1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

LOLOLOL did you even read what you posted? Once again, that text limits it to children of ambassadors and foreign ministers.

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?

Yeah, I didn't see Native Americans on the list. They had to carve them in. Not land based.

This is me between you and doc today. I'm done. You people keep the BS circle jerk going.

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Ok so apparently you really aren't reading what you post. No worries, I'll re-write the text so you can see it. "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"

Thank you for disproving your own claim.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

Yeah, I didn't see Native Americans on the list. They had to carve them in.

This is me between you and doc today

Oh yes, well as they say, ignorance is bliss.

Diehard: Guys it wasn't intended to include the children of aliens. Look I'll even prove it, here's text from congressional debates on the subject. ""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"

Just now, Phillyterp85 said:

Ok so apparently you really aren't reading what you post. No worries, I'll re-write the text so you can see it. "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"

Thank you for disproving your own claim.

It included every other class of person except for the Natives because we had to add them in because they weren't on federal land just like people in other countries. Got it. So people not living here were not covered or they wouldn't have had to carve them in.

We are done. Believe what you want because you will anyway even though you've been proven wrong multiple times.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

It included every other class of person except for the Natives because we had to add them in because they weren't on federal land just like people in other countries. Got it.

We are done. Believe what you want because you will anyway even though you've been proven wrong multiple times.

Yes we are done. You are incorrect. I'm not the one "believing" anything in this argument. I am going by facts. Facts that you are conveniently ignoring because it doesn't suit your faulty argument.

"because they weren't on federal land"

LOL it had nothing to do with them not being on federal land. For the thousandth time, at the time the constitution was originally established, Native Americans were not counted as persons and acts of congress did not apply to them. People who immigrated to this country from a foreign land WERE counted as persons and were not excluded from acts of congress.

9 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

It included every other class of person except for the Natives because we had to add them in because they weren't on federal land just like people in other countries. Got it. So people not living here were not covered or they wouldn't have had to carve them in.

We are done. Believe what you want because you will anyway even though you've been proven wrong multiple times.

21 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

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 🤣

I'm really sorry my friend but you are getting this one wrong. Legal prose is built on classic logic. Babies of Native Americans didn't quality under the text of the 14th but babies of non-citizens did qualify. The reason is wrapped into the phrase "jurisdiction of" whereby all people physically in the US who weren't Native Americans or diplomats qualified. That means that offspring born in the US were automatically citizens as long as the mother wasn't a diplomat or a Native American. People didn't think that was a good think so they put together the special Indian Citizen Act of 1924 to include babies born to Native Americans.

So strange how in every historical discussion about how the 14th amendment applies to the children born in the US to foreigners, the only class of children that are excluded are children of foreign ambassadors and children of foreign ministers. It's almost as if the 14th amendment was meant to apply to children of all foreigners except for those two classes of people. And it's so strange how in the 150+ years of application of the 14th amendment that it's been carried out that way. But no, that can't be. It must be that Trump and his bootlicking followers are correct, and the 150+ years of evidence to the contrary is all wrong...

Trump’s Justice Amy Coney Barrett Insults His Citizenship Scheme to His Face https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-justice-any-coney-barrett-insults-his-citizenship-scheme-to-his-face/

Just now, DrPhilly said:

I'm really sorry my friend but you are getting this one wrong. Legal prose is built on classic logic. Babies of Native Americans didn't quality under the text of the 14th but babies of non-citizens did qualify. The reason is wrapped into the phrase "jurisdiction of" whereby all people physically in the US who weren't Native Americans or diplomats qualified. That means that offspring born in the US were automatically citizens as long as the mother wasn't a diplomat or a Native American. People didn't think that was a good think so they put together the special Indian Citizen Act of 1924 to include babies born to Native Americans.

It never said Native American in the 14th 🤣

Here is a transcript

You all: It is clear!!! Diplomats and foreign army!!!

Me: Except for Native Americans

You all: Well, the 14^th  included them there just needed to be another law to include them but they were included just after another law.

