[Kleon]

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.

[nesnah]

Scholar?

[FoxInSocks]

Maybe that was the predicate in the 1700’s, but they probably weren’t thinking of millions of people just walking in to set up shop and apply for free stuff. That would have been inconceivable.

[cuz1961]

It means what it plainly says and says what it simply means

Not YOUR idea of “ simply means”

You do violence to the text and pulled your opinion from the penumbra of your “ scholarly” rectal emanation I suspect

I could be wrong
But I doubt it

[Hatteras]

Haha, FR is full of “scholars”. Just ask them. Experts one and all.

[nikos1121]

Wrong

[Carry_Okie]

I’m a scholar of the Constitution.

No, you're not. No scholar would begin that way.

“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.

That list was offered by Senator Howard for example purposes. It was not definitive. One is best served by the definition of "subject" in the Bouvier Law Dictionary of 1856.

SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistiction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights. Then we have Chief Justice Miller's opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases: The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States. Then we have Chief Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark. If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 28, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were and are aliens, unless they have or shall, on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States; and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect. And children who are aliens by descent, but born on our soil, are exempted from the exercise of the power to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, so often maintained by this court,- an exemption apparently disregarded by the acts in respect of the exclusion of persons of Chinese descent. That is what a "scholar of the Constitution" would do.

[odawg]

““Subject to the jurisdiction” is simply meant to exclude a very narrow set of people, such as children of foreign diplomats.”

Not the merest hint of that in the 14th amendment.

[RainMan]

Sorry you failed your studies. Subject to the Jurisdiction means that they could be claimed as a citizen of another country. If mom and dad are both Mexican citizens, then the baby can be Mexican. In some countries, if dad is a citizen, the baby can automatically become a citizen.

[Mr. K]

No other country on the planet accepts that anybody born there is automatically a citizen. You’re completely wrong

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Well scholar of the Constitution, read the debates on the 14th amendment, and you will discover that your view is incorrect.

John Bingham (who's quote I use in my tagline) is quite clear that children born of citizens of foreign countries, are *NOT* citizens.

And while we are at it, any 14th amendment "citizen" is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen.

Don't believe me? The framers of the 14th amendment said over and over again that the 14th amendment is naturalization.

Let us take them at their word and ignore what obnoxious courts claim.

[P-Marlowe]

I’m a scholar of the Constitution

And therein lies your problem.

[P-Marlowe]

There are essentially three categories of people. Citizens, subjects, and others not subjects, such as visitors and trespassers.

Illegal aliens are not subjects, they are trespassers. They are subjects of the countries from where they came. Their children are automatically subjects of their parents country and not eligible for citizenship of the country that they are trespassing.

No other country grants citizenship to the children of invaders. This was never the intention of the drafters of the 14th amendment.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Lol

[brent13a]

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.

Coolsies. I'm a scholar of the Constitution as well. Having read the writings of the guy who wrote that law, as well as the context of the law when it was written, there is no "narrow scope" to what it means. It means what it means, if you're a citizen of another country then the child does not become a citizen of the US.

That's it.

[ridesthemiles]

IF THAT IS WHAT THEY MEANT—IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED-—IN BLACK & WHITE

[itsahoot]

I’m a scholar of the Constitution.

More proof that Charlie Kirk is right, college is a scam.