Good. F those murderers

3 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Read the exceptions Ace. It was OBVIOUSLY more than just slaves. If it was solely about slaves then it would have said so.

In any case, it simply doesn’t matter. It says what it says and there is a clear process for changes , additions, etc. just like the addition for Native Americans who were specifically not included in the original version. The country has a long history of new citizens from people being born to immigrants. An amendment is necessary to change that. Not just what you or anyone else "thinks” is right. This is VERY VERY easy to understand.

Simply put your argument is BS.

If it included everyone and anyone they wouldn't have needed to add Native Americans because they would have already been included because they weren't diplomats or an invading army.

If the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to everyone born here except diplomats and invading armies, explain why Congress passed a separate law in 1924 to make Native Americans citizens. Elk v Wilkins ruled they were not subject to US jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes instead. Just like people from other countries not coming through the immigration process are subject to the countries they came from, that shows the framers of the 14th meant something real by subject to the jurisdiction, and it was not just about being born on the land.

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Simply put your argument is BS.

If it included everyone and anyone they wouldn't have needed to add Native Americans because they would have already bern included because they weren't diplomats or an invading army.

If the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to everyone born here except diplomats and invading armies, explain why Congress passed a separate law in 1924 to make Native Americans citizens. Elk v Wilkins ruled they were not subject to US jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes instead. Just like people from other countries not coming through the immigration process are subject to the countries they came from, that shows the framers of the 14th meant something real by subject to the jurisdiction, and it was not just about being born on the land.

Here are the actual words. There's just no ambiguity here no matter how much you want there to be.

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.

13 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Here are the actual words. There's just no ambiguity here no matter how much you want there to be.

Again, you all want to believe it's land based unless you are a diplomat or invading army. If that was the case they wouldn't have needed to pass a law/rule on Native Americans because they could have just walked off their res and had a baby and it would have been covered. Like I said the law is clear and there is no ambiguity just not the way you think.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

Again, you all want to believe it's land based unless you are a diplomat or invading army. If that was the case they wouldn't have needed to pass a law/rule on Native Americans because they could have just walked off their res and had a baby and it would have been covered.

All persons born...in the United States...are citizens of the United States

Womp womp. Stupid Constitution. It's not fair.

Just now, VanHammersly said:

Womp womp. Stupid Constitution. It's not fair.

Left off subject to the jurisdiction. So again, if it was land based they wouldn't have needed to pass a law for Native Americans or rule on them. They could have walked of the res like I just said. Womp womp. You have no argument. It's not land based.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Left off subject to the jurisdiction. So again, if it was land based they wouldn't have needed to pass a law for Native Americans or rule on them. They could have walked of the res like I just said. Womp womp. You have no argument. It's not land based.

All persons born...in the United States...are citizens of the United States

Sucks man. You should move to another country that doesn't have such a mean, unfair Constitution.

7 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Sucks man. You should move to another country that doesn't have such a mean, unfair Constitution.

Sucks to leave parts out on purpose like "subject to" or ignore things like needing to pass a law to include Native Americans because it's not land based outside of armies or diplomats. Again, if what you all are saying is true they only had to walk off the res and have a baby. No need for a law including them.

i'm not getting into this argument, just want to remind everyone that trump is protecting pedos.

that is all.

28 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Simply put your argument is BS.

If it included everyone and anyone they wouldn't have needed to add Native Americans because they would have already been included because they weren't diplomats or an invading army.

If the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to everyone born here except diplomats and invading armies, explain why Congress passed a separate law in 1924 to make Native Americans citizens. Elk v Wilkins ruled they were not subject to US jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes instead. Just like people from other countries not coming through the immigration process are subject to the countries they came from, that shows the framers of the 14th meant something real by subject to the jurisdiction, and it was not just about being born on the land.

No, it's not like people coming from other countries. There was always a distinct relationship between the US government and the Indian tribes from the time the constitution was originally established. Indians could not be taxed by the government. They were excluded from being counted as persons for apportionment of representatives. General Acts of Congress did not apply to them unless there was a clear intention to include them.

In Elk v Wilkins, the opinion even gave analogies of children born of foreign parents in the US and specifically limited it to children of ambassadors or other public ministries.

"Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. "

If it's like you say, the opinion wouldn't have stated that. They would have just said "or children born within the United States to alien parents"

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

No, it's not like people coming from other countries. There was always a distinct relationship between the US government and the Indian tribes from the time the constitution was originally established. Indians could not be taxed by the government. They were excluded from being counted as persons for apportionment of representatives. General Acts of Congress did not apply to them unless there was a clear intention to include them.

In Elk v Wilkins, the opinion even gave analogies of children born of foreign parents in the US and specifically limited it to children of ambassadors or other public ministries.

"Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. "

If it's like you say, the opinion wouldn't have stated that. They would have just said "or children born within the United States to alien parents"

You just made my point. You have two exemptions for armies and diplomats so outside of that in your mind it's land based. What they did to include Native Americans passing a law to include them proves otherwise because they were on tribal land and not subject to the jurisdiction. No law would have been needed past them walking off the res like I keep saying and having a baby. They didn't intend for it to be land based. You just proved it.

