminal prosecution from the host nation though. The diplomat's nation can remove diplomatic immunity or they can prosecute on their own but the host nation can only deport the diplomat.

>>509521479
there is a state of being present but not subject to the jurisdiction of the us.
Heads of state of other nations are not subject to the jurisdiction of the us, as are diplomats typically.
being in the US illegally doesn't mean you are not subject to it's jurisdiction, otherwise it wouldn't be illegal, would it?
>>509521633
wrong and retarded. again, being a subject of another nation does not mean you are not also subject to the jurisdiction you are in. If this was true, you could go on vacation somewhere, break every law, and there would be no recourse because you were "not subject to the jurisdiction because you were subject somewhere else"

>>509521749
illegal aliens do not have diplomatic immunity. They can be prosecuted. If I visit Korea and go on a murder spree they can and will prosecute me. Just ask Johnny Somali

>>509522962
The Supreme Courts decision at Elk v. Wilkins confirmed the understanding I have presented, ruling that the clause requires persons to be "COMPLETELY subject to the POLITICAL JURISDICTION" and "owing direct and immediate allegiance to the United States"

Permanent Residency is the common thread in all of these cases, in congressional debate, in the 1866 Civil Rights Act and in subsequent supreme court cases

>>509522684
amendments require a convention of states, good luck getting one to agree on anything in current year.

>>509512632 (OP)
Yeah, will never happen. Even though Trump has a good case the 14th doesn’t apply to illegals, SCOTUS won’t touch there with a 100 foot poll. They will punt it back to the lower courts.

>>509523193
SCOTUS already has it on their docket for October your cope is like 3 years stale, rabbi.

>>509523142
>In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born on an Indian reservation. The United States Congress later enacted the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which established citizenship for Indians previously excluded by the Constitution.
Please explain geographically where in the United States in 2025 you would need to be born to be:
1. born in the united states
and
2. not subject to the jurisdiction thereof

>>509523142
Two key points are
>COMPLETELY subject to the POLITICAL JURISDICTION
>owing direct and immediate allegiance to the United States

If I murder in Korea I can be convicted of murder in Korea AND the US. No double jeopardy as I am subject to both political jurisdictions and they are two separate state actors.

To owe an allegiance to a country to have to renounce all other allegiances first. Illegal aliens have never done this. And swear an oath of allegiance to host nation. To become a citizen (and get benefits and obligations) of US all people should have to do this.

>>509522962
Citizenship is a contract, dumbass. The citizenship contract is how a state gains in personam jurisdiction over a human being.

>>509512632 (OP)
Time for you to leave. Ukraine and israel need you.

>>509523829
go fringe your flag retard, the adults are speaking

>>509517564
>if illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction they are in, then nothing they do here is technically illegal as they are not subject to those laws. Is that really the argument you want to make?
"We're desperately trying to get illegal aliens as citizens because our ideas are so shit nobody else will vote for them, and so here's a retarded interpretation of a law to facilitate this.."... is this really the way you want to take it? Because that line ends with your head on a fucking spike.

>>509512632 (OP)
You're doing great work anon. Keep it up.

>>509521984
Retard confirm. Oh you’re anglo, so you’re clearly retarded

>>509523651
Indian reservation
They are still not subject to US jurisdiction. If an Indian commits a crime on an Indian reservation they are only under Indian jurisdiction.

All US citizens are always subject to US jurisdiction no matter where they are in the world. They might also be subject to other nations jurisdictions as well depending on where they currently are.

>>509523651
Again the words used here are "COMPLETELY subject to the POLITICAL JURISDICTION" and "owing direct and immediate allegiance to the United States"

>>509518239
>sweaty
Gen Z is doomed

>>509523954
you need to consider the logical outcome of the argument you make. a person can either be
a) subject to the jurisdiction
or
b) not subject to the juristiction
both a and b cannot be true at the same time.
either they are beholden to the laws or they are not.
If they are subject to the jurisdiction, and born here, they are a citizen. That is the wording.
If they are not subject to the jurisdiction, then what law have they broken? because if they are not subject to the laws, they are not subject to the laws.

please try to use your head just a little

>>509523954
Just say you’re retarded and got a verbal sat of 300

>>509524128
that is wrong. The wording directly from the constitution is:
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.
I do not recognize whatever fanfic you write

>>509522879
>but the host nation can only deport the diplomat.
No, it's just quid pro quo agreement. They could do whatever they want to a diplomat including execute them, it's just a violation of international standards.

>>509512632 (OP)
i h8 ngrs

>>509524344
I am not quoting the Constitution I am quoting Elk v. Wilkins which is the supreme court interpreting the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

>>509515553
You dumb retard heritage foundation retards keep regurgitating this crap like npc’s saying safe and effective. We all know you faggot retards can’t read and don’t even know 4th amendment related to Covid vax.

>>509524100
non indians born on indian reservations are and always have been subject to US jurisdiction.
indians born on indian reservations have been made citizens by the 1924 indian citizenship act.

>>509524427
>trust the experts

Kys

>>509524346
Diplomatic law is part of international law, specifically 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which all but one nation are parties to.

>>509512632 (OP)
>Those laborers are no longer needed
That isn't your decision. The Capitalist class will decide who is needed. Know your place.

>>509524529
>indians born on indian reservations have been made citizens by the 1924 indian citizenship act.
Incorrect, they have the choice of being US citizens not that they have to become citizens.
Only US parents can claim citizenship for their child born on Indian reservations. Non-US citizen have child on indian reservation and it is not US born or citizen.

Here's something else to ponder if I were to entertain the arguments presented by the opposition that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" only allows an almost singular exception to diplomats due to their "diplomatic immunity" then what about judges, prosecutors, or even members of congress who possess certain immunity's when it comes to speech or debate? Would they not likewise fall within the same category as the diplomat with his immunity's?

>>509524529
forgot pic

>>509524238
And maybe you need to read the discourse surrounding the 14th amendment, and the guy who wrote it who said it doesn't say what you think it means. Absolute dipshit.

>>509512632 (OP)
It doesn't matter unless Trump revokes citizenship of anyone who arrived here after 1964, and their descendents. The damage was done decades ago. The US needs 1,000 Operation Wetbacks.

“the term ‘citizen’ in the United States, is analogous to the term ‘subject’ in common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government.”
State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122

>>509515553
Oy veyyyyyyy

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity""
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773

“The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.”
U.S. v Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)

>>509517245
>>509517288
Thank you for your contribution to the thread anon. Dropping some actual historical context on the opposition.

>>509525306
>>509525361
Kind of lost me there, starting to sound like some nonesense. But thanks for those quotes on the 1866 Civil Rights Act and on the context of the debate in the 39th congress.

>>509526275
Looks like law library citation. Likely search results on LexisNexis

>>509525608
You're welcome, anon.
Happy 4th! Cheers!

>>509525102
I don't need to entertain "discourse" around the plainest language clause in the constitution just like I don't need to entertain discourse around flying saucers or 1*1 equaling 2.
You are wrong, your interpretation flies in the face of hundreds of years of established law, and the burden of proof is on you to explain your position.

>>509526275
Lincoln's war of aggression against the south (conquest) fundamentally changed the relationship between the Citizens and the so called government. Before Lincoln's war (conquest) and the reconstruction amendments that followed (namely the 14th) Americans were a free people. After Lincoln's conquest the people became subjects to the so called government. Lincoln's conquest flipped the relationship upside down essentially ending the American experiment.

>>509526762
>hundreds of years of established law
You are retarded, anon.

>>509527068
Oh I see, so you are taking the third possible argument and saying that because Lincoln was enforcing a military dictatorship and martial law over multiple states that the constitutional amendment is not by definition constitutional because it did not utilize Article V powers in obtaining two thirds states, is that correct?

>>509527121
you're right, clearly the universe was born last tuesday so any indication of the world being older is a psy-op by the globo-devil trying to poison the souls of god's mightiest schizos

>>509527188
Well, I didn't think of it that way. It's like saying that the Treaty of San Francisco isn't legitimate because it was signed under duress by Japan while the Japanese were under U.S. military occupation. (Japan is still a U.S. colony.)

>>509512632 (OP)
It doesn't even matter at this point. The nation's already been over run with enough third world browns who are called "citizen" to bring it way past event horizon for destruction. And there's no way this ruling would be retroactive. Our secretary of state himself is an anchor baby. The country is over. Balkanization should be the only thing we're discussing.

>>509527188
I will say that the Southern states had the right to secession. Everyone understood that at the time. Lincoln's war of aggression against the south changed the relationship between not only the Feral government in D.C. but also between the Feral government and the citizens. (subjects.)

>>509527568
The good guys have lost every war since then. It's fucking bizarre.

Truly incredible how making retarded legal arguments attracts sovereign citizens and lost causers like moths to a flame

>>509512632 (OP)
14th Amendment only really applies when 2 stateless people have a child on US soil.
Everyone knows so much of the current US Status Quo is from legislating from the bench that just thinking about it makes them nearly break down.

>>509527928
>14th Amendment only really applies when 2 stateless people have a child on US soil.
quick question, what do you think the writers of the constitution meant when they used the word ALL? if they meant that why didn't they write that?

>>509513196
That's just how law works, by building increasingly ridiculous scaffolding to justify its micromanagement and obvious contradictions
>You see, A is actually B
>You see, C is actually D
>D is actually F, which means B is C
>A is actually F

>>509528111
Do you think the writers of the Constitution made the 14th Amendment?
Furthermore, why ask me instead of looking at the writings and discussions while it was written that lay out the exact intentions?

>>509528740
>do I think the writers of the 14th amendment wrote the 14th amendment
uhhh yes
>why ask me
because what you said is totally at odds with the language of the amendment. to the point that it's clear that you haven't ever even read it. I want you to feel stupid for talking about the amendment without even reading it.

>>509528111
>quick question, what do you think the writers of the constitution meant when they used the word ALL? if they meant that why didn't they write that?
They didn't tho. The 14th amendment uses language that says it applies only to those under the jurisdiction of the United States. And the utility of that word, in widespread utility btw, is authority of. If two non citizens have a baby here, the baby is automatically under the authority of, or jurisdiction, of their parent's country. This isn't a mystery because they wrote about this widely. That's what the word means in the context they used it.

>>509512632 (OP)
Did you get vaccinated? You should get vaccinated. This virus affects white people the hardest of all.

>>509528907
Everyone involved in making the Constitution was dead by the time the 14th was written.
What makes you think you are and expert on things you don't know anything about at all?

>>509528927
>they didn't though
they literally did.
>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.
All persons born in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.
It doesn't read:
>uhh actually only children of stateless parents are citizens when born here
you need to talk to a doctor about the dent in your skull

>>509529039
>the writers of the 14th were dead when they wrote the 14th
interesting angle with the lich writers but I don't think it really has any bearing on the legal perspective

>>509529172
You can't even dress yourself or read or write English.
You don't even have a mind large enough to doubt in your own inability.

>>509529115
>they literally did.
I'm not saying the word wasn't used. I'm saying the amendment apply specifically to who they said it applied to. Or are you suggesting that it applies to everyone in the world since everyone in the world can be considered under the umbrella of "all"? That would be absurd. The rest of the language matters.
>All persons born in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.
Great. Since non-residents are subject to their country's jurisdiction, then so is their baby. Who also is disqualified from this amendment. Thanks for quoting that. Anything else? I understand you want to use an alternate definition of jurisdiction that they weren't using. But that's not an argument.

Chinese birthing resorts are gonna go bust!

>>509527394

>>509529402
Saved

>>509529260
unless you're peeping through my windows you don't know what I look like. clearly my grasp of the English language far exceeds your own given my ability to understand complex words like "all" and "subject to the jurisdiction".
Nothing you have written has given me any reason to doubt myself, so why should I? Humility? Why should I be humble when you are so free to spout bullshit unchallenged?
>>509529316
the baby is subject to both jurisdictions. unless you are suggesting that those babies are immune to prosecution on the basis of not being subject to the jurisdiction they are in.
>I understand you want to use an alternate definition of jurisdiction
just the mainstream one that is used by every court in America actually, but I understand that it conflicts with what you wish were true.

>>509529672
No don't understand, you know so little about US law and history you are essentially speaking gibberish.
The 14th amendment was written almost a century after the Constitution.

>>509512632 (OP)
>wages will increase as demand for high skill labor will increase
lmao No they won't.

>>509529672
>the baby is subject to both jurisdictions
Only if the utility of the word was one of its other definitions which implies within the boundaries of legal authority. However this definition that they use, which is verifiable through what they wrote about it, and extraordinarily widespread in its utility among other documents of the time, is the one that indicates authority over. Since they already had an authority over them and were not stateless, then this amendment has no language to displace that jurisdiction and become a new one.

And it's not relevant that Court have been purposely misinterpreting this for so long. We already know what the amendment says through the author's writing about it. We know what the utility of the word in question is and any objective court will properly rule on it.

>>509529672
>“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” – John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section
>“All from other lands, who by the terms of congressional laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”- (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
If your parents are subjects of a foreign power you are not a citizen by birth. The 14th amendment did not intend to allow birth tourism and anchor babies.

>>509528662
That's how pilpul works. You literally cannot have a nation if you allow Jews to be lawyers and judges.

>>509529672
>“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are Citizens”. Vattel (Law of Nations)

>“The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers.” Vattel (Law of Nations)

>“To what nation a person belongs is by the laws of all nations closely dependent on descent. It is almost a universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it, that of the father where children are lawful, and, where they are bastards, that of their mother, without regard to the place of their birth; and that must necessarily be recognized as the correct canon, since nationality is in its essence dependent on descent.” Bar (International Law , No. 31)

Here is you hundreds of years of established law.
It is really quite simple.

>>509530073
>>509530195
This is indisputable, but these retards will purposely just use an alternative definition of jurisdiction that wasn't used to justify one of the most insane immigration policies on earth.

>>509530393
I know, right? It's so simple only a retard (or someone with a pro-illegal immigrant agenda) can't understand it.

>>509529749
What do you think is happening? Do you think this is some epic gotcha? I said that the writers of the constitution used the word All and you somehow think that I meant the original writers wrote the amendment? No retard, obviously the writers of the amendment wrote the amendment. Does that materially change what the word "all" means when used by the author of the amendment?
Jesus fucking Christ, find a library and just start reading books because you clearly need the help.
>>509529958
Your definition is bizarre and very much not how the words were or are used. I cannot be more clear than that. Jurisdiction is about the boundaries of legal authority. whatever usage you believe you have uncovered is not at all the one used by the legal system.
>>509530073
If he meant that, why didn't he write that? You simply cannot refute that if he had meant for it to be interpreted in that manner, that he should have written that.
>>509530195
Why should I give a fuck about some french cuckold when talking about American law. Go fuck your mother pal

>>509530393
>>509530515
like gossiping women. sad but understandable for mental midwits

>>509530759
>Your definition is bizarre and very much not how the words were or are used
The definition that has been illustrated to you was the definition used and used in every document of the time. You continuing to deny this is irrelevant. It will be ruled on properly. Get ready to seethe.

>>509530759
>I said that the writers of the constitution used the word All and you somehow think that I meant the original writers wrote the amendment?
Yeah, why else would you task why the writers of the Constitution put the all into the 14th?
It's obvious your wounded ego is making you make even further nonsense.

>>509530848
quote your parent's nudie mags for all I care.
What matters is how the legal system used the word. not an opinion rag. not what some crank wrote in his diary. How does a judge interperet the bounds of his authority? Is something within his jurisdiction?

>>509512632 (OP)
You better make good use if your gorillion guns, gringoyim. We don't want that trash here. Feel free to shoot them up (you won't)

>>509530964
How fucking stupid are you? Somebody quotes directly from a document and you somehow believe that means they think someone else wrote the passage? get a clue

>>509530989
>Words never change and the use of the legal use of the term means only and exactly what it means in 2025 even though it's designers specifically wrote otherwise.
Kek gl with that invader.

>>509531092
>I said that the writers of the constitution used the word All and you somehow think that I meant the original writers wrote the amendment?
>quick question, what do you think the writers of the constitution meant when they used the word ALL? if they meant that why didn't they write that?
Now you are calling yourself a retard, good stuff.

>>509519568
lol no replies. Guess MIGA faggots don’t have a comeback

>>509531126
to be clear, your entire argument hinges on your belief that the word "jurisdiction" has meaningfully changed definitionally in the last couple hundred years.
You believe that the word "jurisdiction" did not mean the "Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power" back when the amendment was written.
I hope for your sake that this isn't a legal theory you've presented to anyone in person because it is utterly unhinged and if it were true, literally every case of jurisdictional law would be overturned. not just in citizenship cases, but essentially across every facet of law.
>>509531237
>a durr durr durr
^you nigga

>>509531240
Correct, my arguments are undeniable which is why few attempt to debate me. My and the Trump Administrations interpretation of the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is flawless and all the zionists and mass immigration supporters can do is cope and seethe. .

>>509531538
It took you half a dozen posts to not figure out what the problem even was until it was just explained to you.

>>509531656
>a durr durr durr
you're shitting yourself

>>509512632 (OP)
There is still a loophole which is the father has to be a US citizen or permanant resident. At least US immigration law is one step closer to being normal like the rest of the world. (canada excluded)

>>509531700
Keep bumping to 500 please retard, more people should see how dumb the people they recruit are.

>>509531821
>hurrrr durrr
go to the bathroom, you're shitting yourself

>>509517564
>then nothing they do here is technically illegal as they are not subject to those laws
No, if that's what it meant then they would have said "subject to those laws" instead of "subject to the jurisdiction"
Being subject to the laws means you have to follow them, being subject to a jurisdiction means you have a right to stay in that jurisdiction even if you break the laws.
Illegal immigrants and diplomats' children didn't have a right to stay within a jurisdiction if they break laws BEFORE the constitution was written, thus they are not subject to the jurisdiction, thus they cannot get free citizenship via birthplace.

You have to remember the framers were defining new rights not yet enumerated. Everybody knew a diplomat's child born here was not subject to the jurisdiction. Everybody knew an illegal alien invader's child born here was not subject to our jurisdiction. We'd boot them out the second we could.

The key here is you have to explain why they chose the word "jurisdiction" instead of "law" but there is no reason to do that unless they were differentiating what the common person realized was a citizen back then. The common person realized an invader's child should not be granted citizenship. It's that simple.

>>509512632 (OP)
I had my birthright citizenship take from me just recently. Italy changed their law, unconstitutionally, and retroactively stripped millions of White Americans of their birthright citizenship. Then just two short months later said "We need millions of niggers, we don't have enough workers."

So yes, actually, get the fucking spics out I'm sick of anyone that isn't exactly like me. I want a functioning nation, not cheap third world labor.

>>509531934
He's already devolved into actual shit posting.

>>509514688
>>509515553
it used to be only free White men could be citizens, they need to go back to that

That's great, why is Trump throwing business oligarchs a bone by allowing them to undercut american labor with illegal spics?
DEPORT, fuck Trump's proposed amnesty.

>>509512632 (OP)
ahem the SCOTUS MUH DONNIE WON THE ARGUMENTS ANON has not taken his meds I see...

>>509515097
Wait so injuns aren’t going to be citizens either anymore?

>>509531538
>to be clear, your entire argument hinges on your belief that the word "jurisdiction" has meaningfully changed definitionally in the last couple hundred years.
You didn't change, it just had another utility. But nice strawman. This has been proven in the thread over and over again. And the writers of the 14th amendment also agree with the sentiment. And directly wrote about that too. It is indisputable. Regardless of your feelings. Words are simply meant to delivering meaning. We know what that meaning was with absolute clarity. And it is under the umbrella of the term, soundly.

>>509532183
They weren't until 1921 by an act of Congress.

>>509532183
They were already covered under another act since everyone understood the 14th amendment didn't grant blanket citizenship to all.

>>509512632 (OP)
>the kids threaten to call ICE on my parents everyday
FUCKING LOL!

Oh is this like how the Bible was misinterpeted and meant nonjews went to heaven

>>509532188
>>509531538
We also see this utility of the word all over legal documentation of the time. You have no argument.

>>509531934
>Jurisdiction can be defined as:
>Power of a court to adjudicate cases and issue orders; or
>Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power. See, e.g. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. et al. , 526 U.S. 574 (1999) .
explain why you believe that being subject to the jurisdiction is meaningfully different than being subject to it's laws. Do you think that it is possible to be subject to the laws of a place but not be within it's jurisdiction?
To answer your question, they used it to specifically make clear that it encompassed both the legal and geographic aspects.
>>509532056
make an amendment then
>>509532039
>gossiping like a woman
fag
>>509532188
>it had another utility
you keep saying this like it matters. did you know the word "thing" has dozens of utilities? do you think that actually means that the definition can be different in the same context?

>>509515553
>"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means no people with foreign allegiances.
So foreigners in the US are not subject to US law. Ever?

>>509532429
Jurisdiction is not limited to physical boundary. it was widely used that way in legal documentation of the time. You have no argument.

>>509532232
>>509532261
Interesting
I guess they got something out of voting for Trump after-all

>>509516203
>Illegals are subject to the jurisdiction they are in
lowest tier retard take...
which jurisdiction did the writers mean?
subject matter? territorial? in rem? others?
any of them?
all of them?
fortunately, they told us what they meant, and it wasn't merely being subject to the laws of the land.
you have no idea what you are talking about.

Everyone in the world is subject to US jurisdiction, that is the broadest ever, even people who have never stepped foot in the US. That is the claim of the US Justice Department.

>>509532597
That's why they enumerated the "born in the united states" part separately.
The "subject to the jurisdiction" part means that they are subject to the legal authority of the courts
You've circled around to my side of the argument

>>509532547

There were 2 types of jurisdictions at the time

Full jurisdiction = criminal activity

political jurisdiction = right to vote, eligible to be drafted, can be compelled for jury duty, etc

The citizenship question falls into the scope of the 2nd one

>>509532846
Elk v. Wilkins (1884), shows "subject to the jurisdiction" excludes those owing allegiance to foreign nations, such as non-citizen parents. Thus, children born to non-citizens do not inherently acquire citizenship, as their parents' foreign allegiance places them outside complete U.S. jurisdiction. You don't know what you're talking about. Prepare to see the when an objective ruling comes down. I bet you tell you were retarded friends that you never lose debates. You've been absolutely BTFO.

>>509517564
>if illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction they are in
the things you write are so retarded
that i can feel my intelligence dropping by just having read them.
i assure you that you do not understand what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, as there is more than one kind of jurisdiction that someone can be subject to, and you're speaking if it is synonymous with merely being bound to follow the laws of the land.

>>509532832
They actually have judges now claiming people yet to be born are also subject to US jurisdiction trying to protect illegal aliens, which would also make abortion actual murder in law.

