[Congressman Billybob]

Not necessarily. Congress by law establishes that the land and buildings of the Japanese Embassy in D.C. is not American, but Japanese. As a result, if a staff member at that embassy has a child, that child is (legally) born in Japan, not in the US. Since Congress can do that by law, it can do this. Or, so goes the argument.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Democrat Official Outed as 'Sleaze' Source on Mayor O'Malley; Washington Post Ignored Story it Had (Updated)"

[Killborn]

Embassies are considered foreign territory. It would only make sense that a person born there is not a US citizen.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Because Congress can legislate a parcel of land as not American soil, they can legislate that children born on American soil aren't necessarily American citizens? Those two things aren't the same unless Congress plans to make other pieces of land as not American soil as their solution.

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for weighing in on this issue! This has bugged me for a long time. I don't see why we have to give citizenship to a child born to illegals who are breaking the law by being in this Country.

[chronic_loser]

Thinking about that gives some problems. You have taken the embassy of Japan and removed it from US Jurisdiction. That means the US (and Virginia? DC? Maryland?) laws DO NOT APPLY in those places. They become, like our embassies abroad, an extension of a foreign country. So far, so good.

However, if you attempt to say that illegals here are "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the US gov't, or the governments of the respective states, then we legally cannot prosecute them for commiting misdemeanors or felonies, right?

This is new territory to me, and I could be miles off base, but I really don't think we want to go there to solve a problem with our own socialistic handout programs.

[FreedomCalls]

Not necessarily. Congress by law establishes that the land and buildings of the Japanese Embassy in D.C. is not American, but Japanese. As a result, if a staff member at that embassy has a child, that child is (legally) born in Japan, not in the US. Since Congress can do that by law, it can do this. Or, so goes the argument.

And for the longest time Indians born on reservations in the U.S. were not granted citizenship. Later they were granted citizenship by Congress simply passing a law. In effect, the law moved them from NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to "subject to the jurisdictioin thereof" and it would be just as simple to move the children of illegal aliens out from under that clause to a category where it doens't apply. It can be done by legislation. In fact, in my opinion Medellin v. Dretke provided the first brick to build that wall with by asserting that Medellin was not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction because he has special jurisdictional rights not available to ordinary American citizens.