I did read the article and the author’s opinion does not agree or align with current legal precedence and jurisprudence. But that is his opinion and he is allowed to espouse his opinion.
The author asserts a false straw man to prove his point. The author asserts: Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
The fact is that the 14th creates two conditions. The first is birth or naturalization and the second is the subject to the jurisdiction clause. The subject to the jurisdiction does in fact mean the geographic boundaries of the United States, it Territories and any other land subject to the laws of Congress. This does in fact mean that a person born while in the US is in fact a citizen under the 14th.
If one does not like that standard, then change the standard to require a US citizen parent or whatever requirement you want to put in place. Do not try to dance on the head of a pin and change the meaning of words. That is a tactic of the left and is unbecoming of conservatives.
It is very clear to me that ‘subject to the jurisdiction of’ means that they are the sovereign nation of the individual, and that it does not mean that lawbreakers can be apprehended by the government of a country in which they commit a crime.
The second is a silly interpretation. So, it does strike me that those who play word games should check their logic against reality.
But it isn’t the sovereignty folks who must do that.
You know deep down that no sane legislator would intend such a silly notion as “subject to prosecution for crimes” that is obvious law anywhere and everywhere throughout time.
The idea that legal status is defined by the accident of geographical position is ludicrous.
The illegals presence in the country is a Statement by Them that they are NOT subject to the jurisdiction; they should be taken at their word.