In Plyer v. Doe the SCOTUS ruled that illegal aliens are protected by the Constitution. ..... trumandogz
Plyler v. Doe did not specifically adddress the issue of anchor babies and stated that ALL children who are illegal in a particular State were under the jurisdiction of that particular State. The issue revolved over whether or not children who were not responsible for the illegal activities of their parents should be directly punished by witholding education.
However, you believe that illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdictions thereof” then you must also accept that illegal aliens cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed while on U.S. soil. ...... trumandogz
That is a rather concrete interpretation as even Hermann Goering, as he awaited trial at Nuremberg, guarded by U.S. Army M.P.'s was being prosecuted by the U.S. Government for crimes committed on foreign soil.
Elk v. Wilkins defined "jurisdiction thereof" in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment as follows:
“The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
Plyler v. Doe never directly addressed the issue of citizenship solely by the virtue of birth on U.S. soil.
Elk v. Wilkins did.
The bottom line is that it took the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to make Indians born on U.S. soil citizens solely by virtue of birth on U.S. soil.
The true bottom line is that these babies are issued a birth certificate with a U.S. origin. They, and most others, believe that makes them a U.S. citizen. And, that will be the eventual downfall of the U.S. because soon they will be able to vote.
But the Indians were here legally.
So that is not the same.