Truthfully you do not know that. It is your imagination. A mere thought in your head. Thoughts in your head are not the substance of the constitution.

It's not imagination. They're senior, educated jurists whose judicial philosophies are well documented, and whose conservative careers have been dedicated to really hating the very sort of wild, language-ignoring judicial activism that would be required to cut clear birth-right citizenship out of the 14th Amendment.

And they're all Catholics to boot, just not likely to lie in this particular way on this particular issue.

It's not vain imagining on my part, it is reasoned speculation from fact.

Do you know what lawyers get paid to do? This. We look at precedent. We look at the fact pattern. To the extent we can know it, we look at the judicial history of the judge or judges who will be deciding the case. We look at the language itself. And we come to a reasoned opinion as to what will probably happen in a particular case.

Our clients pay us to speculate as to what WILL happen, based on what HAS happened, what the words say, and who the judges are. That is the very essence of legal advice and the legal opinions for which clients pay tens of thousands of dollars.

The future is unknown, but the PROBABLE future is knowable by studying those things. I've made my living doing just exactly this: speculating, based on the facts, on what will happen in court and how courts will apply laws to a particular fact set.

When it comes to this sort of thing - not predicting elections, but predicting appellate decisions, I have very rarely been wrong. Obviously I have not fully researched this speculation here, but I have kept up on it over the years, and read a great deal of the argumentation. I'm professionally certain that there is no possibility whatsoever that the Supreme Court would uphold an assertion by the President that birth right citizenship does not inhere in anchor babies.

I am morally certain that, were I hired to opine on the subject, my formal research on the subject would produce precisely that result, and that my bill, probably something on the order of $12,000, would not be paid in vain by the President were he to pay it.

This one is not a close case. It's self-evidently obvious on the language of the statute.

It's not imagination. They're senior, educated jurists whose judicial philosophies are well documented, and whose conservative careers have been dedicated to really hating the very sort of wild, language-ignoring judicial activism that would be required to cut clear birth-right citizenship out of the 14th Amendment.

If they are educated Jurists. They will side with the words of the 145h amendment. It was to make sure former slaves were citizens. Nothing more.

Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders and that Muslim cunt who organized the pussy march all agree with you.

You're wrong, i'm right. It is a fact.

If they are educated Jurists. They will side with the words of the 145h amendment. It was to make sure former slaves were citizens. Nothing more.

The words of the 14th Amendment say nothing whatever about former slaves. Not a word. They will read the language that 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."

They will comment that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: the are subject to the laws and are tried in our courts (unlike diplomats, or reservation Indians in that day, or foreign troops occupying parts of US soil in war). And that will be that: they will uphold the 14th Amendment by striking down Trump.

At least 7 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices, and probably 9 out of 9, will agree with my professional, educated legal assessment.

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

They aren't subjects of this jurisdiction. They are illegally here.

Have a good day.

9 out of 9, will agree with my professional, educated legal assessment.

In your imagination they will do that.

Better more skilled more knowledgeable lawyers disagree with you.

There are not many of those. I graduated from top law schools in the US and France, easily passed the bar in two states, worked in the top firms, and have always been very successful in this profession.

Go find federal judges or law partners of white shoe firms who agree with you.

Now I'm hoping Trump does sign that Executive Order. Since it seems to be an open question, let's close that question.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, at least, along with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor will all agree with me.

Thomas and Gorsuch might agree with you. But I doubt even that.

They aren't subjects of this jurisdiction. They are illegally here.

They are illegally here, and we can arrest them and try them in our courts for being so and breaking our laws. If the court can try you, you are subject to its jurisdiction. That's what "subject to jurisdiction" MEANS: it MEANS that the court has the legal power to try you.

In your imagination they will do that.

Right now, it's in everybody's imagination that Trump will sign such an EO.

Once he does, the lower courts will swiftly block it. It will be appealed to the Supremes. I predict a 9-0 opinion. It's not a close case.

If they can be expelled they are subject to our jurisdiction at the time they are here.

We can also change our laws anytime to strip their immunity. Correct.me if I'm wrong but I believe diplomatic immunity came after the 14th.

Wrong on all counts. Persons with recognized diplomatic immunity are not subject to our jurisdiction. If the killer of Kate Steinle were a recognized diplomat at the time, he could not have been arrested, detained, and tried for the crime, regardless of the evidence against him. The United States government could advise his government that his recognition as a diplomat was being withdrawn and he had to leave by a specified date.

Diplomatic immunity preceded the Constitution by centuries. Internationally, persons allowed in as diplomats cannot be detained or tried for alleged crimes if they enjoy a grant of immunity.

ersons with recognized diplomatic immunity are not subject to our jurisdiction.

Sure they are. We can expel them from this country. So it is within our right to do that.

We can withdraw from treaties that obligate us to diplomatic immunity if we so choose.

Diplomatic immunity preceded the Constitution by centuries

Ok you and Vic taught me that one. I'll give you that.

Mexicans arent our subjects.

What Mexican are you talking about???

The 14th Applies to infant children born in the United States. If the child does not enjoy immunity from our laws, the child is a natural born United States citizen.

The United States has no subjects, but it has citizens.

If the killer of Kate Steinle were a recognized diplomat at the time, he could not have been arrested, detained, and tried for the crime, regardless of the evidence against him.

nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Those don't jive with each other. How would Kate receive equal protection. She couldn't have.

If the words meant what they said there would be no diplomatic immunity without repealing the 14th.

The United States has no subjects, but it has citizens.

Mexicans who have babies are Mexicans.

Americans who have babies are Americans.

It is really that simple.

I disagree with you. I always will. There is no changing my mind on this one.

None of us is going to decide this. We will just have to wait and see.

I do respect your opinions though unlike some others here. I respect Vics as well. I just don't agree. Other constitutional experts also agree with me. As others agree with you.

If they are educated Jurists. They will side with the words of the 14[t]h amendment. It was to make sure former slaves were citizens. Nothing more.

This is emphatically incorrect. The stated purpose was to take the existing common law rule and place its application beyond the control of Congress.

The common law rule of jus soli already existed in the United States, since day 1, and the 14th Amendment did not change that.

The stated purpose was to take the existing common law rule and place its application beyond the control of Congress.

Which Senator stated that?

We can withdraw from treaties that obligate us to diplomatic immunity if we so choose.

And nobody would have diplomats here, and we would not have diplomats anywhere.

If we are to have their diplomats here, or our diplomats there, immunity is just part of the deal. You would essentially break off diplomatic relations with the rest of the world.

We do not expel foreign diplomats in the sense that we arrest them and put them on an outbound flight. We advise the foreign country that their diplomat is no longer welcome and they fly them out.

And nobody would have diplomats here, and we would not have diplomats anywhere.

If we are to have their diplomats here, or our diplomats there, immunity is just part of the deal. You would essentially break off diplomatic relations with the rest of the world.

We do not expel foreign diplomats in the sense that we arrest them and put them on an outbound flight. We advise the foreign country that their diplomat is no longer welcome and they fly them out.

They are still subject to our jurisdiction. If they weren't we wouldn't be to tell them to leave. If they weren't subject... We would have to let them stay because we had no jurisdiction over them.

Diplomatic immunity should never include the right to kill our people. If they kill our people they should be punished. If a country doesn't like that deal. We can kill their country.

Mexicans who have babies are Mexicans.

Americans who have babies are Americans.

And -- "Only Jews have the right to self-determination"

That applies to Mexican, American, and all other flavors of Goyim... especially if you happen to be Kosher meat packer illegally employing over 400 of them!

And -- "Only Jews have the right to self-determination"

They should exple the muslims. Since they can do whatever they want right.

Since they can do whatever they want

"PRAISED BE HE WHO PERMITS THE FORBIDDEN"

www.google.com/search? q=p...s+the+forbidden+sabbatean

{ golf clap ]

They are still subject to our jurisdiction.

Respectfully, Stone, you're misunderstanding this word.

"Jursidiction" doesn't mean "subject to power". It means subject to the rulings of a COURT. It's not about executive power, it's about judicial power, about the power of judges to judge you, as a person (in personam jurisdiction), or to issue judgment over a thing (say, a ship) (in rem jurisdiction), or to preside over a case on a specific subject matter (example: family court) (subject matter jurisdiction).

It does not refer to the police power, which is executive branch stuff. It does not refer to the power to make rules, which is legislative branch stuff. It is a very specific legal term that refers to the power of a specific court to judge a case and impose a penalty.

