these people are not american citizens. they are not legal residents or visitors with valid visas. they shouldn't get any constitutional rights.

illegals arnt citizans

Okay. If laws are created to clearly state the illegals are outside our laws and the only recourse for any crime they commit is to deport them, then I will agree that is sound reasoning to say the 14th does not apply.

otherwise you end up in this retarded scenario where the ENTIRE PLANET has US constitutional rights because they might one day cross the border illegally. people in the fucking caravans in mexico are claiming that their constitutional rights are being violated.

@DrYuriMom i would appreciate if you would join us in voice chat, apparently dante recommends your intelectual value.

i will agree to your compromise on the condition that violent offenders can be shot on sight.

I'm not in a position to voice chat right now. At work waiting for someone else to get something done. Sorry.

Not a problem.

But Atkins, that would place them under our jurisdiction unless we were at war with their nation and we determined them to be spies.

Okay, work calls. Ttfn

Are bears or mountain lions under American jurisdiction? Or unconquered tribes?

They can still be shot.

if you use subjet to the laws of a nation does that mean any one born at a us embassy deserves citizenship, or since international corporations are subject to us jurisdiction and those employees are subject to the company does that by extension grant them rights.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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. -14th Amendement
Clearly this does not mean subject to laws or paying taxes alone. If that were the case every foreign resident and visitor would be a citizen.
When the 14th was written it was clarified shortly after by a senator who said "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. This 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. 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."

Bears and mountain lions are not human and therefore not relevant. The 14th Amendment clear relates to persons and therefore the company comment is not relevant.

During the debates the topic of a "Chinaman" was discussed and it was stated that YES, children born to such people would be citizens

That was later part of the 1898 Supreme Court case

In 1884 the supreme court ruled that newly born indians were not covered under the 14th amendment because their parents were not American citizens. This caused congress to pass the Citizen Act in 1924 (amazing speed i know) and formally provide all tribal members/descendants.

Again, someone who was as foreign and unwanted as you get at the time was considered covered by the 14th

The Indian case was based on an argument that by treaty the Indian nations were sovereign

Because they really had no ability to operate as real nations that was a ridiculous argument and was resolved in 1924 as you say

The government granted foreigners the same equality protection that the 14th provides. However it does not consider them citizens in the common use of the word.

The children born under the 14th are considered citizens by the 14th as validated by the Supreme Court in 1898 and then supported by precedent ever since.

And, honestly, by the debate in the Congress at the time when some tried to use prejudice against Chinese laborers against the amendment, especially in California

Right and his parents had legally entered the country

If they want to grant it to the children of legal residents and entrants that will be ok

Visa overstays and vacation births are another issue to be addressed and it is far easier to argue that they should have citizen children than those who enter illegally

The ruling of 1898 doesnt apply when discussing illegal immigrants. The citizenship of their children has been granted following a broad interpretation of the 14th amendment.

Cat, I think we talked about this before. It turns out, the 14th amendment did not give the children of Native Americans citizenship.

There was even a court ruling that the child of Native Americans had allegiance to their tribe, not the USA.

It does seem that, given the intent of the 14th amendment and those who penned it, giving the children of illegal immigrants citizenship is an abuse of the law.

My understanding is that indians were denied citizenship under the 14th because they were born on sovereign soil and therefore not within the US. I could be wrong but that is what I took from those late 1800 decisions.

The treaties said the reservations we're sovereign. That was never given much more than lip service since they couldn't form militaries or have foreign policy.

By the early 20th century the idea of sovereign native tribes was fully ditched and they became taxable and fully subject to US law

In the 1800s the native tribes were *in theory* not subject to US jurisdiction. It was a farce that was finally ended in the early 1900s.

And we have the direct word from the orchestrator and writer of the amendment that it was not meant to apply to foreign nationals.

I can try and find a direct quote, if you'd like.

I've read quotes and it tells me the opposite

Are there any potential solutions to the reservation-system out there. I mean if the majority of the tribes in the US live in extreme poverty maybe the system isn't working.

Hence why we have 150 years of case law all the way to the Supreme Court

Giving them shitty land and throwing money at them doesn't fix their situation.