Replies

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.

Children born of illegal alien foreign nationals in the United States are foreign nationals.

Their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico. That's why we jettison them back to Mexico.

They are not subject to the laws of our nation other than to be deported or arrested for crimes, and if you want to disagree with that, just ask the government of Mexico if they are subject to our laws.

Mexico screams bloody murder every time we put one of it's favorite sons or daughters on death row. It says we have no right to do that.

Once a foreign national becomes a citizen, they are then "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

We have a set policy that has to be followed for foreign nationals to become "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Illegal aliens have not complied with that policy.

"The 14th Amendment does not condone birthright citizenship for illegal alien children."

Yes, it does.

People are making a lot of definitive statements - on both sides - without support. It seems appropriate to me to examine the language rather than just make didactic statements.

The 14th Amendment actually says, "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."

So, are there any conditions under which a person could be born in this country and not gain citizenship for that reason alone? To me, the key is the phrase, " . . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . ." So, the question becomes: Are there any conditions under which a person could be born in this country and not be 'under the jurisdiction' of the United States?

What about fugitives from justice? Have they rejected the jurisdiction of the US, and not be ''under' that jurisdiction since they are fugitives?

I'm not going to provide my own opinion on that question, except to say that the answer is not black and white. It is subject to interpretation. Since the Constitution provides for formal determination of interpretations like that, and it's not a bunch of private citizens posting to discussion boards, I don't think we can be absolute in our statements.

On either side.