"JURIS" means law. "Diction" refers to speaking. Jurisdiction refers to the power of a judge to pronounce a binding decision at law. Murder is illegal in the USA and everywhere else, but US courts do not have the jurisdiction to try murder cases that happen between two regular Norwegians in Trondheim. It didn't happen on us soil (the location was not subject to US courts), it did not happen between people who could be haled before US Courts (US courts can't judge Norwegians in Norway for things that happen in Norway). The crime committed there is a crime here too, and US cops could certainly arrest the Norwegian culprit who got caught here, if there were an Interpol report or an international warrant. But the district attorney could not bring that murder case before the state court, because the crime didn't happen under US jurisdiction, and the persons involved were not subject to US law when they did it.

On the other hand, a Norwegian traveler killing another Norwegian while in a US airport CAN be tried in US court for the murder, because it occurred on US soil, and whatever happens on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction...unless it happened in the Norwegian embassy (then things get murky and there might be a fight IF Norway wasn't going to hold the killer accountable), or unless the killer was a Norwegian diplomat. Then he could be arrested, but whether or not he could be tried would depend on the terms of our agreement with Norway. Norway could waive diplomatic immunity, and then our courts could try the guy.

Jurisdiction is a legal term with a specific meaning: it refers to the authority of the courts to try a case. Illegal aliens can be tried for anything they do on US soil. Therefore, they are subject to US jurisdiction, full stop. That's what the word means. It doesn't mean subject to arrest, it means subject to trial.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage? collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

"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 born within the limits of the US and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the US".

"This will not of course include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the US 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 US".

Was / is that a good idea?

Why or why not.

You are the biggest CT person on this site and that says a good deal about you.

They are still subject to our jurisdiction. If they weren't we wouldn't be to tell them to leave. If they weren't subject... We would have to let them stay because we had no jurisdiction over them.

WRONG.

The law which applies to accredited diplomats is an international treaty to which the United States is a party and signatory, namely the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, done at Vienna on 18 April 1961 and entered into force on 24 April 1964. The United States signed on 29 June 1961, and ratified on 13 November 1972.

We do not have to let them stay. See Article 9, quoted below.

When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country. See Article 39, quoted below.

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Done at Vienna on 18 April 1961

The States Parties to the present Convention,

Recalling that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognized the status of diplomatic agents,

Having in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations,

Believing that an international convention on diplomatic intercourse, privileges and immunities would contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems,

Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States,

Affirming that the rules of customary international law should continue to govern questions not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present Convention,

Have agreed as follows:

[...]

Article 9

1. The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.

2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.

[...]

Article 29

The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.

Article 30

1. The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission.

2. His papers, correspondence and, except as provided in paragraph 3 of article 31, his property, shall likewise enjoy inviolability.

Article 31

1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:

(a) A real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;

(b) An action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State;

(c) An action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.

2. A diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness.

3. No measures of execution may be taken in respect of a diplomatic agent except in the cases coming under subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this article, and provided that the measures concerned can be taken without infringing the inviolability of his person or of his residence.

4. The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State.

Article 32

1. The immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents and of persons enjoying immunity under article 37 may be waived by the sending State.

2. Waiver must always be express.

3. The initiation of proceedings by a diplomatic agent or by a person enjoying immunity from jurisdiction under article 37 shall preclude him from invoking immunity from jurisdiction in respect of any counterclaim directly connected with the principal claim.

4. Waiver of immunity from jurisdiction in respect of civil or administrative proceedings shall not be held to imply waiver of immunity in respect of the execution of the judgement, for which a separate waiver shall be necessary.

Article 33

1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this article, a diplomatic agent shall with respect to services rendered for the sending State be exempt from social security provisions which may be in force in the receiving State.

2. The exemption provided for in paragraph 1 of this article shall also apply to private servants who are in the sole employ of a diplomatic agent, on condition:

(a) That they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State; and

(b) That they are covered by the social security provisions which may be in force in the sending State or a third State.

3. A diplomatic agent who employs persons to whom the exemption provided for in paragraph 2 of this article does not apply shall observe the obligations which the social security provisions of the receiving State impose upon employers.

4. The exemption provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article shall not preclude voluntary participation in the social security system of the receiving State provided that such participation is permitted by that State.

5. The provisions of this article shall not affect bilateral or multilateral agreements concerning social security concluded previously and shall not prevent the conclusion of such agreements in the future.

Article 34

A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or real, national, regional or municipal, except:

(a) Indirect taxes of a kind which are normally incorporated in the price of goods or services;

(b) Dues and taxes on private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;

(c) Estate, succession or inheritance duties levied by the receiving State, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of article 39;

(d) Dues and taxes on private income having its source in the receiving State and capital taxes on investments made in commercial undertakings in the receiving State;

(e) Charges levied for specific services rendered;

(f) Registration, court or record fees, mortgage dues and stamp duty, with respect to immovable property, subject to the provisions of article 23.

