[skeeter]

Its what I said. It defies common sense to claim a person is subject to a jurisdiction if there is no record of their presence.

[Scoutmaster]

Its what I said. It defies common sense to claim a person is subject to a jurisdiction if there is no record of their presence.

So back in the days when a person born to U.S. Citizens in a rural area never had his or her birth formally recorded, they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.?

[CowboyJay]

"Its what I said. It defies common sense to claim a person is subject to a jurisdiction if there is no record of their presence." I agree with you. It's ludicrous. How can someone who was never lawfully admitted into to our jurisdiction in violation of our laws (meaning they themselves rejected our sovereign jurisdiction by setting foot on US soil with out permission) be considered to have equal protection under our laws.

Unfortunately, the common law tradition in the courts has misconstrued the 14th amendment, which was written to grant citizenship rights to slaves after they were freed - into a precedent of jus-solis citizenship, which it was never intended to do.