Except, the reason Great Britain ‘tightened’ its law in 1983 is that until then and since at least 1608, they were a jus soli jurisdiction. Jus soli is part of the common-law tradition we inherited at the Founding. Birthright citizenship has always been our rule for white babies.
Even tourists are subject to jurisdiction. They are protected by the U.S. Government—you can’t mug a tourist and claim they were outlaws—and reciprocally the owe temporary allegiance to the U.S. as long as they are here.
That’s not allegiance to USA, that is obedience to our laws to which are broken when arrive here illegally. If here on a visa, still beholden to our laws but doesn’t give allegiance to our country because here on a limited timeframe.
Not how legal authorities used to see "allegiance". By placing themselves under the protection of the British monarch, aliens were required to adhere to his laws.
"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."
"Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien, or stranger born, for so long time as he continues within the king's dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another."
"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."
And this isn't a question of legal or illegal arrival, since the birthright citizenship issue is just as relevant to recipients of tourist visas.
These are pre-revolutionary citations. Generally the common law of England carried over to the United States, except that the concept of “king” was replaced by the nation. Jus soli carried over. Birthright citizenship was the rule for whites before the 14th Amendment, regardless of how the mother arrived. (Of course, we generally admitted anyone at the border back then.)
On the contrary, the 14A reiterated that, but extended it to non-white babies. No one saw 14A as narrowing citizenship.
Trump’s argument is rejected by most conservative legal scholars, including some who support repeal of birthright citizenship by a new constitutional amendment.
The SCOTUS had better clarify this issue now. We the REAL citizens of the United States are tired of this loophole that is costing the taxpayer millions. We need to put AMERICANS first now and permanently.
Excellent summary of the issue. Consider this: let’s say I’m from, say, Mexico. I am required to pay taxes there on my income and property. I could be drafted to serve in its armed forces and would have to comply. I have or am eligible for a Mexican passport and Driver’s license. I am eligible to vote in Mexican elections. I am clearly “subject to the jurisdiction of…Mexico”. The fact that, here illegally, I could be arrested for jaywalking, a traffic violation or something worse is no different than what you are subject to if you vacation in Italy. That does not make you Italian in any sense of the word.
Except, the reason Great Britain ‘tightened’ its law in 1983 is that until then and since at least 1608, they were a jus soli jurisdiction. Jus soli is part of the common-law tradition we inherited at the Founding. Birthright citizenship has always been our rule for white babies.
Even tourists are subject to jurisdiction. They are protected by the U.S. Government—you can’t mug a tourist and claim they were outlaws—and reciprocally the owe temporary allegiance to the U.S. as long as they are here.
That’s not allegiance to USA, that is obedience to our laws to which are broken when arrive here illegally. If here on a visa, still beholden to our laws but doesn’t give allegiance to our country because here on a limited timeframe.
Not how legal authorities used to see "allegiance". By placing themselves under the protection of the British monarch, aliens were required to adhere to his laws.
Blackstone: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html
"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."
"Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien, or stranger born, for so long time as he continues within the king's dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another."
"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."
And this isn't a question of legal or illegal arrival, since the birthright citizenship issue is just as relevant to recipients of tourist visas.
We are not England and don’t have a king. So I’m missing your point.
These are pre-revolutionary citations. Generally the common law of England carried over to the United States, except that the concept of “king” was replaced by the nation. Jus soli carried over. Birthright citizenship was the rule for whites before the 14th Amendment, regardless of how the mother arrived. (Of course, we generally admitted anyone at the border back then.)
Well the civil war amendment corrected that and courts have ignored the clear definition. It’s now time for SCOTUS to clarify and end the abuse.
On the contrary, the 14A reiterated that, but extended it to non-white babies. No one saw 14A as narrowing citizenship.
Trump’s argument is rejected by most conservative legal scholars, including some who support repeal of birthright citizenship by a new constitutional amendment.
Well argued…as usual!
The SCOTUS had better clarify this issue now. We the REAL citizens of the United States are tired of this loophole that is costing the taxpayer millions. We need to put AMERICANS first now and permanently.
Excellent summary of the issue. Consider this: let’s say I’m from, say, Mexico. I am required to pay taxes there on my income and property. I could be drafted to serve in its armed forces and would have to comply. I have or am eligible for a Mexican passport and Driver’s license. I am eligible to vote in Mexican elections. I am clearly “subject to the jurisdiction of…Mexico”. The fact that, here illegally, I could be arrested for jaywalking, a traffic violation or something worse is no different than what you are subject to if you vacation in Italy. That does not make you Italian in any sense of the word.
"Administrative systems ARE SUPPOSED TO already verify parental identity and status for a range of federal programs."
FTFY. See Minnesota as an example proving they don't.
SCOTUS better get this right! "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof".....