What will the Supreme Court say?
It’s amazing the number of times the fate of the nation depends on courts divining the meaning of one simple word.
I’m a scholar of the Constitution. “Subject to the jurisdiction” is simply meant to exclude a very narrow set of people, such as children of foreign diplomats. This argument put forth by the President is basically a non-starter.
It amazes me how people cannot seem to grasp this very simple, obvious point. Or more likely, they deliberately do so for their own ends.
The offspring born here of parents who are not U.S. citizens are not natural-born U.S. citizens.
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
“That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding....”
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866
“are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”
The “and” is important.
At 6:00am, Invader Baby was born.
At 6:10am, Invader Baby died.
Invader Baby never resided in any state of the USA.
At 7:00am, Baby LA was born to Shanghai Momma
a few days later, Baby LA & Shanghai Momma fly to a residence in China.
Even years later, Baby LA has never resided in any state of the USA.
“and of the state wherein they reside” implies that the effect of the Amendment was meant to be limited to those persons then alive at the time of its ratification.
This argument alone won’t do the job. Legislative history and intent must be considered. Quite simply, the amendment was intended for freed slaves, not for granting citizationship to children of invaders or to create a birth tourism industry.
“jurisdiction”
If I was visiting Caracas and was pulled off the street and into Maduro’s army, the United States would be entitled to use force to free me.
If Jose was born 20 years ago to a Venezuelan mother & father in NYC and was visiting Caracas yesterday and was pulled off the street and into Maduro’s army, the United States would not be entitled to use force to free Jose.
“Citizenship by birth
A child born in Venezuela regardless of the nationality or status of the parents.
A child born outside Venezuela to parents who are both Venezuelans by birth....”
“Venezuelans who possess dual citizenship have the same rights and duties as Venezuelans who do not possess dual citizenship.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_nationality_law
Babies born in the USA of to fnon citizen parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the nations of their parents and thus are subject to a foreicn power.
Actually the important words are “under the jurisdiction” not “and”.
“Under the jurisdiction” means you are subject to the laws of that country.
So the question is, is someone, regardless of his status” who happens to be in the US, subject to our laws?
As far as I know, they are. If someone, regardless of his status, breaks a law they are subject to its enforcement.
So the problem is in the wording of the amendment.
A better wording would have been: “anyone born in the US of a LEGAL resident of the US, is a citizen of the US”. Then you don’t even need the “under the jurisdiction” clause.
.