one.opinion Posted September 17, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.13 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted September 17, 2019 On 9/15/2019 at 12:25 AM, just_abc said: I am still a bit puzzled though. Yes, it takes a serious convolution of logic and the English language to reinterpret the 14th amendment in ways that would not guarantee what it actually says - individuals born in the nation are citizens. The confusion is not in your understanding, but the inherent need to obfuscate what is plain in order to change the clear meaning of the amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
createdequal Posted September 18, 2019 Group: Catholic Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 591 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 96 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/05/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) On 9/14/2019 at 10:25 PM, just_abc said: Thanks for explaining. I am still a bit puzzled though. Is the term "jurisdiction" in the 14th Ammendment sentence refering to a different type of jurisdiction and not refering to someone being subject to a country's laws etc? If so I am wondering what is the type of jurisdiction that is being refered to? Is it refering to jurisdiction countries have over their own citizens?[/quote] I believe even lawyers have had problems defining jurisdiction, but my understanding is that you cannot have dual allegiance without going through a formal process. Quote I will address the rest of your post later.. find myself speed reading through it, but that is not working well because other things on my mind.. so not understanding it well In any case, if an American citizen has a child overseas, that child is an American citizen because born to an American citizen. Edited September 18, 2019 by createdequal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_abc Posted September 19, 2019 Group: Senior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 893 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 527 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/06/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted September 19, 2019 hi Just a small note. I came across this article / page from an american government website (US Citizenship and Immigration Services). It has information about citizenship for children born outside the Usa but with an american parent. https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3 Also below is link to an article / page from the american state department website which has info about dual nationality. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/Advice-about-Possible-Loss-of-US-Nationality-Dual-Nationality/Dual-Nationality.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_abc Posted September 19, 2019 Group: Senior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 893 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 527 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/06/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted September 19, 2019 (edited) Btw sorry for my rather convoluted earlier post. The main point I was / am trying make is that.. Firstly the term 'jurisdiction' can have more than one meanings or rather types.. and.. If the meaning of the term 'jurisdiction' in the ammendment sentence is refering to type of jurisdiction that countries might have over their own citizens only.. then could that possibly mean that in order to be subject to such a jurisdiction of the Usa.. a person might need to already be an american citizen first? and.. If so.. does this mean there might possibly be an almost catch 22 type situation.. not just for children born in the Usa.. but also for adult naturalised citizens of the Usa? Since that particular ammendment sentence is specifically refering both to those born and those naturalised in the Usa ? (And not to the parent?) For example.. if the foreign spouse of an american citizen wanted to become a naturalised citizen of the Usa.. they would need to be 'subject to the jurisduction thereof' of the Usa.. But if in order for them to be subject to such a jurisdiction.. they might first need to already be an american citizen.. um how is this possible? i.e That in order to become an american citizen ..one would first need to already be an american citizen? That is confusing. Which is why I am wondering if the term 'jurisdiction' in that particular ammendment sentence could be refering to a different type of jurisdiction.. such as say someone being subject to the jurisdiction of many of the laws in a country etc? Rather than to the type of jurisdiction a country might have over its own citizens only? Just a thought. Thanks. Edited September 22, 2019 by just_abc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts