It’s been pointed out that the word “jurisdiction” can mean two things. Both “territorial”, and “full” or “political” jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction applies to “sojourners”, temporary residents, citizens of other nations, and those with no citizenship.
Political jurisdiction applies to citizens, just to citizens, and not even to “legal residents”. It applies civil rights across the board, limited only in minors and felons.
While the federal government may extend full jurisdiction to those who do not constitutionally qualify for it, they do not have full jurisdiction by constitutional means, but by legal means.
The biggest example of this crossover are “corporate civil rights”. Nothing in the constitution requires corporations to have civil rights, for the important reason that they are *not* “endowed by the Creator”, and thus are inherent; *nor* are they constitutional civil rights, required in the constitution. But only legal rights, created by government which can be changed by government.
Illegal aliens are in the same boat. While the argument of whether those already granted citizenship is moot, by being “grandfathered”, those who do not have citizenship may be prohibited from getting it through being born here.
Thanks.
I guess it’s nice to know about the current legal differentiation about the meanings adding political and territorial distinctions, but it still doesn’t negate what I believe was the narrow intent of the amendment in its inception.
Birthright citizenship as it has been applied with illegals and transient visitors is an unfounded politically motivated bastardization of that original goal. I will always stand by my assertion that the child of illegally present parents born here in this country should never be given American citizenship.