Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because it's not incorrect. Illegal aliens' children are born as subjects/citizens of their parents' respective country. For example, it matters not if a Mexican citizen illegal alien's child is born in the US. They are born a Mexican citizen, with Mexico being an alien power.
No, because a Mexican on US soil, unless they are a diplomat, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If that were not true, then we couldn't charge and detain them for immigration violations, arrest them for crimes or sue them in court. A Native American in the 1860's was born part of an Indian nation/state and were subject to the jurisdiction of the tribe. This is not that hard to understand, I learned it in 10th grade civics.
Because it's not incorrect. Illegal aliens' children are born as subjects/citizens of their parents' respective country. For example, it matters not if a Mexican citizen illegal alien's child is born in the US. They are born a Mexican citizen, with Mexico being an alien power.
As you should be well aware the children of Mexican citizens are not born Mexican citizens. They are born Mexican nationals.
And this would be exactly the same for a child of a Mexican LPR. So it is not an item that can differentiate between an illegal alien and an LPR.
As the drafters of the 14th Amendment expressly stated, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States means that they are subject to the enforcement of US laws and the within the reach of US Courts.
Native Americans were subject to the enforcement of US laws since at least the late 1800s, and they didn't have 14th Amendment birthright citizenship until a special legislative exception for them was passed in 1924, more than 50 years AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified. Why the need for a special legislative exception? They're born subject to a foreign power, just like illegal aliens' anchor babies. But no special legislative exception has ever been made for anchor babies, children of birth tourists, or the children of those here on temporary visas (school, work).
No, because a Mexican on US soil, unless they are a diplomat, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
So are Native Americans subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (Crimes Acts, beginning in 1800s), and they needed a special legislative exception to be granted 14th Amendment birthright citizenship. That didn't happen until 1924.
No similar special legislative exception has ever been made for anchor babies, children of birth tourists, or the children of those here on temporary visas (school, work).
You even ignore the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction.
The "qualifier"? you got me there...the exact text is:
"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.
That pretty much describes anyone who is born here and who is not a diplomat, I'm not sure how you can infer anything else from it.
The "qualifier"? you got me there...the exact text is:
"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.
That pretty much describes anyone who is born here and who is not a diplomat, I'm not sure how you can infer anything else from it.
That was indeed inferred for more than 50 years AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified. US-born NAs didn't have 14th Amendment birthright citizenship until 1924. Why not? They were born subject to an alien power, as are illegal aliens' children. A special legislative exception had to be made for them.
No similar special legislative exception has ever been made for anchor babies, children of birth tourists, or the children of those here on temporary visas (school, work).
Mexico - Nationality and citizenship
Wong Kim Ark is the SCOTUS precedent for granting 14th Amendment birthright citizenship to the US-born children of alien LPRs.
No similar SCOTUS ruling has ever been made for the US-born children of illegal aliens, who have no US-sanctioned status as a legal immigrant.
That decision does not differentiate between legal and illegal aliens. Domicile does not require legality.
That decision does not differentiate between legal and illegal aliens. Domicile does not require legality.
I keep asking the critical question, but no one seems to have an actual answer: In what way is an illegal immigrant less subject to US jurisdiction than a legal immigrant?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