There were two components for full and complete jurisdiction

More legal Judaism for something anyone with a brain can read and understand. Claiming the 14th is misrepresented opens you up to claiming 2A is misrepresented. Maybe that's the ultimate goal since Republigolems hate gun owners too.
>noo they love muh guns
Explain the big beautiful bill then. You can't.

The second is subject to the power of the courts, which diplomats are not

>>509532429
>explain why you believe that being subject to the jurisdiction is meaningfully different than being subject to it's laws
No, it's your burden to explain how they are the same thing and you blatantly failed as I pointed out when you made the ludicrous false claim "nothing they do is illegal." Breaking the law is still illegal even if one has diplomatic immunity. Breaking the law is still illegal even if the president grants you a future pardon. Breaking the law is still illegal even if it's an unenforceable law like US flag code . Breaking the law is still illegal even if you are not subject to jurisdiction thereof . Your premise that "jurisdiction" and "law" overlap is completely debunked on that fact alone.

But I went above and beyond and I already directly explained this you dumb shill. Try to read:
>Being subject to the laws means you have to follow them, being subject to a jurisdiction means you have a right to stay in that jurisdiction even if you break the laws.
Illegal immigrants and diplomats' children didn't have a right to stay within a jurisdiction if they break laws BEFORE the constitution was written, thus they are not subject to the jurisdiction, thus they cannot get free citizenship via birthplace.
I actually slipped up and said before constitution was written when I meant to say before 14th amendment was written. You clearly didn't even read my post bc that would have been an easy catch.

Once again, your burden is to explain why they chose the word "jurisdiction" instead of "law" but there is no reason to do that [ie make such an awkward substitution] unless they were differentiating what the common person realized was a citizen back then. The common person realized an invader's child should not be granted citizenship. It's that simple.

You cannot meet this burden, thus you've lost the argument.

>>509532846
>The "subject to the jurisdiction" part means that they are subject to the legal authority of the courts
>You've circled around to my side of the argument
that's not what it means.
we know that's not what it means because the people that wrote the law debated about it and minutes of their debate were taken.
you are either a simpleton or a sophist.

>>509532766
glad you googled jurisdiction. You're at least starting on the path to understanding.
It actually means that the courts of the power to adjudicate cases involving them. To be within the jurisdiction of a court is to be subject to it's rulings. In this case, being subject to the courts of the united states.
An illegal immigrant is subject to the jurisdiction they are in, I do hope you are not seriously arguing that illegal immigrants are not subject to the rulings of the legal system.
>>509532978
in Pyler v. Doe (1982) all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike. And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens."

>>509524507
>i'm arguing
You lost. SCOTUS ruled against you. Cope.

>>509512632 (OP)
Sure they can, Ana. Like literally every other country in the world.

>>509533254
>It actually means that the courts of the power to adjudicate cases involving them.
no. wrong. that's your sophistry again.
here you go.
they very plainly and unambiguously say what it means here:
https://archive.org/details/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment

>>509533033
if you are not subject to the jurisdiction, then you are not subject to it.
>you're speaking if it is synonymous with merely being bound to follow the laws of the land.
because it is
You can feel your intelligence dropping because you have cornered yourself into defending a patently retarded position.

>>509512632 (OP)
>we should hew closely to the literal meaning of the constitution's text, except when we disagree with what it is

>>509533422
no, wrong again.
i'm convinced that you very well know that you are wrong and are talking out of the side of your mouth.
every one here can read EXACTLY what it means according to the very people who wrote it here:
https://archive.org/details/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment

>>509513196
>actual text
which says
>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.
that's birthright citizenship
you would actually need to perform mental acrobatics to show that it is NOT birthright citizenship

>>509533254
>in Pyler v. Doe (1982) all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike. And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens
Yes I understand modern rulings have ignored the utility of jurisdiction and only used it's a modern day usage. The ruling referenced in Wilkins uses the utility the writers used. So all it will take is an honest court to rule objectively and correctly based on the clear and sound utility of the term in the 14th amendment.

>>509533526
why read a secondary document when you can read the original document?
is it because you wish the original said something different? curious, indeed.

Being not subject to the full and complete jurisdiction means you could get away with murder.
1. Murder on US soil is a crime
2. Subject to the power of the courts
If #2 doesn't apply to you, you can get away with murder. Yes, this actually happens. There is a very famous well known example.

>>509532429
>To answer your question, they used it to specifically make clear that it encompassed both the legal and geographic aspects.
Delusional. The US Constitution encompasses all "geographic aspects" by default. If you are in USA territory the constitution applies 100% always and supersedes every other law every single time. There is absolute zero nada 0% reason to randomly add a single "geographic" caveat for just one amendment and never do it again.
All they had to do was say "born here" and it is automatically "birthright citizenship"
But they didn't. They added "jurisdiction thereof"

Again, you need explain why they chose the word "jurisdiction" instead of "law" but there is no reason to do that unless they were differentiating what the common person realized was a citizen back then. The common person realized an invader's child should not be granted citizenship. It's that simple.

>>509533602
>my case law is the true interpretation unlike yours
cope and seethe

>>509533608
more sophistry...
these are literally the debates of the people that wrote the constitution arguing among themselves about exactly what the words mean.
their debates are how we both know that you're argument is a bullshit foundationless take.

>>509533703
Ah another strawman. I didn't arbitrarily say that yours is wrong just because it disagrees with me. I explained specifically why it is incorrect. It used a utility of the term jurisdiction that was not used in the 14th amendment. You are the one just saying no. The case I cited uses the term in the same way the writers of the 14th amendment use the term. And we can verify this in many different ways. If you'd like me to go over them again I'd do that for you.

The biggest problem with the word illegal immigrant implies they've actually been found guilty of their act of illicit trespass. IDK why people think guilty before innocent is the way our jewdiciary works.
>>509533662
Same reason they added "well regulated militia" to 2A. Flowery language. Next you're going to say PR Spics and Guam monkeys aren't citizens too. You brainlets are so fucking stupid. And btw I hate the 14th, but it's literally de jure (14A) and de facto (based on sheer birth cert issuance over a century). It's fucking over. If the scotus comes up with some insane ruling, it would mean we live in a fake and gay country (we already kind of do).

>>509532846
>The "subject to the jurisdiction" part means that they are subject to the legal authority of the courts
No. Every living soul on US soil is subject to the legal authority of the courts.
Getting a free pass to break the law for things like preemptive presidential pardons or diplomatic immunity doesn't change this. It is mindlessly redundant to add "subject to the jurisdiction" if it is supposed to allegedly mean what you claim.

>>509533835
ironic accusing me of sophistry when you are trying so desperately to divert from the original document to the rambling musings of crusty old orators

>>509515553
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means ... subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Are people in this country not subject to the us government's jurisdiction? Or of the jursidiction of the state or territory they're in?

If they're not subject to jurisdiction of the government, that means we can't prosecute them for crimes they commit, but that's just not the case.

But who is immune from prosecution? People with diplomatic immunity, by treaty.

This is the plain meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's language.

>120 years of legal interpretation and precedent is wrong because....it just is okay???
I really don't see how his argument makes any sense. Trump's definition of the 14th uses the same logic as those retards that tout "Uhhmmm, the 2nd ONLY meant for muskets, okay???" It's faggot semantics.

>>509534001
...you're making a claim about what a phrase means.
i'm showing you the actual source of the phrase in question.
the people that wrote the 14th amendment discussing in detail what they mean by it.
protip: you're take is 100% wrong.

>>509533703
Also, it's commendable you aren't running away like 99% of your ilk here. I do appreciate any discussion.

>>509524154
>he doesn't know
Every Summer, there's newfags everywhere

>>509513196
>supreme court to overturn it the next day
Except that did happen you moron. SCOTUS ruled on lower courts blocking national level presidential EO. They did rule on the merits of the case.
Birthright citizenship and the term subject to the jurisdiction thereof has a very long history of established case law. You can't end run a constitutional amendment with an EO. We can change the 14th but not by way of just one man saying nah....
Trump's team just knows his base is really stupid and under educated. So he does lots of pander moves that will fail legal tests but sound good to the base anyways.

>>509534327
>change the 14th
nobody in trumps legal team nor am I arguing for changing or amending the 14th amendment or even creating a new amendment because the Citizenship Clause as it already stands does NOT grant citizenship to illegals and temporary visa holders and when SCOTUS rules on this in October they will say the same.

>>509534327
>under educated
Says the dumb nigger who thinks birthright citizenship was made for the entire brown and black third world to use while illegally trespassing in our country. People like you 100% need to be rounded up by the military and tortured to death. You're a terrorist. You don't deserve to live.

>>509534327
no one is "end running" anything.
a clarification has been made to "right the ship".
people have been abusing the 14th amendment and that's going to end now.
here you go:
https://archive.org/details/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment
the good stuff starts on page 144.
i can't wait for the prevailing misinterpretation to be shitcanned.

>>509534327
>Birthright citizenship and the term subject to the jurisdiction thereof has a very long history of established case law.
Elk v. Wilkins (1884), shows "subject to the jurisdiction" excludes those owing allegiance to foreign nations, such as non-citizen parents. Thus, children born to non-citizens do not inherently acquire citizenship, as their parents' foreign allegiance places them outside complete U.S. jurisdiction. Later cases insert modern utility of the word jurisdiction, and are objectively incorrect. We know the utility of the term in the 14th amendment because it is not only written about directly by its designers, but the common utility of its meaning was replete in all kinds of legal documentation of the time. You can rely on all of those unsound decisions all you want. It just takes one objective scotus ruling to interpret it properly.

>>509534468
Now tell that to all the birth certs issued to the children of them then. Reminder there is no federal id, illegals are innocent before guilty and more. You get your ruling, now how do you enforce it?

I don't think they will end it. This is too important to so many groups. I think this will be the most blatant example of corruption we will see as judges make weird arguments like how when Obamacare passed and Roberts was like "well we passed it but we say it's a tax so maybe you can use that to fight it in the future goyim"

>>509534558
Thankfully Palantir can go through billions of documents in minutes thanks to their technology and also thankfully they just got funded in the Big Beautiful Bill!

>>509534600
I don't think they'd bother hearing it if they weren't going to end it.

>>509512632 (OP)
The US is made up of the lowest white classes from Europe lmfao.
Don’t get it twisted, Timmy. You are descended from white trash.

You are just like any immigrant in any country ever. As soon as you got yours, it’s fuck everyone else. Hispanics do the same. The Chinese do the same. You guys are more alike than you think.

>>509534665
I don't think they would have allowed trumps EO to go into effect in 28 states if they weren't going to end it.

>>509534558
>illegals are innocent before guilty and more
Due process is for citizens.

>>509533908
>Same reason they added "well regulated militia" to 2A. Flowery language
"Flowery language" (which is an idiotic take btw) is not the same as mindless redundancy.

>>509534558
>illegals are innocent before guilty and more
Illegals are illegal. They have no rights in our country and it's time people started acknowledging that reality. Pack them on trains and ship them back to Mexico, and anyone that gets in the way, arrest them and send them to gitmo for treason and/or sedition.

>>509534721
That too

>>509534558
>illegals are innocent before guilty and more. You get your ruling, now how do you enforce it?
I know 5 families where they used legal immigration to get them to stay here. A lot of people like Asians especially don't want to risk coming here illegally so they get knocked up and on their 8th month they go to one of those Californian Chinese hospitals to get pregnant and have the kid there
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-raid-l-maternity-hotel-birth-tourists-n315996

>>509534746
Any kid under 5 should have their citizenship revoked and sent packing with their parents. They're young enough to fully assimilate back into their native culture.

>>509534723
It's literally bullshit speak. Cope all you want. The Constitution is for people, now the jewdiciary. You can keep inventing pilpul based on your common law garbage, but reality supercedes it. Century of jus soli is baked in. Period.

>>509534721
What did Justice Amy Coney Barrett say?

God bless ICE. Zogbots and cops are all zog foot soldiers, but ICE provides a service so profoundly beneficial to the US citizenry, they actually deserve people buying them lunch.

>>509516810
You're engaging in the very mental acrobatics OP has accused of defenders of birthright citizenship.

"Jurisdiction" encompasses more than laws, which are passed by legislatures. Jurisdiction refers more comprehensively to the reach of a government. A text search of the Constitution of "law" and "jurisdiction" makes that clear.

>>509534327
>t. the absolute state of burgermutt reading comprehension

>>509534738
>They have no rights in our country and it's time people started acknowledging that reality.
They've already won. The US is minority white already. I don't see you doing anything about that either. Keep seething about the legality of being genocided though. Maybe that will change reality, or you can stay deluded and get a completely inane contradictory interpretation no better than any other constitutional revisionism and totally save the US and the white race.

>>509535212
uh oh, the shitskin has moved onto the
>YOU WONT DO SHIT
stage of his coping and seething

>>509534839
>t. angry spic that's going to get deported
lol

>>509535212
You're not going to do shit, pussy. You feel and know you're inferior to white people which is why you spend every waking moment of your day anonymously shilling on the internet impotently as the culture shifts against you. Cope. You won't do shit. You can't do shit. You know you're inferior to us. Your birthrates are below replacement. The borders are closed. It's only getting better. Again, you won't do shit. We're changing the framework of the government before you very eyes and you won't do shit. Cope.

for anyone wondering what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof means"
you can read about it here:
https://archive.org/details/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment
starting on page 41

>>509518507
>Laws = jurisdiction
No. If they meant laws, that's what they would have said.

perhaps my favorite quote from the debates among the actual authors of the 14th amendment reads as follows:
>It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power.
perfectly fucking clear, lol.
https://archive.org/details/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment
page 41

>>509536227
under the power of the courts
You can break the laws if you are exempt
You can even murder and face no sanction

>>509536411
more quotes from the actual people that actually wrote the 14th amendment:
> I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.

>>509536559
Why did they allow for Black people to vote in the first place?

>>509512632 (OP)
>Retroactively
Stopped reading there. Neither Trump nor SCOTUS are interested In opening that can of worms. Birthright Citizenship will end going forward if at all.

>>509536887
when do you think black people got the right to vote?

>>509536950
SCOTUS rulings on constitutional questions are retroactive.

>>509536992
So that was a minority opinion? One opinion among many.

>>509536950
>>509537018
you're both right.
this particular executive order would not be retroactive, but a supreme court ruling would be.
there's nothing preventing trump from writing a 2nd retroactive executive order after getting a favorable ruling in the supreme court.

>>509537018
Give some examples at such a scale.

>>509537048
you asked
>Why did they allow for Black people to vote in the first place?
so, when do you think black people got the right to vote?

>>509537096
Brown v. Board of Education changed the entire country retroactively.

>>509537130
14th amendment

>>509537144
Did they take away people's education retroactively?

> Those laborers are no longer needed now as the industrial revolution is ancient history and everything is moving towards automation

Is that so? Nobody told the Orange Nigger in office.

Black men got the vote BEFORE White women
Should White women not be allowed to vote also?

>>509533550
>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Is the key line.
Non-citizens, like illegals, H1Bs, and foreign diplomats need not apply

>>509537183
...get off my board.
you could have asked
>which black people?
because women, including black women, didn't get the right to vote until 1920
you could have said 1789--BEFORE the 14th amendment--when some free black men were allowed to vote.
you could have said that they didn't really have the right to vote until 1965
there were so many good answers, but
>14th amendment
was not one of them.
you have bad takes and you don't understand what's going on.
why are you here?
you're like a toddler that stumbled into an operating room.

>>509537332
>if it doesn't happen overnight it's not happen
It's going to take a few decades you low IQ nigger.

>>509537018
Scotus decisions can be made both retroactive or only enforced post ruling. Both have happened depending on the case. Please do your research on this.

>>509537243
>take away
you fundamentally do not understand how SCOTUS works. SCOTUS does not make laws and they cannot change the US Constitution.

There were schools that were segregated and hundreds of years old that were forced to integrate retroactively, Brown v. Board of Education fundamentally changed the demographic makeup of entire states, cities, zip codes, etc. and was a major cause of White Flight.

Roe v. Wade was overturned,
many States passed new pro-abortion laws,
issue null

>>509537433
Only diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United states in that list. You dumb ape.

>>509537439
The whole concept of race or different races has been proven false. Even gender if you ask some people. It's all fake.

here is the exact quote from the very man who introduced the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
>The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons bom in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person bom within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons bom 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
https://archive.org/details/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment/page/n43/mode/2up?view=theater
page 41 near the top

>>509512632 (OP)
Good thing I'm due on the 14th

The SC only ruled on Universal Injunctions, that they (the courts) should not apply them, even when an EO is obviously unconstitutional. So the merits were not discussed at all.

>>509537884
You could also cross state lines, file a lawsuit, or join a class action.

>>509537798
>This will not, of course, include persons bom 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.

This sentence is talking about foreign diplomats only. He is not breaking down foreigners and aliens and diplomats separately.

Even if the EO is upheld, laws will be changed around that issue.

Can this country not stop chasing the tail? Make hiring illegal immigrants a federal crime punishable by imprisonment. There wouldn't be any illegal immigrants if there were no jobs for them.

Covid ‘Vaccines’ Use Multiple Pathways to Trigger Cancer, Report Reveals

https://lepointcritique.fr/2025/06/19/vaccins-arnm-anti-covid-peuvent-induire-cancer-de-17-manieres-distinctes-selon-plus-de-100-etudes/

>>509538256
Trump is against E-Verify. He said it makes it too hard to hire illegals.

Trump should propose a constitutional amendment changing birthright citizenship instead of trying to get a favorable ruling. I think he would be successful in making the case as he has a favorable congress and most of the country would either support or be indifferent to it.

What he is attempting to do now regarding this by throwing out an obvious unconstitutional EO to bait a favorable ruling will likely backfire.

MAGAcucks wanted to tax remittances at 100%, they got 1%, that's 0.01 for every dollar sent out of the country.

>>509538533
He becomes a lame duck in '26

no me problema

>>509538570

>>509538673
He will not, if he actually manages to deport many of the Biden immigrants. Even just a million less a year will be noticeable in terms of housing availability in major metropolitan areas.

>>509538700
They need to, if not the child raping videos get released.

>>509538817
Trump gave them practically nothing. You're coping.

>>509538788
He's not going to win "major metropolitan areas", he gutted medicaid, and closed rural health clinics.

>>509538947
Bondi already said they found thousands of videos.

This confirms what everybody said, and William Barr's involvement in the Epstein case.

>>509539058
Why did you take part in making thousands of videos?

>>509539555
Face it. Trump couldn't be anymore compromised.

Looks like all the MAGA shills clocked out. SAD!

>>509539726
You're coping. The data says otherwise. You're just made he's done things to benefit white people.

>>509539012
The point isn’t to “win” those areas it’s to placate them to not get them to turn out. If the majority in those places start to notice “hey, you know I’m not doing so bad under these policies” that lowers the chance that they turn out to vote.

>>509514688
From the Oxford dictionary: Jurisdiction. Noun. The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. Now you can rewrite the line as
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to [The United States'] official power to make legal decisions and judgments, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Does that make more sense now? If you are born here, in good standing with the country's laws, you are a citizen. The reading comes from the matter of what those laws are.

>>509541152
Illegal Aliens are subject to the jurisdiction the United States, hence why they can be arrested charged and imprisoned and deported by the United States Government.

>>509540603
How does a permanent alliance with Saudi Arabia benefit white people? What will you say when it's boots on the ground in Iran? When Europe gets flooded with Palestinian and Muslim refugees? When Trump is covering up many atrocities? Who will be blamed long after he's gone?

>>509512632 (OP)
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/behead-all-satans-mnm-dr/1122270988

>>509541710
lmfao your cope is delicious, tranny

>>509541710
>when
>when
>when
any day now

>>509542908
some even say, two more weeks!

>>509534327
>has a very long history of established case law.
Can you show me this long history of established case law?

>>509515553
Correct.
Illegals cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government since the feds are completely unaware of their existence.

>>509521212
>I'm white
Go back retard

>>509518188
It's called diplomatic immunity retard.

>>509512632 (OP)

mexicans should go back since 3 generations, we need to leave america free for pajeets to drown americans with their shit

>>509528662
>>509530134
It's not pilpul: it's called the Transitive Property
>If a = b
>and b = c
>then a = c

>>509512632 (OP)
No, it won’t. Stfu retard xD

>>509530073
Based reply.
The truth is that SCOTUS was never challenged on anchor babies. The most SCOTUS has spoken about it was a footnote on an 1982 case. Can't remember what is was / can't find the screenshot right now. Maybe some anon will deliver the sauce.

>>509533254
>Equal Protection Clause
Is not the entirety of the 14A

>>509537332
Hey retard: those are legal immigrants with work visas.

>>509543996
It's only the transitive property if A actually is B. Point is that A is A and B is B and A is not B, but they pretend that these things are that way anyway.

>>509544667
>It's only the transitive property if A actually is B
Are you... are you serious???

>>509537585
/thread

>>509533323
Ruled against nation wide injunctions.
They might have ruled on brc though, because idc about the circus

>>509544847
Yes. That was the example we were discussing.
>A is F because A=B=C=D=F
>Except A!=B, people are just claiming A=B because the difference appears marginal but isn't.
>Therefore the claim A=F is not supported
That wasn't the own you thought it was.

>>509530759
Look at all the pilpul and strawman

>>509545371
Okay, let's test this, for your sake
>If a = 6
>and b = 3*2
>then a = b since 6=3*2
>If b = 3*2
>and c = 5+1
then a cannot possibly equal c because... you're too retarded to understand the transitive property???

>>509545592
No, you are incapable of understanding subtext.
My original post >>509528662 used "actually" and greentext to suggest that the speaker was fudging the definitions of A and B to make them equivalent when they were in fact not. The term "scaffolding" also points to this, by suggesting the speaker was essentially nailing arguments to one another to extend them far outside their range of actual support.
>I have autism
No, you have an ego and a need to be proven right.

>>509545979
>you have an ego
No, I have a physics degree, so someone trying to disprove the Transitive Property, like you tried to do here >>509528662, truly boggles the noodle

>>509521287
>doesn't capitalize the word shalom
ni hao, you chink

>>509513612
kek

>>509546234
Okay, maybe you do have autism, because the point of that entire post is that the speaker is lying and exaggerating. You do know what lying is, right?
Let me put this in terms you might understand:
>Rocks are heavier than feathers
>If you put two groups of the same amount of different things on opposite sides of a scale, then the heavier side should go down
>One kilo is a good standard unit for stuff
>If I put feathers on one side and rocks on the other, the feathers are lighter
>So one kilo of feathers is lighter than one kilo of rocks
The last point doesn't follow from the previous points, because there's deliberately introduced ambiguity in how the situation is presented. The speaker OBVIOUSLY doesn't weigh one kilo of feathers vs a kilo of stones, just portions that LOOK like they "should" be one kilo. That's why scientific experiments are so specific about what is being tested and how.

>>509546694
Again, not how the Transitive Property works. The TP is used all the time in math and philosophy.