4 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Sucks to leave parts out on purpose or ignore things like needing to pass a law to include them because it's not land based outside of armies or diplomats.

I like how heavily you're leaning on the whole Native American side of this. First of all, there's more of a grey area with Native Americans specifically because so many of them are born on tribal lands, which gave states an easy out to deny them their citizenship. Secondly, the fact that states continued to F over Native Americans (just like they had throughout the entire existence of our country) even after an amendment explicitly told them that everyone born here is a citizen doesn't take anything away from the 14th, because, unfortunately, certain states have always violated the rights of specific minority groups and the federal gov't has had to reiterate or codify their equal status in the law.

For instance, the 15th prohibits the gov't from denying citizens the right to vote and, coupled with the Native American Citizenship Act of 1924, which is what you keep referring to, Native Americans should've been granted the right to vote. But surprise, surprise, a lot of states still denied Native Americans the right to vote up until the Voting Rights Act and even then some states rat F'd certain tribes with literacy tests up until '75 when they added language to put a stop to it. But all those additions don't take away from the fact that they were still citizens (and were treated as such in large part if they weren't born on tribal lands) after the 14th and they were eligible to vote based on the 15th if they happened to live in certain states.

So, again, you're whole "what about Native American" bullsheet is A.) ignoring the fact that a lot of them were born on tribal lands and B.) ignoring the arguably even more important fact that granting them citizenship in '24 was based on states violating the Amendment they should've already held themselves to. Neither of those facts have anything to do with people that are actually born within the borders of this country (whether their parents are here legally or not).

9 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

You just made my point. You have two exemptions for armies and diplomats so outside of that in your mind it's land based. What they did to include Native Americans passing a law to include them proves otherwise because they were on tribal land and not subject to the jurisdiction. No law would have been needed past them walking off the res like I keep saying and having a baby. They didn't intend for it to be land based. You just proved it.

No, I didn't make your point. They needed to pass new laws to include Native Americans because acts of congress excluded native americans from the time the constitution was established. Did acts of congress exclude aliens who immigrated to the United States? No.

If an alien immigrated to the US, were they counted as a person for the purpose of apportioning representatives and taxes? Yes. Was a Native American? No.

Once again, there's a reason why the opinion said "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. "

Once again, if it was supposed to be interpreted as you claim, the opinion would have said "children born within the United States to alien parents". Once again, children born within the US to ambassadors or other public ministries are foreign nations are the only exclusion made to children of foreigners born in the US. Clear as day.

So yes, it absolutely is land based except for the exclusions that were specifically written into it. And it's been that way since the time it was written.

25 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

You just made my point. You have two exemptions for armies and diplomats so outside of that in your mind it's land based. What they did to include Native Americans passing a law to include them proves otherwise because they were on tribal land and not subject to the jurisdiction. No law would have been needed past them walking off the res like I keep saying and having a baby. They didn't intend for it to be land based. You just proved it.

Here's a simple question: If it's not land based, then when my great grandparents family re-entered the US from Italy after their brief first stint in the US, why was my Grandmother considered a US citizen but her younger brother considered an immigrant who had to go through the naturalization process?

@Diehardfan Let me try to clear up your confusion. The 14th specifically says "subject to the jurisdiction of” and Native Americans did not fall under that definition. That is why they had to carve out the special Indian Citizen Act in 1924. So you can take that entire line of argument and flush it down the toilet.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

@Diehardfan Let me try to clear up your confusion. The 14th specifically says "subject to the jurisdiction of” and Native Americans did not fall under that definition. That is why they had to carve out the special Indian Citizen Act in 1924. So you can take that entire line of argument and flush it down the toilet.

You just proved my point. They were living on tribal lands and not subject the same way people living in other nations aren't. They carved an exception for them. We agree because it's not land based.

You guys discuss things with DHF as if he had the mental capacity to make a sound argument.

11 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

You guys discuss things with DHF as if he had the mental capacity to make a sound argument.

🤣the brain injury guy flexing about mental capacity wasn't on my bingo card today.

11 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

You just proved my point. They were living on tribal lands and not subject the same way people living in other nations aren't. They carved an exception for them. We agree because it's not land based.

Of course it is land based combined with being under the "jurisdiction of” which didn’t apply to diplomats or Native Americans but did/does apply to everyone else who is on/in the land. This really isn’t hard.

14 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

You guys discuss things with DHF as if he had the mental capacity to make a sound argument.

One day he may find salvation.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

Of course it is land based combined with being under the "jurisdiction of” which didn’t apply to diplomats or Native Americans but did/does apply to everyone else who is on/in the land. This really isn’t hard.

You want things both ways per usual. Doesn't work, but you love being right and will keep trucking even after you proved my point. It didn't say Native Americans until they included them later. They had to add them because the original text didn't. It's not land based 🤣

17 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

You just proved my point. They were living on tribal lands and not subject the same way people living in other nations aren't. They carved an exception for them. We agree because it's not land based.

"They were living on tribal lands and not subject the same way people living in other nations aren't." No, that part is false. And multiple supreme court cases already disprove that claim.

Once again, if a person immigrated to the US in 1868, were they counted as persons for the purpose of apportioning representatives and taxes? yes, or no?