Article 35

The receiving State shall exempt diplomatic agents from all personal services, from all public service of any kind whatsoever, and from military obligations such as those connected with requisitioning, military contributions and billeting.

Article 36

1. The receiving State shall, in accordance with such laws and regulations as it may adopt, permit entry of and grant exemption from all customs duties, taxes, and related charges other than charges for storage, cartage and similar services, on:

(a) Articles for the official use of the mission;

(b) Articles for the personal use of a diplomatic agent or members of his family forming part of his household, including articles intended for his establishment.

2. The personal baggage of a diplomatic agent shall be exempt from inspection, unless there are serious grounds for presuming that it contains articles not covered by the exemptions mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article, or articles the import or export of which is prohibited by the law or controlled by the quarantine regulations of the receiving State. Such inspection shall be conducted only in the presence of the diplomatic agent or of his authorized representative.

Article 37

1. The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 36.

2. Members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, together with members of their families forming part of their respective households, shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 35, except that the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State specified in paragraph 1 of article 31 shall not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties. They shall also enjoy the privileges specified in article 36, paragraph 1, in respect of articles imported at the time of first installation.

3. Members of the service staff of the mission who are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy immunity in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties, exemption from dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason of their employment and the exemption contained in article 33.

4. Private servants of members of the mission shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State, be exempt from dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason of their employment. In other respects, they may enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent admitted by the receiving State. However, the receiving State must exercise its jurisdiction over those persons in such a manner as not to interfere unduly with the performance of the functions of the mission.

Article 38

1. Except insofar as additional privileges and immunities may be granted by the receiving State, a diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanently resident in that State shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction, and inviolability, in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions.

2. Other members of the staff of the mission and private servants who are nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent admitted by the receiving State. However, the receiving State must exercise its jurisdiction over those persons in such a manner as not to interfere unduly with the performance of the functions of the mission.

Article 39

1. Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy them from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as may be agreed.

2. When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country, or on expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so, but shall subsist until that time, even in case of armed conflict. However, with respect to acts performed by such a person in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission, immunity shall continue to subsist.

3. In case of the death of a member of the mission, the members of his family shall continue to enjoy the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled until the expiry of a reasonable period in which to leave the country.

4. In the event of the death of a member of the mission not a national of or permanently resident in the receiving State or a member of his family forming part of his household, the receiving State shall permit the withdrawal of the movable property of the deceased, with the exception of any property acquired in the country the export of which was prohibited at the time of his death. Estate, succession and inheritance duties shall not be levied on movable property the presence of which in the receiving State was due solely to the presence there of the deceased as a member of the mission or as a member of the family of a member of the mission.

[...]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-diplomatic-immunity.html

What Is Diplomatic Immunity?

Foreign government officials in the U.S. enjoy some protection from prosecution, but not in all matters.

By Amien Kacou

The term "diplomatic immunity" refers to a principle of international law that limits the degree to which foreign government and international organization officials and employees are subject to the authority of police officers and judges in their country of assignment. Does this mean that foreign officials can get away with anything in the countries where they’re posted, as is often assumed? Not exactly. This article will take a closer look at the actual legal standards governing diplomatic immunity, especially in the United States.

Strictly speaking, the principle of diplomatic immunity does not apply to all foreign government or international organization officials and employees. When it does apply, it applies differently to different categories and subcategories of such persons and their families, dependent on circumstances.

(Note: Diplomatic immunity is also to be distinguished from "sovereign immunity," which applies to the person and property of foreign governments themselves and is not discussed in the present article.)

Diplomatic Immunity for Embassy Personnel

Diplomatic agents – that is, high ranking embassy officials (ambassadors, for example) who serve the function of dealing directly with their host country's officials on behalf of their home country – enjoy the highest degree of immunity. The same applies to their family members.

The police cannot detain them, arrest them, or search or seize their houses and other property. Diplomats cannot be prosecuted or otherwise forced to appear in criminal court. Nor can they be sued in civil courts, except for their personal (non-official) involvement in certain commercial, real-estate, or inheritance-related matters, or for their separate professional activities.

