Several different phrases have been used throughout history. “Aliens in amity.” “In obedience to the king.” “Under the protection of the king.” “Subject to the jurisdiction of.”
And the misleading “not owing allegiance to any other sovereignty,” which the birthers make much of and which was pretty quickly replaced with “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
All of them were pretty much intended to mean the same thing: Legal presence, subject to the laws of the country.
I agree with you that citizenship for children of illegal aliens violates the historic principle, since the parents are not “in obedience to” or “under the protection of” our laws. They are not here legally.
And it seems to me that JCBreckenridge’s solution is a reasonable one: Deport the parents. The child can go with them, or if they desperately want the child to stay, they can find a foster home and the child can stay.
That’ll never happen, of course. But it makes sense to me.
“That’ll never happen, of course. But it makes sense to me.”
As a partial solution, and the toughest one likely to pass in modern America, I agree. However, I continue to see no basis in the law for believing those born in America to illegal immigrants are born citizens. I would argue the best solution is to deport both the parents, and the child, since the child is not an American citizen. But I also understand that no court, and probably no legislature, is willing to do that...
;>(
That in itself disqualifies him from birthright citizenship as the 14th Amendment was written and intended to require "the complete jurisdiction thereof" of the U.S.
Sources: Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull, Senator Howard, originators of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.