Posted on 01/23/2020 10:50:45 AM PST by COUNTrecount
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”!
Thus NOT including illegals, visa overstays, birth tourism, etc.
Diplomats with diplomatic immunity, soldiers of an invading army, these are not under the jurisdiction, and these are the persons to which that phrase refers. Because they are not under the jurisdiction of the law. Diplomats because they have immunity, soldiers because they operate under the laws of war.
Funny how plain English can be construed so many ways.
Kind of like “Natural born citizen”, seems to come down to the interpretation of the person defining it.
I really doubt our founders intended that we have no control over who is a legitimate citizen.
In any case the current debacle cannot continue if we are to retain our “American” culture and values.
p
Excellent. And then drop the “birth on US soil automatically confers citizenship” misunderstanding.
Best. President. Ever.
There's a difference between words having vague or multiple meanings, and people acting as if words have meanings they just wish they had. Sometimes the former is true. Not this time. "Jurisdiction" is a well defined term, and there is no serious doubt about what "under the jurisdiction" means in the 14th. And in fact the Supreme Court has covered this topic thoroughly.
"Kind of like “Natural born citizen”, seems to come down to the interpretation of the person defining it."
Everything I said above applies to this one too. "Natural born citizen" meant to the founders someone born in the US. It has the same connotation that "natural born subject" meant to a citizen of the UK at the time, which is what they were at the time they wrote the words. And in the UK if you were born within the country you were a natural born subject.
"I really doubt our founders intended that we have no control over who is a legitimate citizen."
There is no lack of control implied. But at the time, travel, especially across the oceans, was not the simple thing it is now, and the current situation was not forseen. Regardless, the rule was written into the Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment can change it.
If you are correct I guess I’m “Lucky” to not be younger.
Mass invasion by any pretext is not good for the USA.
Coupled with the U.N. and their recent claim that we cannot refuse “Climate Refugees” the future looks very bleak indeed.
This situation is more than any one president can fix, and congress is useless.
As for the anchor baby thing, it really doesn't happen in big enough numbers to make it anything but the least of our immigration problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.