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 and thus entitled his children to Citizenship at Birth.

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.

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!

>>509237568
Read pic related
The correct interpretation pertains to the line "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

>>509149218
The Law as it stands already supports my and the Trump Administrations argument that Temporary Visa Holders and ILLEGAL Migrants and their offspring are NOT U.S Citizens. The intent and meaning of the 14th amendment is clear as can be seen in pic related which can be found at: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-globe/page-headings/39th-congress/n-a/72668 which is a link to the record of the 39th congress in REAL TIME as they were writing the 14th Amendment.

The United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) builds upon that and offers FURTHER PRECEDENT to support my arguments that ILLEGAL MIGRANTS, TEMPORARY VISA HOLDERS (such as H1B) AND THEIR OFFSPRING ARE NOT U.S CITIZENS as the majority opinion explicitly uses the words "permanent resident" and "permanent domicile" which the modern day equivalent is the Permanent Residency Card or "Green Card".

The opposition has NO ARGUMENTS. They WILL NOT respond to my thread because they are LOW IQ, have NO ARGUMENTS, and couldn't come up with an argument even if they tried.

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.

25 days from now Ohio, Texas, and 26 other states will begin REFUSING to grant Birth Certificates and CITIZENSHIP STATUS to the offspring of illegal migrants born in their states. They will also begin to REJECT any birth certificate from a child of an illegal that was issued after the EO went into place which would be late February 2025 is when the EO says it went into place.

Hospitals who do NOT comply with this Executive Order will be committing a FELONY OFFENSE each time and will lose their FEDERAL FUNDING and be unable to pay their FEDERAL TAXES and go bankrupt within a year not to mention the people in charge of those hospitals will get decades in prison for the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of felonies they will be committing.

This is the greatest day in American History, FINALLY the constitution is being enforced as it is written!

There is NO RULING by SCOTUS that states that the children of illegal aliens are citizens, that is NOT what the 14th amendment says either and it is NOT what the author of Clause 1 of the 14th amendment says in constitutional record, and it is NOT what SCOTUS precedent says.

Here is how it stands today:

1: Constitution says that children of illegals do NOT have citizenship.

2: Precedent set by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark states that children of LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS have citizenship.

3: The author of 14th Amendment Clause 1 Senator Jacob Howard, specifically excludes the children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship when he offers his definition of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

THEREFORE a ruling is required by SCOTUS NOW to clarify if the children of illegal aliens are covered under the 14th amendment and given all of the historical context and precedent set by previous SCOTUS majority opinions... the answer is CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Also SCOTUS rulings on constitutional questions and interpretations are RETROACTIVE because to argue otherwise would be to claim that SCOTUS has the power to alter the US Constitution or to "make laws" which they do not. Only through the utilization of Article V in the US constitution can the US Constitution be amended and only Congress has the power to write, vote on federal laws which are ultimately signed into law by the President of the United States.

>>508493396
Please try to keep up.
There is NO RULING by SCOTUS that states that the children of illegal aliens are citizens, that is NOT what the 14th amendment says either and it is NOT what the author of Clause 1 of the 14th amendment says in constitutional record, and it is NOT what SCOTUS precedent says.

Here is how it stands today:

1: Constitution says that children of illegals do NOT have citizenship.

2: Precedent set by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark states that children of LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS have citizenship.

3: The author of 14th Amendment Clause 1 Senator Jacob Howard, specifically excludes the children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship when he offers his definition of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

THEREFORE a ruling is required by SCOTUS NOW to clarify if the children of illegal aliens are covered under the 14th amendment and given all of the historical context and precedent set by previous SCOTUS majority opinions... the answer is CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Also SCOTUS rulings on constitutional questions and interpretations are RETROACTIVE because to argue otherwise would be to claim that SCOTUS has the power to alter the US Constitution or to "make laws" which they do not. Only through the utilization of Article V in the US constitution can the US Constitution be amended and only Congress has the power to write, vote on federal laws which are ultimately signed into law by the President of the United States.

You didn't realize you were arguing with someone who was infinitely more knowledgeable about this subject than you are, did you?