You keep ignoring the operative phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Thats because you can't defend it. Perhaps you believe that if you ignore it, it will go away. It won't.
I admit that my position has never been settled - you, OTOH, won't admit that your position has never been settled either.
I keep saying that this is a question that the Court [or the States] have to decide - you say that it has been decided already. This is not true. The citizenship of such a child of illegal immigrants has never been decided. Why are you afraid of the Court visiting this issue? Is it because you know that there is no data to back up your position?
I started out in FR believing the same as you do - then, other posters told me to do the research. I did. Since there is no precedent, the Court has stated that it is proper to resort to English Common Law in order to reach a decision. Per Common Law, there is a plethora of evidence that indicates that such children [of illegals] are not citizens. That is because the illegal parents were considered enemies and NOT under the jurisdiction. As such, their children were NOT under the jurisdiction either. There is NO evidence [per Common Law] that indicates otherwise.
However, our system of laws and justice dictate that it is either the Court or the States [through Constitutional Amendment] to decide. I have stated that and will abide accordingly. You, OTOH, seem to believe that it is your interpretation that is the final arbiter.
This situation is akin to a woman breaking into an unoccupied house, giving birth in the house, living there for lets say 18 years with the child, then being found to be trespassing.
Your position would remove the mother from the premises, but let the child remain simply because he was born there. ABSURD !!!
“You keep ignoring the operative phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Is there a Supreme Court ruling that affirms your interpretation? No? That’s a shame.
“This is not true. The citizenship of such a child of illegal immigrants has never been decided.”
It has been decided, by the states in the 14th Amendments, not the courts.
“Why are you afraid of the Court visiting this issue?”
Where did I say I was afraid of anything? Take it up to the Supreme Court, and see what they say. Until they rule, or the states successfully amend the constitution, the law states that they are citizens.
“You, OTOH, seem to believe that it is your interpretation that is the final arbiter.”
It has been ratified by all 37 states that were in the union at the time. Ohio and New Jersey were the last two, both of whom ratified the 14th Amendment in 2003.
I abide by the decision of those 37 states to confirm the 14th Amendment.
“This situation is akin to a woman breaking into an unoccupied house, giving birth in the house, living there for lets say 18 years with the child, then being found to be trespassing.”
How so? I’ve stated that the state has an interest in deporting the mother. The state also has an interest in the welfare of the child.
“Your position would remove the mother from the premises, but let the child remain simply because he was born there. ABSURD !!!”
Absolutely, if that is what the mother chooses. The alternative is that the mother would choose to bring her child along with her, and they both would leave the country.
The child would retain their citizenship rights, and could return when they have reached the age of majority. Otherwise the child will be placed into adoption.
Is it a perfect solution? No. 80 percent of the time it will result in the exact same result as yours.