Active Now

my2cents
Element 99
Danilo_G
Discussion » Questions » Politics » What does "jurisdiction" mean in the 14th Amendment?

What does "jurisdiction" mean in the 14th Amendment?

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment reads: "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."
...
The question about whether or not a child born in the US is automatically a citizen, comes down to the meaning of "jurisdiction". Are foreigners "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, just by being IN the United States (or its territory)?
...
The legal definition of jurisdiction is "the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal cases." According to this definition, if foreigners are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US then American police could not arrest them - and they could not be tried in American courts. This is the protection foreign diplomats get with "diplomatic immunity". If every foreigner had this protection, there would be no need for a special exemption for diplomats.
...
To claim this issue never came before the Supreme Court is mistaken. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court held that when a child is born in America to non-citizen Chinese parents, that child is a United States citizen. (Note this was 60 years after the Amendment was ratified.) The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority (6 -2 decision) concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...._Wong_Kim_Ark

...
The other side of the argument says that the phrase refers to ONLY being subject to American jurisdiction. (they can't also be subject to the jurisdiction of another country, by being citizens of that country) However, to argue that, one would have to stipulate that the people who wrote the law didn't know enough to state "and subject only to the jurisdiction thereof" or otherwise specify plainly that the parents were not citizens of another nation.

Posted - November 1, 2018

Responses


  • 32529
    This is what the people who wrote it meant:


    The 14 Amendment’s citizenship clause was authored by Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, who clarified its meaning on the floor of the Senate in 1866:

    This [Amendment] will not, of course, include persons born 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.

    .........................

    The 14th was about forcing the slave states to give citizenship to the newly freed slaves.

    This post was edited by my2cents at November 1, 2018 4:40 PM MDT
      November 1, 2018 11:17 AM MDT
    3

  • 6023
    Too bad they didn't actually put that in the Amendment.

    Of course, we were also told that Social Security taxes would only be on the wealthy.  Now we're all paying it.
    So much for what Congress says a law will do.
      November 1, 2018 2:33 PM MDT
    0

  • 32529
    That is what the phrase "under the jurisdiction of" meant to them. That we have now decided we can play word games and get a different meaning does not change it. This post was edited by my2cents at November 1, 2018 3:15 PM MDT
      November 1, 2018 2:41 PM MDT
    0

  • 22891
    not sure
      November 1, 2018 11:21 AM MDT
    1

  • 13251
    Then why answer when you have nothing to say?
      November 1, 2018 11:27 AM MDT
    5

  • 1340
    Admitting to not knowing something is a virtue in its own right, I'd reckon; and it doesn't mean having nothing to say.
      November 1, 2018 11:35 AM MDT
    0

  • 22891
    cause i feel like it
      November 1, 2018 2:33 PM MDT
    1

  • 13251
    OK Walt, I'll bite. Who is claiming that it never came before the Supreme Court?
      November 1, 2018 11:29 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    There are people who are saying it is a "new" interpretation ... and that the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether it applies to illegal aliens.   

    The 1898 case, was where the government believed the defendant was an illegal alien.
      November 1, 2018 2:31 PM MDT
    0

  • 13251
    Whom? I haven't heard or seen anyone say or write that. It either did or did not, and it's a matter of public record.
      November 1, 2018 4:14 PM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    Various comments on multiple web forums.
    Even My2Cents implies that it is a new interpretation, in his response: "That we have now decided we can play word games and get a different meaning does not change it." (my emphasis)
      November 2, 2018 8:43 AM MDT
    1

  • 32529
    If it does not line up with what the man who wrote the amendment says it meant then yes it is a new interpretation.
      November 2, 2018 8:47 AM MDT
    1

  • 6023
    I wouldn't call a ruling "new", which has been in place for 120 years (or 2/3 of the time the Amendment has been in place).

    "Newer" than the Amendment, sure.
    But so would a ruling the day after the Amendment was ratified.

    However, saying it's "new interpretation" implies to most people that it's something that has happened in their lifetime.
      November 2, 2018 10:08 AM MDT
    0

  • 13251
    But saying that doesn't imply that SCOTUS hasn't ruled on it. Not all web sites and, especially, those who post comments are credible. This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at November 2, 2018 8:58 AM MDT
      November 2, 2018 8:58 AM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    Let's back up and define the 13th Amendment first.  

    You know, what Trump and his buddy think the 13th Amendment means versus reality.


    Let's start there.

    You take a black poser who looks like a Minstrel tap dancer, loudly proclaiming his love for Trump while telling the world he is off his meds and you got another desperate sycophant begging for help from anyone.

    Trump could not help him if he tried.  He is way more out of touch with reality than his tap dancing Uncle Tom who can't tell the world enough times how much he loves Donald Trump.

    This is such an obvious ploy for help.  When a child is crying over and over again things that equate to an emotional breakdown and the person who is enabling him is sicker than he is, that is known as a toxic co-dependency.

    The sad thing is, Kanye will be a forgotten footnote and a joke and Trump will keep bouncing back.  He will be impeached and he still has enough politicians and crooks in his pocket that he will do damage for decades to come.  I know he is on his last cellulite covered legs, but he has KIDS that are even sicker and more evil than he is.

    Evil is not deliberate action, evil is not caring when someone is starving in front of you and you walk right over them.  

    Or in the case of Charlottesville, DRIVE over them. 

      November 1, 2018 12:21 PM MDT
    0

  • 628
    Hello there Walt
    I am just going to paste my answer to Rosie's question, which I believe you may be referencing here...

    ..."It will come as no surprise to you that I agree with the President on this, however I do not believe his intention is to "rescind" that part of the 14th amendment, but rather restore the intention of the 14th amendment. 
    The 14th amendment is part of the "reconstruction amendments", (13th, 14th and 15th amendments.) These amendments were to insure the newly freed slaves were to be considered citizens of the United States and that no state could violate this. 
    The 13th amendment abolished slavery, but didnt make clear the legal status of the former slaves, they were at that free but what rights did they have, and what about that ol' 3/5th thing? thus the 14th amendment..granting full citizenship to the former slaves and their children, thus basically overturning the 3/5th compromise of the Constitution and the Dred Scott decision which held that No person of African ancestry  could be a citizen. the 15th guaranteed the right to vote.
    The 14th amendment says that any person born or naturalized in the U.S.and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. 
    Had the intention been to confer citizenship to anyone simply born in the U.S, there would have been no need to qualify it  "and being Subject to the jurisdiction thereof". this means NOT being subject to another jurisdiction, they make this distinction later in the amendment that people "Within" the jurisdiction are still entitled to due process. they make the distinction between being "subject to" and being "within" a jurisdiction.
    The courts have upheld this idea in several key cases. I cant remember the exact names  Slaughter ??? held that tthe qualification of "jurisdiction" in the amendment was intended to exclude "children of citizens or subjects of foreign states born in the U.S".  This was confirmed in a later case with dealt with the citizenship of Indians, the court held that indians and their children could not be citizens because they held allegiance to  different jurisdiction, their Tribe..this was later overturned in the Indian Citizen Act of 19??. Again if citizenship was guaranteed to anyone simply for being born here, that act  would not have been necessary.

    There is no law or statute or legislative act that confers citizenship to children of aliens, other than that which just repeats the text of the 14th amendment. The idea of birthright citizenship that includes everyone without regard to their "jurisdiction" is the result of not enforcing the actual text and precedent. 
    I believe in this the case the President does have the constitutional executive authority to instruct his agencies to begin to deny visa's and S.S.N. numbers to the children of illegal aliens..until of course challenged in court or overturned with actual legislation.."

    In Wong Kim, he was born to parents who were "legally domiciled and resident of San Francisco, having established a business and not working for the chinese gov...."


      November 1, 2018 3:08 PM MDT
    1

  • 6023
    Wong Kim's parents were, by your logic, still not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US ... because they were still Chinese nationals.
    So the case settled that "subject to the jurisdiction" does NOT mean what you are proposing.

    However, as I replied to others ... it is not unknown for SCOTUS to reverse itself ... and the government can request a case be expedited, bypassing lower courts to go directly to SCOTUS.

      November 2, 2018 8:50 AM MDT
    0

  • 435
    I do think from what I read that Trump is right on the intent of the Amendment but I do think Congress should be the ones to bring this out and then the Supreme Court can interpret that Amendment.  Not a law change just an intent of what it says.
      November 2, 2018 9:22 AM MDT
    0