I’m not trying to weasel a new meaning. The question is whether or not children born in the US of illegal aliens are automatically citizens. There seems to be quite a bit of disagreement with the wording of the 14th Amendment regarding this question, even amongst a somewhat likeminded gathering of people on this forum.
Some are arguing to use black letter text or case law or a lot of things to interpret “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” All I’m saying is maybe see what the framers of the amendment meant by reviewing their discussions.
Seems it was intended to make children of former slaves citizens.
A few here have said that’s all well and good but due to the construction of the law, it also encompasses children of illegal aliens. I don’t think so. Using that logic, then children of Indians not taxed would automatically be citizens too, but this was not the case despite all Indians (taxed or not taxed) being subject to US jurisdiction.
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is no absolute than “shall not be infringed” or “Congress shall pass no law” and must be interpreted in a reasonable manner. I’m in favor of using the framer’s intent to understand how it should be interpreted, much more so than case law from a different country and time.
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is no absolute than “shall not be infringed”
See post #2. The writers say it clearly that it does NOT encompass foreigners in the USA for any reason.
Yes, “Subject to” it a solid statement. You might not understand it, but foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.