And did they subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the US when they entered against our laws, subjecting themselves to immediate removal from the jurisdiction of the US?
Isn't there some sort of bilateral agreement, I agree to jurisdiction AND the U.S. agrees to jurisdiction. As an American abroad I am still subject to US jurisdiction. Can a Tierra del Fuegan suddenly up and say I am subject to US jurisdiction sans passport or immigration papers?
The plain language of the constitution, here, is not so plain and the intent of its authors is not self-evident from the text alone.
. . [T]he word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department: that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction. . . The United States courts have no power to punish an Indian who is connected with a tribe for a crime committed by him upon another member of the same tribe.
And most of the people from Mexico, Central and South America are "Indians" as Senator Howard would define the term.
It may be unpopular to notice nowadays, but "Indians" are the class that was specifically mentioned as not being allowed to have birthright citizenship. How we are willing to just ignore the clear intent that Indians should not acquire citizenship, to the point of flipping the claim to "they have a right to citizenship"?
US Indians acquired citizenship under the Indian Citizenship act of 1924.
Don't know how people can argue foreign Indians are entitled to it too.
Exactly. You have to look at the debates on the 14th to understand what was the will of the House and Senate when they wrote it.
The original draft language makes their intent more clear, but some legal eagles confused the Senators with this concept known as "local allegiance", and they decided to change the words. In fact, they made them less clear.