"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."
That's what it says. The problem is that we generally want to argue amendments according to our particular beliefs.
The second amendment means exactly what it says because as conservatives, we believe in our right to keep and bear arms, yet, we want to "interpret" the 14th.
The Libs do the exact opposite.
By the way, my ideals, and my beliefs were formed long before Elian Gonzalez reached our shores, and they are based on my understanding of the words of the Founders, not on some noble need to be a savior to little immigrant children.
Now, you may chose to parse words on the 14th, Lord knows that there is a whole lot of that parsing coming from the left on the second, but it says what it says.
Do you see the contradiction between the ending of the statement and the beginning? If we cannot judge the intention (something the court decision in Wong Kim Ark explcitly DID), then how can we accept the interpretation, which rests on the intention?
That IS the crux of the multitudes of critiques of the current misapplication of the 14th. Note that the Wong Kim Ark case was in reference to the nationality of a child born to legitimate permanent residents, as they would be called today. That it has been extended to the children of those here illegally would be harder to defend.
It is relevant for the courts to attempt to ascertain the intent of Congress. They've been doing it since Marshall. Where they go wrong is when they fabricate intent to effect outcome (Roe, Plyler).
But all that aside, H.R. 190 is a legitimate attempt to clarify the situation. If you say that you don't want the government making the citizenship decision, I would say that they already do, e.g. with regard to the children of diplomats, and that they have for centuries, with requirements for the validity of birth certificates and the assertions made on them.
It's not difficult to do - the birth certificate simply lists the nationality of the parents, and their status if non-citizen. And it is a legitimate interest for the people of the United States - we have a right to decide who will live among us and vote in our elections. It's why we have immigration laws. If those laws can be circumvented by not getting caught while crossing the border "uninspected", then we have a contradictory situation which must and can be remedied by Congressional action. If not, the immigration laws are meaningless.
Somehow I knew the famous Preamble controversy over the 2nd would creep in. You said in the first part that we must accept the way that one segment of the 14th has been interpreted, and I assert that it has been incorrectly interpreted for altruistic reasons, and that that needs to be rectified. To then say that we are bad people for wanting to interpret the 14th is contradictory! And, failing that, we can refine it with 190. Sorry, I just don't agree that we then slide down the slippery slope. It's not going to be U.S. v. Miller, for instance, where one decision (or in this case, a law) leads to the wholesale denial of rights to those who are entitled to it.
And I wasn't referring to Elian: I was referring to, say, children born to Cuban illegals. You say that that is not the case, that you are basing it on the Founders; I would remind you that the 14th was written by a Republican Senator whose words on the subject we know, and have a record of the debate. It is completely within the purview of the Congress to examine the situation with reference to past debate, and propose remedies, consistent with their power as regards the Constitution. H.R. 190 does that. But it has not been brought to a vote.
And that would be the subject of another long debate.
It SAYS and, not or. ILLEGAL aliens are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the US - only of their OWN countries.