You forget to post the statutory “law” you are referring to.
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
I replied to you earlier with the link but here it is again…
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1401%20edition:prelim)
And you’d think conservatives would want to follow our processes when it comes to amending the Constitution.
And those same conservatives would descry the over-use of executive orders the way they do when the President happens to be a Democrat.
from your link
§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
A child born to illegal immigrants is not solely subject to our jurisdiction. That will be the argument made by the executive.
Now post the relevant words applying to illegal entrant births.
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
“a person born in the United States”
Now show the words that excludes illegal entrants
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Constitutional conservatives want the text of the Constitution, and its documented “legislative intent”, which gives context to its text, enforced!
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
Post the words you quote in their context.
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
It has been.
So, what was the point of your comment? Eh?
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
If illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US then how can we justifiably deport them for breaking our laws?
So can we dismiss your argument that there is no statutory law?
Pretty sure we have been over what the authors of the 14th said in regard to the meaning of the term being the complete jurisdiction and not owing allegiance to any other country before.
The point of my comment is Trump cannot undo the 14th Amendment by EO, and if he attempts to do so, he’s seizing a power he doesn’t have…and any true conservative would be aghast, not clapping with glee.
And the courts disagree with your opinion
No, they haven’t.
Did you miss the meaning of “jurisdiction” as stated by Justice Gray? It refers to political jurisdiction.
in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:
Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country
’This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance
Try to pay attention to what already has been posted.
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
Did you miss the meaning of “jurisdiction” as stated by Justice Gray? It refers to political jurisdiction.
in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:
Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country
’This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance
Try to pay attention to what already has been posted.
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
The words “under the jurisdiction of” nowhere contains the meaning of “allegiance to another country”.
It never has…it never will.
When it was framed, it applied to two groups of people…foreign diplomats…who could be expelled but neither imprisoned, charged with a crime, or sued, and Indians, who also could not be imprisoned, charged with a crime, or sued.
The framers of the law made it clear that those two groups and those two groups alone were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
If an illegal rams your car, you can sue him.
If a foreign diplomat or his family member does, you can not.
That’s the simple test of jurisdiction.
If you want to change the birthright citizenship law, you have to do it in the manner intended by the Constitution.
Anything else is “being activist” and any true conservative would be aghast at Trump’s intentions.
BTW I found something very interesting when I was sourcing this post.
When the 14th Amendment was being framed, the population of foreign-born in the United States was 13%.
EXACTLY what it is today.
So much for “an invasion”.