So, for example: An ambassador who is sued for failing to pay her personal home mortgage premium may lose title to her house but may not be forced to pay damages and may not be evicted.

[snip]

If you read the constitution about equal protection. If that was followed to a T. Diplomatic immunity would be unconstitutional.

14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause

... nor shall any state ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Immunity from criminal prosecution for diplomats is part of the supreme law of the land.

The United States government has granted immunity to diplomats. It is a Federal action, not a State action. Diplomats do not fall under the jurisdiction of any State.

Im not sure how it could be any clearer. I believe even the writer of the 14th stated as much. The 14th has been bastardized to allow anyone born on US soil ie US Jurisdiction to be US citizen even though they really are under the jurisdiction of the parents country. I think people really have to tie themselves into a legal pretzel to say otherwise.

JMHO

Mexicans who have babies are Mexicans.

The 14th Amendment says nothing about Mexicans or anyone else who has babies.

It speaks of newborn babies, persons born.

It does not speak of parentage, and makes no distinction between parentage by citizens, lawful aliens or unlawful aliens, nor between permanent residents or temporary visitors. Neither did the common law which prevailed before the 14th Amendment, and which was carried forth by the 14th Amendment, placing birthright citizenship beyond the reach of Congressional legislation.

The 14th Amendment speaks of "subject to the jurisdiction."

Blackstone, Commentaries on the Common Law of England (1765)

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

[...]

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.

A denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them.

The United States does not have a king, and does not recognize any royal prerogative. It follows that we do not have the category of denizen. We have citizens and we have aliens, only.

I do respect your opinions though unlike some others here. I respect Vics as well. I just don't agree. Other constitutional experts also agree with me. As others agree with you.

You can disagree with my opinion all you want. The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution, is the law of the land, whether you or I agree with it or not. I am doing my best to express what the law is, not what I think it should be. Perhaps we should pass an amendment to establish that babies of illegal or undocumented aliens shall not be granted birthright citizenship. The fact remains that we have not done that. It is beyond any and all doubt that illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States, and their newborn child is born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210-15 (1982)

II

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). 9

[457 U.S. 202, 211]

Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." 10 We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized

[457 U.S. 202, 212]

that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: `Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Yick Wo, supra, at 369 (emphasis added).

In concluding that "all persons within the territory of the United States," including aliens unlawfully present, may invoke the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to challenge actions of the Federal Government, we reasoned from the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to afford its protection to all within the boundaries of a State. Wong Wing, supra, at 238. 11 Our cases applying the Equal Protection Clause reflect the same territorial theme. 12

[457 U.S. 202, 213]

"Manifestly, the obligation of the State to give the protection of equal laws can be performed only where its laws operate, that is, within its own jurisdiction. It is there that the equality of legal right must be maintained. That obligation is imposed by the Constitution upon the States severally as governmental entities, - each responsible for its own laws establishing the rights and duties of persons within its borders." Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 350 (1938).

There is simply no support for appellants' suggestion that "due process" is somehow of greater stature than "equal protection" and therefore available to a larger class of persons. To the contrary, each aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment reflects an elementary limitation on state power. To permit a State to employ the phrase "within its jurisdiction" in order to identify subclasses of persons whom it would define as beyond its jurisdiction, thereby relieving itself of the obligation to assure that its laws are designed and applied equally to those persons, would undermine the principal purpose for which the Equal Protection Clause was incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation. That objective is fundamentally at odds with the power the State asserts here to classify persons subject to its laws as nonetheless excepted from its protection.

[457 U.S. 202, 214]

Although the congressional debate concerning §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was limited, that debate clearly confirms the understanding that the phrase "within its jurisdiction" was intended in a broad sense to offer the guarantee of equal protection to all within a State's boundaries, and to all upon whom the State would impose the obligations of its laws. Indeed, it appears from those debates that Congress, by using the phrase "person within its jurisdiction," sought expressly to ensure that the equal protection of the laws was provided to the alien population. Representative Bingham reported to the House the draft resolution of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction (H. R. 63) that was to become the Fourteenth Amendment. 13 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033 (1866). Two days later, Bingham posed the following question in support of the resolution:

"Is it not essential to the unity of the people that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? Is it not essential to the unity of the Government and the unity of the people that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in this Union in the rights of life and liberty and property?" Id., at 1090.

Senator Howard, also a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen, and the floor manager of the Amendment in the Senate, was no less explicit about the broad objectives of the Amendment, and the intention to make its provisions applicable to all who "may happen to be" within the jurisdiction of a State:

[457 U.S. 202, 215]

"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction." Id., at 2766 (emphasis added).

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction - either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States - he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

The 14th was for and only slaves. It has been stated as such many times since. The Elk v Wilkins reaffirmed it.

You are wrong. The 14th was not only for slaves. Elk did not affirm that. The author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment did not say that.

People should give up on Elk already. That argument has long been weighed and found wanting.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 682 (1898)

The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country. The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States," by the addition, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words, (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law,) the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England, and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 171; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155 ; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The stated purpose was to take the existing common law rule and place its application beyond the control of Congress.

Which Senator stated that?

Senator Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

Mr. HOWARD. ... This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born 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.

- - - - - - - - - -

Mr. HOWARD. I was a member of the same committee, and the Senator's observations apply to me equally with the Senator from Maine. We desired to put this question of citizenship and the rights of citizens and freedmen under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power of such gentlemen as the Senator from Wisconsin, who would pull the whole system up by the roots and destroy it, and expose the freedmen again to the oppressions of their old masters.

You might want to read page 2890 of The Congressional Globe dated 30 May 1866.

You may want to read my #13 and then read the Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark which remains citable good law today.

One of the SCOTUS quotes in my #13 is from Wong Kim Ark:

Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 699 (1898), Gray J.

Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment; and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves, and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the Amendment to the Chinese race was considered, and not overlooked.

See this, also from Wong Kim Ark. I would recommend reading Federal judicial precedent which controls the legal meaning of the words of the Amendment, rather than Congressional debate comments, which do not.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687-88 (1897)

Opinion of the Court (6-2)

The words " in the United States, and subject to the juris­diction thereof," in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amend­ment of the Constitution, must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange; and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words, " out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States," as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word " jurisdic­tion " in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the juris­diction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

These considerations confirm the view, already expressed in this opinion, that the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, in­tended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.

By the Civil Rights Act of 1866, "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, exclud­ing Indians not taxed," were declared to be citizens of the United States. In the light of the law as previously estab­lished, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, "not subject to any foreign power," were not intended to exclude any children born in this coun­try from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright; or, for instance, for the first time in our his­tory, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country, nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the Civil Rights Act, "not subject to any foreign power," gave way, in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to the affirmative words, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

This sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law, as to each of the qualifications therein expressed—"born in the United States," " naturalized in the United States," and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"—in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States. But it has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Con­stitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.

The effect of the enactments conferring citizenship on for­eign-born children of American parents has been defined, and the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the do­minion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents, has been affirmed, in well considered opinions of the executive departments of the Government, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

"Jursidiction" doesn't mean "subject to power". It means subject to the rulings of a COURT. It's not about executive power, it's about judicial power, about the power of judges to judge you, as a person (in personam jurisdiction), or to issue judgment over a thing (say, a ship) (in rem jurisdiction), or to preside over a case on a specific subject matter (example: family court) (subject matter jurisdiction).

What you said, Vic.

There is no other way to stop anchor babies because the will of the congress will never ever amend the constitution again. We are too divided.

Unless you have another way to stop anchor baby? When in America our extreme poverty is middle class for half the world. 3.5 billion people just need a way to get here.

Unless you have another way to stop anchor baby? When in America our extreme poverty is middle class for half the world. 3.5 billion people just need a way to get here.

An Executive Order is a non-starter. An Amendment is very difficult, and in the current Senate, impossible to get passed.

As a very far outside possibility, perhaps a piece of legislation could be fashioned to remove the jurisdiction of the Court to hear any case brought by an illegal alien or person not lawfully admitted to the United States. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 states that "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Congress has the authority to limit the appellate the authority of the Court to hear cases, and it has been done.

See Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868) 8-0. Between having heard the case, and before a decision was issued, the Court was stopped dead in its tracks and jurisdiction to decide the case was taken away.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/506/

But be aware that this once used Legislative power may function like Harry Reed using the nuclear option on Court appointments to lower the requirement to a simple majority. McCardle was a civil war era case, and that limiting power is dangerous when its use is acceptable.

A real attack could be fashioned to mandate a national identification card and to impose severe penalties on anyone employing anyone without a valid picture ID Card certifying citizen or alien status, and whether an alien has a right to be employed in the United States. Counterfeit cards could incur severe penalties as well.

Take away illegal employment and they will stop coming.

Where there is a will, there may be a way, but it will not be as easy as issuing an Executive Order.

