I'm not an attorney, although I have been an expert witness multiple times. I was until recently a professional, mostly political, pollster. Lawyers make a living on subtle nuance, and polling is sensitive to subtlety, so I read for it carefully. I think this particular nuance is important.
In terms of original intent, I do not think those who ratified the 14th Amendment would have considered illegals "subject to the jurisdiction" of our government for the purposes of that Amendment. When the words of the Constitution have a single natural meaning, that meaning should be followed. In this case, there are a large number of equally natural meanings for the literal words, more than just the ones I listed, so the original intent should be the meaning followed. I have seen no evidence that the original intent went beyond children born to legal residents (especially former slaves) of the states.
Close enough for me. Those who are in the habit of reading/ interpreting legal language have a clearer understanding & develop this as a habit. So I appreciate your input very much. Thank you.
I think that’s right. I didn’t get what Grace was saying at her first post, mentioned it to husband & he set me straight. It appears the attorney/ organization supporting these families are trying to push it in that direction (unnaturally). As Hugh the Scot said (& I agree), they’re trying to turn a lie/ misrepresentation into truth by insisting on it. It’s either that or they are incompetent.
It makes you wonder, though, how in the world our government has glossed this over for so many years? Makes me feel really taken advantage of by them.
We hired them to take care of these things. If one of us abdicate our jobs like that, we would (rightly) be fired on the spot- if not the first time, then certainly the second.