[pissant]

HELL EFFIN NO

[muawiyah]

Do this fast enough and the Latino Vote will drop a good 75%.

If all "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant was that the United States had issued them a visa, it's over.

[mrmeyer]

Nope.

[Cyropaedia]

There was never any intent to provide automatic birthright citizenship to all children born here. They could still become citizens via the naturalization process.

This stands in stark contrast to the situation where you had generations of slaves going without citizenship.

[The Comedian]

Aguilar is adamant that the initiatives will “antagonize Latino voters.”

Yeah, and liberating the concentration camps antagonized the Nazis. Good.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Sherman Logan]

Chavez argues that the position that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes the children of illegal immigrants “is clearly ahistorical and clearly conflicts with not just the historical debate, but consequent Supreme Court decisions.” Chavez argues that the position that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes the children of illegal immigrants “is clearly ahistorical and clearly conflicts with not just the historical debate, but consequent Supreme Court decisions.”

Unfortunately, I tend to agree.

Those not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are I believe generally construed as being limited to foreign diplomats and their families, who are "not subject" to our jurisdiction because they have diplomatic immunity.

Another exception is foreign invaders occupying the country. Maybe we could fit illegals in under that grouping.

I doubt the framers of the amendment intended to establish birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. But then there were no illegal immigrants at the time, for the simple reason there were no immigration restrictions and no laws on the subject. Anybody could enter the US. The first restrictions, rather minor ones, weren't passed for another decade or so.

[K-Stater]

To Kobach, it is “nonsensical” to understand “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as meaning anything other than that at least one of the parents must be a citizen of, or at least legally residing in, the United States.

Surely somewhere in the past the court has defined what 'subject to the jurisdiction' means?

The first proposal is state-level legislation that would not affect the federal citizenship of an illegal immigrant’s child, but would deny him citizenship of that state.

Apparently Kris wants to treat the part of the 14th Amendment that says "...are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" as surplus words as well. Children of illegals may or may not be citizens of the U.S., natural born or otherwise. That is a very real question that the courts need to answer. But if the children of illegals are found to be citizens of the U.S. then they are also citizens of the state they're living in and nothing a local legislature can do will change that.

[DJ MacWoW]

The 14th Amendment

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

[PATRIOT1876]

It shouldn't antagonize Latino voters that are here LEGALLY!

I hope Kobach, puts the kibosh on illegal immigration

[jetson]

No, because they and their parents weren’t brought here as slaves.

[Grut]

Smith is born in America to illegal immigrants. He grows to adulthood and commits a federal crime. At trial, he pleads that he is “not subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and must therefore be released, or at most deported.

How do you rule?

[HiJinx]

Ping!

[Razz Barry]

But Aguilar is adamant that the initiatives will “antagonize Latino voters.” And that could have a long-term impact. “It’s pretty clear that if we don’t win 30 to 40 percent of the Latino vote in the next election,” he says, “we’re not going to win back the White House.”

It angers me to know that Americans of Hispanic descent are willing to side with lawbreakers just because of ethnicity.

[adeline]

I think we would have a lot less problems if we had stuck with Elk v Wilkins!!!