this makes me nervous

[Curious George]

I explained what I meant the best I can:

. . . to try to state a law that would enact the tendentious distinction that Fuller wanted to impose between the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause and "within [the] jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause would be nothing more than a law that discriminates against some native-born children but not other native-born children who are similarly situated. I.e., such a law would merely mean that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to any person similarly situated.​

Yes that is what I want you to show.

The phrases "subject to the jurisdiction" and "within [the] jurisdiction" sound to me like they should be referring to basically identical matters, and should entail basically identical principles of a person being encompassed by a jurisdiction.

Then why wouldn't identical phrasing be chosen. One reason might be that within the jurisdiction refers to any jurisdiction whereas subject to the jurisdiction reflects sentiments of a higher standard. I can't say that either interpretation is unreasonable. On one hand we have a specific deviation from a legal phrase which reflects language used in other laws that assert a higher standard; on the other hand we have we have a phrase that lacks commonly used adjectives and additional legal phraseology that it clearly indicative of that higher standard (the ommission of the word "complete" and the ommission of the phrase "not subject to any foreign power."

Incidentally, there is some discussion in the dissent regarding the intent of those words. That contemporary discussion points to the idea that a person not be subject to any foreign power.

If we were to alone rely on intent, the more reasonable interpretation of the phrase would be consistent with the dissent and contrary to the majority.

However, I concede that the plain meaning of the text is that a person be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Nous]

. . . to try to state a law that would enact the tendentious distinction that Fuller wanted to impose between the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause and "within [the] jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause would be nothing more than a law that discriminates against some native-born children but not other native-born children who are similarly situated. I.e., such a law would merely mean that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to any person similarly situated.

Yes that is what I want you to show.

Very simply, Fuller wanted a child born in the US to parents who were citizens of some other country yet were permanently domiciled and doing business in the US to not be considered a citizen of the US, whereas a child born in the US to parents who were US citizens or had become US citizens and were permanently domiciled and doing business in the US was a child similarly situated to the former child in every way--yet, the Equal Protection Clause would not be applicable to the former child. This makes a mockery of the Equal Protection Clause. It violates the principle that guilt for wrongdoing or some irrelevancy is inheritable: the child not recognized as a US citizen would be penalized for something that s/he couldn't do anything about.

Fuller's interpretation of the Citizenship Clause also creates unsolvable conundrums for parents who have dual citizenship. Such dual citizenship is quite possibly why the framers of the 14th Amendment chose to use the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" rather than the negative phrase in the statute.

 

[Curious George]

Very simply, Fuller wanted a child born in the US to parents who were citizens of some other country yet were permanently domiciled and doing business in the US to not be considered a citizen of the US, whereas a child born in the US to parents who were US citizens or had become US citizens and were permanently domiciled and doing business in the US was a child similarly situated to the former child in every way--yet, the Equal Protection Clause would not be applicable to the former child. This makes a mockery of the Equal Protection Clause. It violates the principle that guilt for wrongdoing or some irrelevancy is inheritable: the child not recognized as a US citizen would be penalized for something that s/he couldn't do anything about.

Fuller's interpretation of the Citizenship Clause also creates unsolvable conundrums for parents who have dual citizenship. Such dual citizenship is quite possibly why the framers of the 14th Amendment chose to use the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" rather than the negative phrase in the statute.

The equal protection clause would still be applicable because they are persons not citizens. Fullers interpretation does not abolish equal protection for aliens, legal or not, or anyone within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Holding that birthright citezenship belongs only to children who were born within the U.S. and not subject to any foreign power does not deny equal protection, and, therefore, "make a mockery" of the clause.

We see this when we do not deny equal protection based on personhood, bit still allow for disparate rights based on citizenship.

Regarding Dual citizenship, I agree that Fullers disposition would disallow dual citizenship to those at least not born to American Citizens. Dual citizenship does throw a wrench in the works bit I di not know that the U.S. has officially recognized dual citizenship or what the stance was at that time. I would have to research that.

 

[Shad]

Yes. But what we disagree on is 1) what is clearly written, and 2) whether I have read the case.

Nope. We have been over this already. Read the debate about the 14th. It never included birth right for illegals. Again something else you ignore.

There is nothing I can do about your insistence on 2) despite me saying differently.

Further, I have tried to explain what the case says and used quotes to say it. You have told me that you will not address those quotes because of you believe I have not read the case.

Yes as per the exclusions which you have never addressed.

This barrier cannot be passed unless something changes.

Again we disagree. The only thing that would change this is my agreement with your view.

 

[Curious George]

Nope. We have been over this already.



Yes as per the exclusions which you have never addressed.



Again we disagree. The only thing that would change this is my agreement with your view.

Agreeing that I have read the case, yes.

However, all that is needed to proceed is actually discussing the opinion. I gave you a quote to address. Telling me that ypu are not going to address it because ypu do not believe that I have read it, puts a halt to our discussion.

 

[Shad]

Agreeing that I have read the case, yes.

Again I doubt that as you ignore the exclusions

However, all that is needed to proceed is actually discussing the opinion. I gave you a quote to address. Telling me that ypu are not going to address it because ypu do not believe that I have read it, puts a halt to our discussion.

