The problem lies in the wording of the amendment (Section 1.)
I think that’s true as far as extradition is concerned, but if you or I commit a crime in another country (including illegal entry- most especially in Mexico), that government could & would prosecute us, as we should do with foreign nationals. We would go to jail like the Marine in Mexico or the Americans still held in Iran.
I’m afraid they’ve got us on this one unless & until we change the wording/ provisions of the 14th amendment. The 64 million dollar question is how do we get Congress to do that, a president who will sign it (or be overridden), 2/3 of the states to ratify it & the SCOTUS (because it WILL be challenged- probably repeatedly- by the left) to uphold it.
(I see where you’re going with “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, Pollster1. They are ‘’subject to US jurisdiction’’ because they are physically present on our soil. That’s why they have been & sometimes are, arrested for crimes committed here. That stopped happening because we have a president who is willing to break the law, himself. Our laws were not applied equally (’’diplomatic immunity’’) before that.
If the words ‘’all persons born’’ were stricken from this amendment, we might not be having so much difficulty. Of course, that’s hypothetical. I imagine we still would be. Invaders don’t care whether what they’re doing is illegal or not.)
In this case, it’s Mexican nationals (as far as I can tell), but it applies to any foreign national attempting to secure (by giving birth) sanction & financial support in this country.
The words, “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” is the key.
The federal laws can meet this criteria and the law that rejects the anchor baby scams, illegal invasions, would be the solution.
I don't quite agree. Under the 'territorial principle', a state may claim jurisdiction over persons and events inside its own territory. Under the 'nationality principle'. the government of a citizen can obtain jurisdiction over its citizen even when that citizen is abroad. Both principles express a possibility rather than an absolute, and both are generally interpreted more narrowly than a state's full jurisdiction over its own citizens on its own territory. Illegal aliens are potentially subject to US jurisdiction, in the sense that they can be tried for crimes committed while illegally present, but that is far from being subject to the broad jurisdiction of the US government.