Replies

In reading over the various quotes and comments on this thread, it appears to me that the most reasonable interpretation of that clause is that it was intended to specifically exclude persons born within the physical boundaries of the US but in areas not under its jurisdiction. For example, persons born within foreign embassies (which are considered extraterritorial and under the jurisdictions of other nations) and persons born within Indian tribal reservations (which were not considered within the formal jurisdiction of the US).

Correct!

But there is an additional aspect to "under the jurisdiction" which includes whether the parents are really a member owing allegiance to a foreign entity. If a barbarian horde invaded Montana, set up a foreign potentate on US land, would their kids be US citizens? Then what of other 'uninvited' persons like illegal aliens? How are they different? The answer is that it can be interpreted different ways, but clearly the 14th Amendment *allows* exceptions where the "jurisdiction" is unclear. Which is why, if we get the Congress to act, we can pass a Constitutionally valid law that defined 'the jurisdiction' to exclude those babies born to women here in the US on tourist visas and those here on now visas at all, ie, illegal aliens. In both cases they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of that clause, no more than diplomats are. But without Congressional action, the presumption of the courts will be the other way in favor of birthright interpretation. JMHO, based on cursory look at the case law. ... For more, go to Vdare.com's article on this subject.

But without Congressional action, the presumption of the courts will be the other way in favor of birthright interpretation.

Thank you for your very good analysis. Some people on this thread apparently think that they can read their own interpretation into the 14th Amendment, conclude that it is the only possible correct interpretation, and that it should therefore only be a matter of getting the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case for it to overturn its previous decisions and eliminate "anchor babies".

The fact is that the current historical usage is a very plausible one, albeit one which may be subject to modification by Congress if Congress were to specify what constitutes "subject to jurisdiction". But it will take at least an act of Congress, and possibly a Constitutional Amendment, to change the status quo. The courts are not going to change it on their own, nor is there any strong legal reason for them to do so.