To: Little Ray
“In the simplistic form, if that were so, the children born to diplomats in the US would be citizens - and they are not.”
They are not because of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which does not apply to the children of illegals.
7 posted on
04/28/2010 1:50:05 PM PDT by
Tublecane
To: Tublecane
I think it can be argued that illegals are “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” too. (Some of ‘em sure act like it...). Maybe I should be thinking “tourists” instead of “diplomatic personnel.”
As I said, there better and more detailed arguments against this.
16 posted on
04/28/2010 1:54:39 PM PDT by
Little Ray
(The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
To: Tublecane
They are not because of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which does not apply to the children of illegals.The original crafters were wary of this and their intent was that "anchor babies" were not citizens under the 14th (as their parents were not legally citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the state where the kid was born). It has been misinterpreted for years.
25 posted on
04/28/2010 1:58:08 PM PDT by
IYAS9YAS
(Liberal Logic: Mandatory health insurance is constitutional - enforcing immigration law is not.)
To: Tublecane
They are not because of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which does not apply to the children of illegals.What is your reasoning for that interpretation?
52 posted on
04/28/2010 2:49:28 PM PDT by
TigersEye
(0basma's father was a British subject. He can't be a "natural-born" citizen.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson