Replies

"The 14th Amendment does not condone birthright citizenship for illegal alien children."

Yes, it does.

People are making a lot of definitive statements - on both sides - without support. It seems appropriate to me to examine the language rather than just make didactic statements.

The 14th Amendment actually says, "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."

So, are there any conditions under which a person could be born in this country and not gain citizenship for that reason alone? To me, the key is the phrase, " . . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . ." So, the question becomes: Are there any conditions under which a person could be born in this country and not be 'under the jurisdiction' of the United States?

What about fugitives from justice? Have they rejected the jurisdiction of the US, and not be ''under' that jurisdiction since they are fugitives?

I'm not going to provide my own opinion on that question, except to say that the answer is not black and white. It is subject to interpretation. Since the Constitution provides for formal determination of interpretations like that, and it's not a bunch of private citizens posting to discussion boards, I don't think we can be absolute in our statements.

On either side.

"People are making a lot of definitive statements - on both sides - without support."

Incorrect. One side has legal support, one doesn't.

"To me, the key is the phrase, " . . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . ."

Thank you Captain Obvious. :-)

"What about fugitives from justice? Have they rejected the jurisdiction of the US, and not be ''under' that jurisdiction since they are fugitives?"

No. You can't "reject" jurisdiction. It's not up to you.

If you are not "under the jurisdiction" then you are not subject to the law.

"I'm not going to provide my own opinion on that question, except to say that the answer is not black and white. It is subject to interpretation."

Actually it is black and white. Just read the Wong decision, it's pretty much laid out. Those not "under the jurisdiction" are diplomats with diplomatic immunity, invading soldiers operating under the laws of war, and Indians on sovereign indian territory. What these all have in common is that they are not subject to US law. Everyone else is.