But how was it actually written?
Section 1. All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
I don’t like it but like the 2nd it seems very clear.
You seem to pass over the words “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.”
Legislative intent is always considered when the language has ambiguities. The author of the amendment is giving specifics of what he intended. The intent allows us and the courts to go beyond the mere words. The vaguery of the phrase "...subject to the jurisdiction..." opens the door to exploring intent.
“AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Conjunction junction, what’s your function?
If you are a citizen of Country X, and country X is not the US, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (from a citizenship law view).
The authors of this amendment were very clear...you can’t just show up and raid our treasury to sustain your lifestyle.
But how was it actually written?
Section 1. All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
I don’t like it but like the 2nd it seems very clear.
******************************************************************************************************
Apparently the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are not clear TO YOU. That’s why the words explaining the INTENT of the Section 1 author were highlighted in yellow. Is the word “alien” clear to you? Or the words “illegal aliens”? They have very specific legal meanings and those meanings have application to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Did this part NOT register with you?
“Section 1. All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Why highlight BORN and not “SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF”? An alien by definition is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the the United States. The “BORN” concept is coordinated with and limited by the “JURISDICTION” concept. You CANNOT separate the two. You can’t pick and choose words you prefer in a signed contract; they all go together.
The catch is in the added wording ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. I don’t believe the words and expressions are/can be separable or that such was ever intended to be the case. If the child (new or recent born) is intended by the parents to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US it seems to me that the parents are responsible for making such legal presentation on US soil instead of hustling the child back across the border to the intended country of official citizenship.
A Foreign National by definition is NOT UNDER the Jurisdiction of the United States.
Did you fail 3rd Grade reading??
The founders language is from another time but if you read their writings their meaning is clear.
If they meant anyone born here is a citizen, then that’s what they would have written, and left it at the.
But they added a specific clause “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURIDICTIONS...”
Someone who breaks our laws to get here is subject to another country