Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This should not apply to illegal aliens who wave Mexican flags at riots, screeching "WE WILL REPLACE U, ESE!!!" nor the DACA beneficiaries like the ones who stormed Pelosi's press conference babble-chanting "WE DIDN'T VOTE FOR YOU, OR NO POLITICIAN! THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!"
>LOL, illiterate morons with no respect for Western Civilization
When the Supreme Court made the ruling, they were anxious about it at the time and thought the 14th clause might need to be amended to specify that it was meant to apply to the children of former slaves.
Do the "sovereign citizens," La Raza screechers, and other economic migrants/illegal aliens who refuse to accept Our Nation's laws consider themselves "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?" They do seem to fight hard against that concept.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
Wouldnt it be unconstitutional though since birthright citizenship is defined in the 14th ammendment?
Nope. it was only interpreted that way. And quite recently too, I might add!
it really depends on
i want to say anchor babies aren't legal citizens, but if i'm being honest i have no idea.
spez: https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment
This should not apply to illegal aliens who wave Mexican flags at riots, screeching "WE WILL REPLACE U, ESE!!!" nor the DACA beneficiaries like the ones who stormed Pelosi's press conference babble-chanting "WE DIDN'T VOTE FOR YOU, OR NO POLITICIAN! THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!"
>LOL, illiterate morons with no respect for Western Civilization
When was that recent interpretation made? I always thought it was a natural consequence of declaring African slave babies as citizens?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#Contemporary_reactions
When the Supreme Court made the ruling, they were anxious about it at the time and thought the 14th clause might need to be amended to specify that it was meant to apply to the children of former slaves.
Interesting. Didn't know about this case, and hell, I'm a 2nd gen immigrant/citizen through place of birth!
I wonder if they could have just limited it to children of people brought to this country against their will? That seems to make sense to me.
That is the fundamental question. Is it really? Does it mean the children of birth tourists and fence jumps?
Do the "sovereign citizens," La Raza screechers, and other economic migrants/illegal aliens who refuse to accept Our Nation's laws consider themselves "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?" They do seem to fight hard against that concept.
Maybe not.
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
Would be up to SCOTUS to decide if that applies
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
Yeah. They probably should have written something about being disqualified if there is an illegal alien parent. Sure would have helped.