Notice: Welcome to Minichan, an account has automatically been created and assigned to you, you don't have to register or log in to use the board, but don't clear your cookies unless you have set a memorable name and password. Alternatively, you can restore your ID.

Minichan

Topic: "All persons" is pretty fucking clear

Anonymous A started this discussion 1 week ago #127,156

It's the " born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that I'm having some trouble understanding.

Does this mean subjects of Mexico? That's what my gut tells me.

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 3 days later[^] [v] #1,375,218

Historically (based on United States v. Wong Kim Ark) it seems to have been intended to exclude the children of foreign ambassadors, even if born on US soil. On a textual basis I could also see it being interpreted as "must not be an illegal immigrant", as their presence is by definition not authorized by the US' jurisdiction. However, were that the case, I would expect it to have been clarified as such long ago, and it would be irrelevant to birthright citizenship anyways, since the US-born children of illegal immigrants are not themselves immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 5 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,375,243

@previous (B)
That is so Wong.

boof joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,375,247

it always seems like an asshole move to kick some guy out who's well into adulthood and never even been anywhere else in his life, can't speak the language, and the land doesn't even have anything you would call a good government

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 15 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,375,252

Why do you think you're born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof than so many other people?

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,375,257

Shall not be infringed was also interpreted to mean something else in the constitution.

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 7 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,375,275

@1,375,218 (B)
It was clarified a long time ago. Two years after the 14th amendment passed, the senate judicial committee declared that the intent was to remove any language referring to "three fifths of a person". End of story.

Fact Checker joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 10 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,375,276

@1,375,218 (B)

> Historically (based on United States v. Wong Kim Ark) it seems to have been intended to exclude the children of foreign ambassadors, even if born on US soil. On a textual basis I could also see it being interpreted as "must not be an illegal immigrant", as their presence is by definition not authorized by the US' jurisdiction. However, were that the case, I would expect it to have been clarified as such long ago, and it would be irrelevant to birthright citizenship anyways, since the US-born children of illegal immigrants are not themselves immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

AI Overview
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle of birthright citizenship in the United States.
The case affirmed that anyone born within the U.S., regardless of the parents' citizenship, is a U.S. citizen. This ruling is based on the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(Edited 28 seconds later.)

Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,375,306

@1,375,275 (G)
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment does that, but it's Section 1 that contains the Citizenship Clause. One could say that Section 2 is support for Section 1 (since "any person" could be argued not to include those who are legally considered three-fifths of a person), but not the reverse, since Congressional representation is based on "persons", not specifically citizens. So the definition of citizenship seems to be a separate intent from overturning the Three-Fifths Compromise.

Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 48 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,375,307

People are really arguing over the constitution like the government cares what the outcome of this debate is. They’re just gonna do whatever they’re gonna do and there’s nothing we can do about it. If they’re nice they’ll follow the paper, but if they don’t, then… well… that’s just how it be.

Indie the Grate™ !aeNZeP7XP2 joined in and replied with this 1 day ago, 1 day later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,375,565

@1,375,276 (Fact Checker)
> AI Overview

Stopped reading there. Thanks, Syntax. Thanks.
:

You are required to fill in a captcha for your first 5 posts. That's only 5 more! We apologize, but this helps stop spam.

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting.