I disagree, although there should be a law to clarify the application of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (quoted from memory - forgive me if it’s not exact).
This EO would be a clarification of how to apply the amendment, and is completely within the expressed intent of the people that wrote the amendment. When Obama created DACA, he instructed prosecutors to implicitly created a protected status for kids brought across the border, in contravention of the actual meaning and intent of the law.
By instructing the administrative arms of the government to apply the law as actually written, President Trump is faithfully executing the law - not breaking it.
If he were contravening the actual amendment, then I would agree on the need to be hypocritical to support the move.
That is the correct, and pertinent, phrase.
Illegal aliens are no more “AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof” than an armed invader would be.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
If you’re born in the US, or naturalized, you’re a citizen.
“Subject to jurisdictions” is mostly redundant, but a legalize clarification to make sure that if any jurisdictions of the United States pretty much counts, or in other words, ‘don’t try to exclude certain jurisdictions under this umbrella’
“This EO would be a clarification of how to apply the amendment, and is completely within the expressed intent of the people that wrote the amendment.
By instructing the administrative arms of the government to apply the law as actually written, President Trump is faithfully executing the law - not breaking it.”
Perfect. Well said.