The wording “...subject to the jurisdiction of...” intrigues me. Could the newborn infant of illegal aliens be forcibly removed from the (illegals) parent’s custody by a U.S. court because the parents are unfit parents?
Suppose both were drug dealers, alcoholics, or had no visible means of support—things which have resulted in U.S. citizen parents losing custody of their citizen children. My guess is the ACLU would move heaven and earth to prevent the U.S. court from taking such an action. That would seem to me to say the anchor baby is NOT subject to the “jurisdiction of” the U.S. and therefore cannot be a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Just a thought.
A very good thought. Also, it strikes me that because native Americans (Indians) were NOT considered to be birthright citizens until much later congressional action, this would certainly suggest that illegal aliens were not even imagined to have been given that privilege by the authors of the 14th. In the historical context of 1868, when the 14th was ratified, it’s seems very clear that the authors were only concerned about the newly freed slaves and could hardly envision its application to ILLEGAL conduct, e.g., an alien who violated our law by coming here and who happened by chance to have a baby. But now its a political issue and the Left wants all those potential votes! They could care less that we’re now broke (thanks mostly to Obama and his liberal colleagues) and that illegals are adding more billions to our out-of-control deficits.