@Old Mexican and hkarnoldson, did you catch this post? https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/arizona-gop-trying-to-completely-ignore-the-constitution/13653/11
My copy doesn’t define “jurisdiction” anywhere. If it did, and that definition made your second interpretation impossible, why wouldn’t they simply have left out the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first place?
If you read what was written while the amendment was being considered, the intent is clear: for freed slaves to become citizens. They specifically didn’t want indians to become citizens. I can’t find any contemporary references to immigration, but it stands to reason that if indians (and their children born inside the US) aren’t automatically citizens, then the children of foreign citizens shouldn’t automatically be considered US citizens either.
Re: Skylar Collins,
Yes. I read the whole disertation. Unfortunately, the argument made BACK THEN regarding the jurisdiction clause was meant to keep people at ease about AMERICAN NATIVES, who did NOT considered themselves US nationals in any way. The argument that the 14th Amendment would NOT make the sons and daughters of African slaves “non-citizens” [EDIT] stands, which means children born in the US of foreign parents cannot be taken as “foreign”.
By the way, children born in the US out of undocumented Mexican immigrants are NOT considered Mexican citizens by Mexico unless registered at a Mexica consulate and only by presenting an American birth certificate - this means that the Arizona law is not meant to simply not give birth certificates to children of undocumented immigrants, but to assure none are born there.
@Old Mexican, do illegal immigrants from Mexico (or anywhere else) consider themselves US nationals?
Re: Skyler Collins,
Do legal ones, Skylar?
I have not polled them all, I don’t know.
Re: chrispy,
Parents of many US-born ex-slaves were not US citizens either, yet “somehow” your interpretation of the jurisdiction clause did not apply to them - how come? Where the people closer to the ratification of the amendment somehow not reading it correctly???
Are you sure about that? This would make it interesting, children with no citizenship.
Anyone in the US is under its jurisdiction save for diplomatic immunity and the like.
U.S. jurisdiction is not established by the words in the code or by being in any geographical area. You may think of the “United States” as a geographical area. It is not. Being born “in the United States” does not mean being born in the geographical area referred to as the United States. There is no map in the code and no geographical reference. However, I fail to see how Arizona can have any say in it, particularly for the same reason.
Jurisdiction (legal authority) is essentially established whenever any given organization has the power to declare and enforce their claim of jurisdiction (legal authority). In this case, is there any doubt that the US federal government is more powerful than the state government of Arizona?
Another way of thinking about this is the idea that for jurisdiction to be understood it must be demonstrated. I think the US federal government has demonstrated that it does in fact have the power to uphold its rulings even when they fly in the face of state rulings.
In other words, if the supreme court of Arizona upholds this but the SCOTUS doesn’t, which ruling will stand?
To Hell with the Constitution, the Enlightenment and the American Revolution. It’s all a bunch of self-congratulating garbage, and had horrific results.
The difference is that freed slaves were subject to US jurisdiction. In other words, they didn’t owe allegiance to any foreign power, the way indians did then and non-naturalized immigrants do now.
“In the United States” is figurative. It’s like, “We are in trouble”. Trouble is not a physical object which you are in. United States is a conceptual entity and being in it means operating within its context.
Re: scineram,
Quite sure, if my username has not given you a clue about where I am coming from . . .
So what’s the difference between being “freed” and being born in the US, both actions not under the control of the affected parties?
It is hilarious how people do not understand the word jurisdiction. It just is political authority over a given territory. So hell yes, immigrant, legal or not, are under american jurisdiction.
@scineram, then why include the qualifier in the clause?
There exists something about diplomatic immunity. And indian tribes.
No.
You are just wrong. The thread has become pointless.