Replies

“The original crafters were wary of this and their intent was that ‘anchor babies’ were not citizens under the 14th”

If that was their intent, it would have been pretty easy to exclude anchor babies. That they didn’t is their mistake, and they have to pay for it.

“(as their parents were not legally citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the state where the kid was born)”

First of all, the 14th amendment says nothing about having to be subject to a state’s jurisdiction. It says they must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Secondly, if they’re not subject to state jurisdiction, please explain to me why it is that states can put illegals in jail, as they obviously do (not for being illegal, very often, but for other things).

“It has been misinterpreted for years”

Courts misinterpret a lot of things, but in this case they’re only going by the language, which is pretty clear.

In 1882, the Congress of the United States had enacted a law, known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race from coming into the United States or becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Chinese immigrants already in the U.S. ,were allowed to stay, but were ineligible for naturalization; and if they left the U.S., they generally could not return.

Wouldn't the fact that they had permission to be in this country make them legal? If you are legal, then I see no reason why you would not get citizenship. We are talking about ILLEGALS.

First of all, the 14th amendment says nothing about having to be subject to a state’s jurisdiction.

Section 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.

Okay, so which state is not part of the United States?