No. Even tourists are under an obligation to uphold the laws. Jurisdiction in this case refers to original jurisdiction - meaning that the courts of that nation have the final say. If you can appeal to an embassy, then you are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States of America.

Doesn't "subject to the jurisidiction" mean "having
to obey the laws" (which apparently doesn't apply to diplomats and their offspring?)

No, they ruled on the merits. If they had dismissed the case for lack of standing, the precedent that provoked the Civil War would not have been set.

I would suggest that there are two statements of jurisdiction in the 14th amendment. The first one, in the citizenship section said "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The second part, on equal protection says "within it's jurisdiction".

Clearly there is a distinction to being within the country and subject to its jurisdiction. The meaning of that is subject to interpretation.

In the days of clipper ships, getting here took time and was a level of commitment. In the jet age, one can arrive, give birth and leave within a week or so. It seems absurd that one would then be a citizen of anywhere other than the parent's country.

Note that there are clearly two requirements. The first is that one is born within the borders of the United States. The second is key: they must be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Children are born with their allegiance to that of their parents. If neither parent is a US citizen, the child is born subject to a jurisdiction other than the United States. That is the key provision being ignored in our current judicial system.

This is not a new interpretation, either. The notes from the author of the Fourteenth Amendment were quite clear. See https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/nat...

A lot of us should get together and set up classes to teach the foreigners to become good Americans. I mean that we should do it privately, and in private groups, not that we should expect the government to do it. (It might or might not be Constitutional for the govermnent to do it, and I think there are government-supported classes for it now, but I am afraid that we cannot trust it to do it right).

I can read English, and I have read the 14th Amendment. It says "all persons born with the borders of the United States and subject the the jurisdiction thereof..." The children of diplomats, who have "diplomatic immunity" do not qualify, but others do. Of course, other children born here are not legally permitted to commit crimes. Nor are they necessarily immune from punishment if they do. I believe in birthright citizenship.
(That does not mean that people should be allowed to jump the fence to get in in the first place).

100% Agree! I completely support the orderly immigration and naturalization of people who want to become Americans. I do not support the notion that we should take in random refugees and those just "seeking a better life." If you don't wish to become an American - with all that entails - please go find a nation more akin to your values and go there.

Dred Scott lost his case, however - and for that very reason. They ruled that he did not have standing because he was a slave.

What irks me about these illegal immigrants is that they should be required to study and take: The Oat of Citizenship. If they don't and their children that are born here should take study and take the Oath when they're old enough to do so.
I come from an immigrant family my grandparents came from Poland and Holland at the beginning of the early 1900s. They all took the Oath of Citizenshipship. Except for my grandmother who was an illiterate peasant from Poland, her older children contacted the Senator of Minnesota (where they lived) to intercede on her behalf to obtain her citizenship papers. Her children taught her English as they were going to school. All my aunts and uncles from Holland al learned to speak English and became citizens. Today's immigrant issue makes me very angry!

If you are suing for Constitutional protections on a legal theory that says you're entitled to them, a court must assume that you do have them for the purpose of hearing the case -- because otherwise it would be impossible for legitimate citizens, wrongly denied citizenship or rights, to get those wrongs corrected.

If this rule did not exist, Dred Scott could not have filed suit against his master.

Agreed. Because the property ownership is claimed within the United States of America, all claims would necessarily be adjudicated in US courts and be subject to US regulations. The property would be subject to taxation and the owner - regardless of citizenship status - would be liable for paying those taxes on penalty of property forfeiture.

"I don't think it would become an enclave of the country the owner is a citizen of...right?"

I believe that is called an embassy and is actually a treaty negotiation as the property becomes sovereign territory of the other nation.

Here is my thinking, if a non citizen owns property in our country then doesn't that property come under the jurisdiction of the United States government or at least the jurisdiction of the state inwhich that property is held?; but the owner would still have no rights him/her self, under our constitution???.
(so, just by paying taxes on property or income here in the US when one is a citizen of somewhere else does not entitle them to Any rights under our constitution, including voting)???

