The issue of what is meant by "under the jurisdiction of" the US has not been decided by the US supreme court. A federal law in effect since, I think the '20s, says that anyone born here is automatically a citizen, so there has been no occasion to visit that part of the amendment. There are undoubtedly many cases stating that the law is valid and requires the children of illegals to be considered citizens. Once a citizen, that right cannot be taken away by a law.
A new law could, however, void the old law, and say that any children born to illegals in the future are NOT citizens. That law would be valid, once the 14th Amendment's clause is interpreted as to whether it applies to illegals. That would require interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Jurisdiction is not just a term that applies to where you are located, but also who you are. Indians, foreign ambassadors and illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, because they have not submitted to it. There is plenty of authority for the proposition that the drafters of that amendment would have understood that illegals were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.
You seem to think that a suit by the ACLU that is immediately supported by the 9th Circuit is evidence that a law is unconstitutional. You have become a scared rabbit from 70 years of judicial tyranny. I, on the other hand, understand that a new law will be challenged, but the argument for the law is sound, and with 4 justices who will read the constitution according to the intent of those who passed the 14th Amendment, and a good chance of one more to replace a lib in the next 2 years, I will take my chances that the Supreme Court will ultimately decide that:
1. A law by Congress to deny citizenship to the children of illegal aliens prospectively is constitutional under the 14th Amendment. There have been such laws introduced in the Congress several times, and it could easily be made part of an immigration enforcement bill, if we had a President who would sign it; and
2. A law to deny federal benefits to illegal aliens would also be constitutional. The precedent for that goes all the way back to the 1980s, in a case that required schooling for illegals in Texas, and that was extremely thin in its reasoning. Later, following prop 187 in California, the 9th Circus extended that to other services, and the Dem administration of Gray Davis settled the case so that there would be no appeal to a higher court. Do you get that point--the Supremes have not yet decided that we have to give free medical to illegals. Arizona just voted to deny those benefits, and that will be litigated, and this time, it may get to the Supremes. I am confident that we have 4 votes right now, and who knows with Kennedy. But it will take 2 more years to get there, and will we have another conservative justice on the court by then? If so, it will be a cinch.
Marbury is settled law. Tax kooks go to jail. But illegals do not have to be given welfare and free schools under the Constitution that Judge Roberts and Scalia believe in.
So, the strategy to deal with all the illegals is there, and it has many fronts--capture, employer sanctions, new laws, judicial decisions, throwing out politicians. I have a feeling your task here is to be on the other side of that difficult fight.
Spout your incorrect info somewhere that people might think you knowledgable, but not here. Freepers have way too much expertise, and BS gets caught pretty quick.
Loved your post 26. It was informative and reflected some of what I had understood was the case. Would appreciate it if you would Freep mail it to me, so that I can easily print it out for future reference.
Brilliant article.
Birthright citizenship is indeed an open constitutional question, and I believe you are right, we would get most if not all of the justice to agree to certain limits on it consistent with the 14th jurisprudence of 'under the jurisdiction of'.
The 1982 case that forced schools to cater to illegal aliens was pure judicial legislating. If/when we have 9 real judges on the courts, they will recognize that it is within the rights of states and local governments to decide how to spend their tax dollars on such things.