depends on if what other countries do matters to you.
Then pundits should stop saying 30 other countries have birthright citizenship, even though Trump misspoke it is irrelevant. But the left brings it up in healthcare all the time, also climate, and so on.
Bingo. And here we have it, 40 some odd post later, the real OP.
It was never about conscription. 
Talk about irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how many pundits cite that 30 other countries also have it. It’s still not the reason for why we do
Illegals arent subject to US law?
No. That’s YOUR premise. It’s ok if you’re unwilling to answer the question that you asked in your silly OP.
See? You answered your own question. Good job.
Conscription was an example to show the hazard of the rhetoric. But then my country examples were examples often used by socialists. Norway, Finland and so on.
POINT, it does not matter here what they do there.
very narrow focus you have today, it is an analogy for a broad range of topics.
An opinion that falls flat on its face, legally.
where is there evidence of a broken nose
Clearly not so today. Otherwise they would all be getting deported.
“Subject to the law” is not the same as the clause “subject to the jurisdiction.” Read up on the debate about that clause in 1866 when the Amendment was introduced, and the ensuing national debate while the states were ratifying it.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18)
Argued: March 5, 8, 1897
Decided: March 28, 1898
the parents were domiciled legally in San Francisco, does not address non resident or illegal aliens.
The 14th amendment has been litigated more than any other section of the Constitution, other than the Commerce Clause.
“Subject to the jurisdiction” is the same as “subject to the law”. I have read the debates and the congressional record. The intent that it would apply to anyone born in the United States, with the exception of Native Americans on tribal land and children of foreign ministers was clear.
At the time, neither Native Americans on tribal land nor foreign diplomats were subject to the laws of the United States - and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
More importantly, he ignored EVERYTHING that preceded what he highlighted in the first place. Had he paid any to that, he wouldnt have needed to make his statement, as it covers ANYONE born here or in the jurisdiction thereof.
The Amendment states “All person born or naturalized in the United States”, not “all person born to residents or naturalized in the United States”. All doesn’t mean some
Luckily or you though there is a way to amend the rule, it’s just not very likely.
We do not need an amendment we need a supreme court to change law out of whole cloth. The progressive way.
what was the definition of "under the jurisdiction of " in 1867
never been adjudicated
I am interested in conscription though, I just assumed people like you were against it.
when it comes to immigration it seems military policy should be on your mind.
