As is usual on this issue on FR, I am in the tiny minority.
You can argue it anyway you want but the text is clear.
The diplomatic exception exists because Ambassadors/Diplomats are not subject to the ‘Jurisdiction’ of the US. The classic idea of ‘diplomatic immunity’ — theoritically they can kill someone on our soil and not get prosecuted. Like everyone else — including illegal aliens.
* * *
Is it problem? Of course it is a problem if illegal aliens are doing what they can to have an anchor baby (including dying in the desert at 8 months).
But trying to muck with the text of the Constitution isn’t the way we should be doing this — as conservatives we should treat the Constitution with the reverence it deserves and not take the liberal ‘cop-out’ of ignoring the text and just pretending it says what they want it to say.
>>But trying to muck with the text of the Constitution isn’t the way we should be doing this — as conservatives we should treat the Constitution with the reverence it deserves and not take the liberal ‘cop-out’ of ignoring the text and just pretending it says what they want it to say.<<
The trouble is, “the liberal cop-out” is how we got to this interpretation that makes children of illegals citizens. That interpretation contradicts the written intentions of the authors of the 14th amendment and common sense.
It’s my understanding that this whole anchor baby fiasco started somewhere around 1950 because of a ruling around 1900 that granted a guy citizenship who was born here to two legal people. Did something happen somewhere along the way that specifically says anchors are citizens or did they just pick the ball up and run with it?
John / Billybob
I think the text under the jurisdiction is very clear. Can you draft a foreign national into the US military? Can you compel a foreign national to serve on jury duty? No, you can't, because they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.