Me: So the 14^th didn’t include all the exceptions

You all: Yes, well no, well only because they weren’t on federal land and not paying taxes

Me: Like people in other countries aren’t living on federal land or paying taxes, so there is something to the jurisdiction. If it wasn’t land based they could have walked off the res and had babies and not need to be carved into the exception list through another law after the 14^th was passed

You all: DAMN IT what aren’t you getting about diplomats and foreign army!!! The Natives were included after they were included later because they weren't on federal land

Me: Thanks for proving it's land based

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

It never said Native American in the 14th 🤣

Here is a transcript

You all: It is clear!!! Diplomats and foreign army!!!

Me: Except for Native Americans

You all: Well, the 14^th  included them there just needed to be another law to include them but they were included just after another law.

Me: So the 14^th didn’t include all the exceptions

You all: Yes, well no, well only because they weren’t on federal land and not paying taxes

Me: Like people in other countries aren’t living on federal land or paying taxes, so there is something to the jurisdiction. If it wasn’t land based they could have walked off the res and had babies and not need to be carved into the exception list through another law after the 14^th was passed

You all: DAMN IT what aren’t you getting about diplomats and foreign army!!! The Natives were included after they were included later because they weren't on federal land

Me: Thanks for proving it's land based

Sorry, that's not at all how the discussion went. The entire transcript is incorrect. For example, I never once said anything about "federal land" or "foreign armies".

So, then you agree it is absolutely land based (as in was the child born on US land) but with some other qualifiers that were built into the language of the 14th (just as I said from the very beginning). So basically you were wrong all along and no you agree with what I've said (and others) from the start. Good to know.

5 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

It never said Native American in the 14th 🤣

Right because once again, the original constitution already excluded them. Not sure why you keep on glossing over this part. In 1867, before the passage of the 14th amendment, if John Q Smith and his family left France and moved to America, his family would immediately be counted as persons of the United States for the purpose of apportioning representatives and taxes. Conversely, a native American family who had been living in the United States for generations would not be counted as persons of the United States, because the constitution excluded them.

16 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

The court has 6 conservative justices and cryhard is still sobbing uncontrollably like a little girl. Hate to see it.

They didnt even hand the presidency to the guy who lost in 2020! Where is their loyalty to the man who appointed them?

FFS, The Indian Citizenship Act was needed because tribal lands are technically not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, as they are sovereign nations. But they aren't really nations, issuing passports and such. So the Act made clear that Native Americans born on tribal lands are citizens since the tribal lands are "within the territorial limits of the United States." That in no way impacts the children of legal/illegal immigrants or even tourists who have a child on US soil.

The hysterical part? Claiming illegal immigrants or tourists are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States would mean...you can't charge them with crimes. So if SCOTUS ruled as Trump wants, you could never prosecute an illegal immigrant for a crime because they aren't subject to US jurisdiction and would need to be charged in their native country.

10 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

It never said Native American in the 14th 🤣

You know Diehard, the Bill of Rights never specifically excluded slaves either, yet amazingly, slaves were not protected by the Bill of Rights and it look future amendments to undo that. You know why the bill of rights didn't have to specifically exclude slaves? Because the original constitution already did exclude slaves as counting as persons of the United States. Similarly, the original constitution also excluded Native Americans as counting as persons of the United States. Hence why just like enslaved people, native Americans did not need to be specifically listed as being excluded from having amendments apply to them as the original constitution already excluded them.

Just now, Phillyterp85 said:

You know Diehard, the Bill of Rights never specifically excluded slaves either, yet amazingly, slaves were not protected by the Bill of Rights and it look future amendments to undo that. You know why the bill of rights didn't have to specifically exclude slaves? Because the original constitution already did exclude slaves as counting as persons of the United States. Similarly, the original constitution also excluded Native Americans as counting as persons of the United States. Hence why just like enslaved people, native Americans did not need to be specifically listed as being excluded from having amendments apply to them as the original constitution already excluded them.

At least Barrett and Roberts get it!

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

FFS, The Indian Citizenship Act was needed because tribal lands are technically not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, as they are sovereign nations. But they aren't really nations, issuing passports and such. So the Act made clear that Native Americans born on tribal lands are citizens since the tribal lands are "within the territorial limits of the United States." That in no way impacts the children of legal/illegal immigrants or even tourists who have a child on US soil.