I don't think it would become an enclave of the country the owner is a citizen of...right?

The way the amendment has been interpreted has certainly been wishy-washy and I think a clarification would be useful.

I think the article presented a very wishy-washy interpretation of the two amendments. I believe we need to amend the Constitution and state very plainly that children born to people who forcefully come to our country by illegal means cannot become citizens until and unless they apply for citizenship and swear allegiance to our country.

Particularly as we give away more and more stuff, like the Europeans!

Interesting that the "give away" crowd is the same as the citizenship crowd. Obviously buying votes with government money and setting up a "forever" voting block.

"Does Anyone one not a citizen have the right to own property in the USA?"

Great question and I'd love for someone to chime in. I only know that there are some kinds of real estate or other property holdings which are subject to government approval, but I know of foreigners who have vacation condos and such and I don't think they had to go to any lengthy means to secure such. On the other hand, my local water district got bought out by Suez - a wholly-foreign company. I know they had to go through a bunch of legal hoops before they could be approved since it covers the entire city...

Again, all that would be set forth in the treaty between the two nations. That can be as simple as "we're going to treat you like a US citizen as long as you don't abuse the privilege".

Remember, this only applies within the US and its territories. Anything outside that isn't covered by the Constitution at all. That's why spying on people in other nations is extra-Constitutional.

Ok, then you'd have to agree that to judge upon a natural rights issue would be a very slippery slope in regards to the left and their "Emotional" take on the matter.

The other thing I question is: "a non citizens property"...personal property such as clothing etc is one thing but Land ownership is another thing. Does Anyone one not a citizen have the right to own property in the USA?

I've been thinking about this. The interpretation seems a bit extreme. Would you suggest that a warrant-less search of a non-citizen's property is acceptable. How about detention without trial.

I am troubled by the concept that setting foot in the country gives you the right to tie up the legal system for years prior to being deported, but I'm not quite comfortable over no legal protections whatsoever.

" As per the Constitution, such a job is reserved to the Legislature. It was a great concept but it is one of the major flaws (in my opinion) in the Constitution."

Yes. Since the Founding Fathers put the Constitution in place, a lot of distortion was implemented by the left. They know exactly where to insert their abusive "changes" to their advantage.

Obama was an especially corrosive force to make that happen. I remember the confirmation hearings of Sotomayor in which her greatest "asset" was the "flexible interpretation" of the Constitution, which - according to Obama - outlived its usefulness and needs to be changed. To benefit the left, no doubt.

The problem is that Barr doesn't have any statutory controls over the Federal Judiciary which allow him to remove judges - even for cause. As per the Constitution, such a job is reserved to the Legislature. It was a great concept but it is one of the major flaws (in my opinion) in the Constitution.

I have actually proposed a different mechanism whereby if a judge is overturned by the Supreme Court, their status on the bench is immediately suspended and that judge would have to pass through the confirmation process again to return to the bench.

Considering all the factors you described, I see the only way through Barr.

The chaotic and idle mess you are describing is the foundation of all irregularities and abuses we are witnessing these days. It is an "anything goes" environment, allowing the aggressive manipulations of the left.

The system is completely out of control and it takes someone with a sane, clear mind and strong character like Barr to crack down on the abusers.

While I'd certainly cheer him on, this is really not an Executive function, but a Legislative one (via impeachment). The downside is that Impeachment of judicial appointees has been notoriously difficult to actually execute - when it has been brought up at all. The Legislative Branch just isn't energetic about reserving their power - they actually enjoy allowing the Supreme Court to make the decisions they themselves should be making.

I'd actually be all for this being an automatic impeachment offense, but that would require Constitutional action - again something unlikely to take place outside a Convention of States, etc.

To my knowledge this is one of the priorities of AG Barr.