That is how you win.

Take it to court.

Yeah I know some other experts disagree.

All the stuff you quoted is like quoting Roberts on Obamacare.

If you are right America is dead. There is no other way to stop anchor babies because the will of the congress will never ever amend the constitution again. We are too divided.

Sure there is a way. And it's pretty easy.

The President is doing it. You order the army and the national guard, the air force and the Coast Guard and the Navy to defend the border and prevent anybody from crossing it. That's just not that hard. It's expensive, but it isn't hard.

That stops the flow, dead, for as long as you keep the armed forces deployed there.

Then it's a matter of rounding up the illegals internally. To do that, you simply enforce the existing laws on the books.

We have all of the tools necessary to completely stop illegal immigration - and the drug flows to boot - and to kick every illegal out of the country, if we want to do that. We have the massive military, the tech, and the massive law enforcement. The President has the power to deploy the military to do that, and to use federal forces to do that, and with a Republican Congress, the power to cut off federal funds to any Democrat area that won't enforce the law.

And that would be that.

It's not that hard. It's just expensive. Not national-bankruptcy expensive, but expensive.

We don't need to start pretending the Constitution doesn't say what it says in order to stop illegal immigration.

That is how you win. Take it to court.

You win if the Supreme Court votes your way.

I'll bet you a steak dinner they won't.

Constitutional experts agree the fourteenth doesn't grant citizenship to aliens illegally here. Only to former slaves.

That is how you win.

Take it to court.

Yeah I know some other experts disagree.

Right offhand, I can think of nine of them.

This is like advocating for birther arguments.

https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%2520CASE%2520LIST.pdf

BIRTHER SCORECARD

Birther arguments went 0-226 at the Trial Court, 0-120 at the Appeals Court, and 0-35 at the U.S. Supreme Court.

I believe all were rejected or dismissed at the pre-trial stage.

Between the libertarians, Regressives and never trumpers there just isn't the will to do the job.

The way things are going we are head to a civil war and no one seems to be trying to stop it! We good Americans have bent over to a point we can't bend anymore.

As for me I see the 14th for the slaves who had children that the demoncrats refused to allow as citizens. If you are here legal then you are under the jurisdiction of US but if you are not here legally ie illegal alien you are not under the jurisdiction of US but of the country you come from and are here illegally. All anyone would have to do is go any US soil including embassy and have a baby and the baby is now an American citizen. That's absolutely insane!

Its just my opinion. Its just street everyday man common sense.

This would be like when Bernie Maddoff stole all the money but instead of giving it back to the victims the courts just said it was giving to his family and they did nothing wrong and so they get to keep it.

Constitutional experts agree the fourteenth doesn't grant citizenship to aliens illegally here. Only to former slaves.

I agree... and I believe Trump knows (inside info), that the 9 sitting USSC justices, would rule that way if the case comes in front of them.

When Ginsburg dies, it’s absolutely GRAVELY IMPERATIVE, that we have Trump or Rand Paul in office. It’s more important that the invention of fire.

The President is doing it. You order the army and the national guard, the air force and the Coast Guard and the Navy to defend the border and prevent anybody from crossing it. That's just not that hard. It's expensive, but it isn't hard.

There will still be the issue of visa overstays who drop an anchor baby. And we have to eliminate chain migration.

As for me I see the 14th for the slaves who had children that the demoncrats refused to allow as citizens.

The law is the words stated and what they mean. Intent is not part of legislative adoption. What was adopted was the words of the Amendment. The law of unintended results is real.

The 14th was certainly for the newly freed slaves who had no pathway to citizenship under prevailing law. They were not born citizens. They were not aliens and could never meet the requirements for naturalization. Manumission was never a grant of U.S. citizenship. The 13th did not confer citizenship or voting rights.

If you are here legal then you are under the jurisdiction of US but if you are not here legally ie illegal alien you are not under the jurisdiction of US but of the country you come from and are here illegally.

This is simply wrong as a matter of law. Citizens, lawful aliens, and unlawful aliens present in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, minus those few aliens who enjoy immunity, such as diplomats and visiting royalty.

Declaring illegal imigrants to be not subject to United States jurisdiction would make them unprosecutable for crimes committed, like diplomats. As a solution, its worse than the problem.

Immunity is a wonderful thing for those who have it. In NYC, they park wherever they want, whenever they want, and all Officer Clancy can do is give them a ticket which they can safely ignore.