8 U.S. Code Section 1401. The following shall be NATIONALS and citizens of the U.S. at birth

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: luthier

If they haven't renounced their citizenship how would they not still be a subject to the jurisdiction of their country? Dont extradition and deporting practices counter that asessment? An American overseas is subject to the laws of the country they reside and American laws as well.

It's that they are subject to our laws. They can sue, they can go to jail etc...

Ambassadors and embassies dont have these same rules as we have seen with julian Assange. This is exactly what they were writing about.


Also Americans over seas are required to pay taxes not follow all us laws.

a reply to: luthier

Yes they are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction, but that doesnt recount their allegiance to the jurisdiction to their country. Being subject to the laws of a country because you are there doesn't make you a citizen of that country.

If you get hurt on my property you can sue me, I can call the cops and have you arrested for trespassing, that's doesn't make you a resident of the property.

a reply to: luthier

So if they don't own any property and buy stuff online at places where they are not taxed then their children are not? If they cross the border and have bought nothing at all then their child is not a citizen?

Yes, they changed it for Native Americans. Illegals are not Native Americans.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

So if they don't own any property and buy stuff online at places where they are not taxed then their children are not? If they cross the border and have bought nothing at all then their child is not a citizen?

Yes, they changed it for Native Americans. Illegals are not Native Americans.

No it has nothing at all to do with that. Illegals are the subject of American jurisdiction, natives were not. They had their own laws. Same with ambassadors and embassies.

Illegals have rights in the us and are subject of the United states jurisdiction or they couldn't even arrest them.

The laws about migrant travel are new for America. They mainly took shape during the great depression. Prior to that the border was wide open and there were not illegals they were migrant workers.

a reply to: luthier

So natives who committed a crime on US soil could not be prosecuted?

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

If you are from another country, have a kid, the kids belongs to you. You who are subject to the jurisdiction of your home country, being citizens of that country.... therefore the child is and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

That line is there in both citations for a reason. Dont ignore it.

It was put in so that American natives had no claim to US citizenship, as they were subject to their Tribes- who coincidentally did not want to be US citizens

originally posted by: Butterfinger

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

If you are from another country, have a kid, the kids belongs to you. You who are subject to the jurisdiction of your home country, being citizens of that country.... therefore the child is and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

That line is there in both citations for a reason. Dont ignore it.

It was put in so that American natives had no claim to US citizenship, as they were subject to their Tribes- who coincidentally did not want to be US citizens

Yes. It was for ambassadors and embassies where us law doesnt reach. Us laws also did not reach reservations (well...in writing)


It does however reach illegal aliens. Who are in fact the jurisdiction of ...or they couldn't sue, be sued, or be charged with a crime.

a reply to: luthier

Did it reach Native Americans who committed crimes on US soil and were caught? Or were they immune to prosecution?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Ugh, yep. It also included the natives NOT living in reservations.

a reply to: luthier

But there is precedent in the SC:

In the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, the Supreme Court said, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

Next, in 1884, the Supreme Court addressed a claim of citizenship in Elk v. Wilkins. The Court held that John Elk did not meet the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th Amendment because he was a member of an Indian tribe at birth. The Court said that even though Elk was born in the U.S. he did not meet the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement because that required that he “not merely be subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction.”

Proponents of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case. However, that case dealt with a man that was born to parents that were legally and permanently domiciled in the United States at the time of his birth. In that case, there was more expansive language used on birthright citizenship, but it was neither the holding of the case nor does it operate as binding precedent on the Court or as the law of the land.

Birthright quote source

a reply to: MotherMayEye

When I read your OP, my first thought was an individual in Peurto Rico would be considered a national but not an actual citizen. Just tossing this out there and now going to go see what others thoughts on this are.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Ugh, yep. It also included the natives NOT living in reservations.

So natives who were caught committing a crime in the US were subject to US jurisdiction yet did not convey citizenship to their children. Right?

a reply to: Butterfinger

Ding Ding Ding. That was exactly where I was going.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: luthier

But there is precedent in the SC:

In the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, the Supreme Court said, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

Next, in 1884, the Supreme Court addressed a claim of citizenship in Elk v. Wilkins. The Court held that John Elk did not meet the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th Amendment because he was a member of an Indian tribe at birth. The Court said that even though Elk was born in the U.S. he did not meet the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement because that required that he “not merely be subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction.”

Proponents of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case. However, that case dealt with a man that was born to parents that were legally and permanently domiciled in the United States at the time of his birth. In that case, there was more expansive language used on birthright citizenship, but it was neither the holding of the case nor does it operate as binding precedent on the Court or as the law of the land.

Birthright quote source

Again no, native Americans chose to have their own laws. There were natives born and living with whites that were citizens.


To make this easy reservations are the same concept as embassies

a reply to: CynConcepts

But can someone be a US Citizen without being a US National?

Would that defy natural law?

a reply to: luthier

Yes, and one of those Natives, not a US citizen, a citizen of another country (tribe), who went into the US was subject to US law, but did NOT convey automatic citizenship to children born in the US.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No. A person can possibly be a national without being a citizen though we are about to find that out as well.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yeah he wasn't born in the us so he wasn't a citizen right? Now his kid could have been.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No.

Thanks for answering that. I'd love to know if anyone disagrees.

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: [post=23916502]MotherMayEye[/post



However, if you are a U.S. citizen living abroad...you are regarded as a 'U.S. national,' not a 'U.S. citizen' per se, because you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

On a related note, U.S. passports are only issued to U.S. Nationals.

Why do you think that US citizens living abroad are not subject to US jurisdiction? They must pay taxes, they receive Social Security if applicable, they can be sued civically or criminally, they may vote, if there was a draft they could be drafted. I don’t understand?

Also, check out the wording on a US Passport about ...the citizen/national of the US named herein...

en.m.wikipedia.org...#/media/File%3APassportmessageUSA.jpg

So in essence a subject of the U. S, something along the lines of " you can check out but you can never leave ".