The hysterical part? Claiming illegal immigrants or tourists are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States would mean...you can't charge them with crimes. So if SCOTUS ruled as Trump wants, you could never prosecute an illegal immigrant for a crime because they aren't subject to US jurisdiction and would need to be charged in their native country.

Such a stupid take by Diehard. I wonder where he read that mess.

25 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Sorry, that's not at all how the discussion went. The entire transcript is incorrect. For example, I never once said anything about "federal land" or "foreign armies".

So, then you agree it is absolutely land based (as in was the child born on US land) but with some other qualifiers that were built into the language of the 14th (just as I said from the very beginning). So basically you were wrong all along and no you agree with what I've said (and others) from the start. Good to know.

*not land based

But it was a combo of you two today other than that

17 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

FFS, The Indian Citizenship Act was needed because tribal lands are technically not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, as they are sovereign nations. But they aren't really nations, issuing passports and such. So the Act made clear that Native Americans born on tribal lands are citizens since the tribal lands are "within the territorial limits of the United States." That in no way impacts the children of legal/illegal immigrants or even tourists who have a child on US soil.

The hysterical part? Claiming illegal immigrants or tourists are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States would mean...you can't charge them with crimes. So if SCOTUS ruled as Trump wants, you could never prosecute an illegal immigrant for a crime because they aren't subject to US jurisdiction and would need to be charged in their native country.

Yeah, and neither are people in other countries my man. It wasn't land based.

14 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

You know Diehard, the Bill of Rights never specifically excluded slaves either, yet amazingly, slaves were not protected by the Bill of Rights and it look future amendments to undo that. You know why the bill of rights didn't have to specifically exclude slaves? Because the original constitution already did exclude slaves as counting as persons of the United States. Similarly, the original constitution also excluded Native Americans as counting as persons of the United States. Hence why just like enslaved people, native Americans did not need to be specifically listed as being excluded from having amendments apply to them as the original constitution already excluded them.

And the 2A didn't say cans or class III or mag limits.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Yeah, and neither are people in other countries my man. It wasn't land based.

So tourists aren't subject to US laws?

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

So tourists aren't subject to US laws?

Thats mixing up two different things. We can still arrest and prosecute them under our criminal laws because they are physically here in our territory, just like we can bust a foreign tourist who robs a store or even a diplomats kid in some cases. But the 14th Amendment used subject to the jurisdiction to mean full political jurisdiction and real allegiance to the US, not just being bound by some of our rules. Thats why the framers excluded Native Americans even though we could often still enforce laws against them in certain ways, and why people entering illegally from other countries still owe their main allegiance to their home nation. Evidenced by the VISA babies returning back to China in many instances.

17 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

FFS, The Indian Citizenship Act was needed because tribal lands are technically not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, as they are sovereign nations. But they aren't really nations, issuing passports and such. So the Act made clear that Native Americans born on tribal lands are citizens since the tribal lands are "within the territorial limits of the United States." That in no way impacts the children of legal/illegal immigrants or even tourists who have a child on US soil.

The hysterical part? Claiming illegal immigrants or tourists are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States would mean...you can't charge them with crimes. So if SCOTUS ruled as Trump wants, you could never prosecute an illegal immigrant for a crime because they aren't subject to US jurisdiction and would need to be charged in their native country.

Doubly funny because the people holding this argument are acting like there was a visa system and caps back then that limited the amount of people that could enter the country. The 14th amendment was written at a time at which for all intents and purposes we had open borders. So to act like it wasn’t meant to apply to people who just arrived to the country is hilarious. People were pouring into the country on a daily basis. Of course the 14th amendment was meant to apply to them

9 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Thats mixing up two different things. We can still arrest and prosecute them under our criminal laws because they are physically here in our territory, just like we can bust a foreign tourist who robs a store or even a diplomats kid in some cases. But the 14th Amendment used subject to the jurisdiction to mean full political jurisdiction and real allegiance to the US, not just being bound by some of our rules. Thats why the framers excluded Native Americans even though we could often still enforce laws against them in certain ways, and why people entering illegally from other countries still owe their main allegiance to their home nation. Evidenced by the VISA babies returning back to China in many instances.

Well, every court in history has disagreed with you, but run with it.