[highball]

I respectfully disagree. The child is under jurisdiction, as the child has not committed any crime or shown himself to be a criminal.

You are still trying to remove the child's birthright because of actions not his own.

[jackbenimble]

The child is under jurisdiction, as the child has not committed any crime or shown himself to be a criminal.

Respectfully, why do you suppose the framers included that phrase about jurisdiction? Using your logic they were wasted words because every baby born on our soil would be under our jurisdiction. If it doesn't mean anything why did they bother to specify TWO conditions for birthright citizenship.

I am not trying to take away the babies birthright. You are trying to give the baby rights that the framers did not intend. Post 86 gives some pretty good clues as to what the framers might have meant.

[BlueStateDepression]

"You are still trying to remove the child's birthright because of actions not his own."


How does the child have a birthright when the mother being here (meaning the unborn inside here is Illegal also) is Illegal to begin with?