In his first two segments tonight, Mark Levin could have been reading directly from C_O’s article.
Listen: http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=2591&c=10771&f=4733593
Yes, they both could be wrong and you right, but I wouldn’t take that bet.
He even addressed your concerns about people who are in the country being subject to our laws but not subjects. It can be seen in the synopsis at the daily recap of today’s show.
“The argument that an illegal alien can step into the United States, claim legal and political jurisdiction, and confer citizenship to their child is insane. People claiming to be Constitutional experts saying that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong. The 14th Amendment didn’t even give citizenship to Native Americans, why would it give citizenship to illegal aliens?
The Constitution is on our side in a second way: Article 1 Section 8, which grants plenary power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
We’re tired of being told someone can come into our country illegally, claim citizenship, and we’re told there’s nothing we can do about it. We have policies that promote illegal aliens and illegal alien children more than the American citizen and American child – we’re committing national suicide.” (http://www.marklevinshow.com/2015/08/18/august-18-2015/)
Excellent post, Sulla. Also, Great catch from the mouth of Mark Levin.
As much as I respect C_O and Levin, if you're going to make this an argument from authority I'll side with every court that's had to rule on the issue.
"The 14th Amendment didn’t even give citizenship to Native Americans, why would it give citizenship to illegal aliens?"
At the time Indians were deemed not to be fully subject to US jurisdiction because the Indian nations governed themselves and dealt with the federal government via treaty. Not the case with resident foreigners.
“The argument that an illegal alien can step into the United States, claim legal and political jurisdiction, and confer citizenship to their child is insane."
Just because we don't like the implications of an amendment doesn't change the plain meaning of the words. Torturing logic to make the constitution say what we want it to isn't a conservative approach.