I told you to read the opinion which contain reference to his parents status and exclusions. I refused to address your points as you ignore mine. I tell you to read the debate regarding the 14th when it was created. You ignore that. Tit for tat.

 

[Curious George]

Again I doubt that as you ignore the exclusions



I told you to read the opinion which contain reference to his parents status and exclusions. I refused to address your points as you ignore mine. I tell you to read the debate regarding the 14th when it was created. You ignore that. Tit for tat.

This is getting comical. Perhaps there is someone you trust whom you can ask to read our exchange. See if they can see where the breakdown in communication is.

I cannot think of anyway to convince you that I have read the opinion. If you want to believe that I have not, that is fine.

Cheers

 

[Shad]

This is getting comical. Perhaps there is someone you trust whom you can ask to read our exchange. See if they can see where the breakdown in communication is.

The break down is we disagree and you have not read the background regarding the 14th.

 

[Nous]

The equal protection clause would still be applicable because they are persons not citizens.

What the hell does that mean? The persons who would not be US citizens under Fuller's interpretation are persons who are denied the many privileges that can be enjoyed by similarly situated persons who are US citizens under Fuller's interpretation. Among those privileges are permission to come ashore after visiting China--the privilege denied to Wong. That makes a mockery of the Equal Protection Clause.

Period! I have pointed out numerous ways in which Fuller's interpretation of the Citizenship Clause is unreasonable. Period!

Regarding Dual citizenship, I agree that Fullers disposition would disallow dual citizenship to those at least not born to American Citizens. Dual citizenship does throw a wrench in the works

Just another of the myriad ways in which Fuller's interpretation of the Citizenship Clause is unreasonable. Period.

 

[Curious George]

What the hell does that mean? The persons who would not be US citizens under Fuller's interpretation are persons who are denied the many privileges that can be enjoyed by similarly situated persons who are US citizens under Fuller's interpretation. Among those privileges are permission to come ashore after visiting China--the privilege denied to Wong. That makes a mockery of the Equal Protection Clause.

Period! I have pointed out numerous ways in which Fuller's interpretation of the Citizenship Clause is unreasonable. Period!

It means there are currently ways in which citizens have more "priviliges" than aliens. If a privilige is so loosely defined. Accordingly, this makes a mockery of the equal protection clause under your interpretation. This is not true, therefore your assertion that Fuller's interpretation makes a mockery of the equal protection clause is also not true.

Just another of the myriad ways in which Fuller's interpretation of the Citizenship Clause is unreasonable. Period.

It is unreasonable to not allow for dual citizenship?

 

[Nous]

It means there are currently ways in which citizens have more "priviliges" than aliens. If a privilige is so loosely defined. Accordingly, this makes a mockery of the equal protection clause under your interpretation. This is not true

Prove it.

 

[Curious George]

Prove it.

Sure. Wong Kim Ark's reentry turned on citizenship. The equal protection clause turns on personhood.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "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." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.​

See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369(1886).

 

[Nous]

Sure. Wong Kim Ark's reentry turned on citizenship. The equal protection clause turns on personhood.

Using Fuller's opinion in Wong, state a single law that is consistent with the Equal Protection Clause and that does not "turn on citizenship".

 

[Curious George]

Using Fuller's opinion in Wong, state a single law that is consistent with the Equal Protection Clause and that does not "turn on citizenship".

I am confused. How is stating a law relevant? We see throughout The Courts history cases that turn on both citizenship and personhood. I suppose we can point to the right of due process when a person is within the territorial Jurisdiction of the U.S. as a prime example.

A person within the territorial U.S. has a right of due process regardless of citizenship. This is not so for someone not within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

 

[Nous]

I am confused. How is stating a law relevant? We see throughout The Courts history cases that turn on both citizenship and personhood. I suppose we can point to the right of due process when a person is within the territorial Jurisdiction of the U.S. as a prime example.

A person within the territorial U.S. has a right of due process regardless of citizenship. This is not so for someone not within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

As far as I can tell, you've adequately established that one cannot apply Fuller's opinion in Wong so that 2 people similarly situated--except for something their foreign-born parents did or didn't do with respect to becoming naturalized--would necessarily enjoy equal protection of the laws, as the Equal Protection Clause requires.

 

[Curious George]

As far as I can tell, you've adequately established that one cannot apply Fuller's opinion in Wong so that 2 people similarly situated--except for something their foreign-born parents did or didn't do with respect to becoming naturalized--would necessarily enjoy equal protection of the laws, as the Equal Protection Clause requires.

Then you haven't been paying attention. The equal protection clause applies to people not just to citizens.

 

[Nous]

Then you haven't been paying attention. The equal protection clause applies to people not just to citizens.

Then why don't you just state the law that would enact Fuller's opinion in Wong whereby similarly situated persons would have equal protection of the law regardless of their citizenship?

 

[Curious George]

Then why don't you just state the law that would enact Fuller's opinion in Wong whereby similarly situated persons would have equal protection of the law regardless of their citizenship?

I am not sure what you are asking for here.