Can you provide a link to this Mexico vs Texas case? Are you trying to refer to Leal Garcia v. Texas? If that’s the case, you might want to read the decision again before making statement like “they can’t be prosecuted or convicted without the legal opportunity to be represented by their Country they are citizens of”.
”Words, like syllables, acquire meaning not in isolation but within their context. While looking up the separate word “foreign” in a dictionary might produce the reading the majority suggests, that approach would also interpret the phrase “I have a foreign object in my eye” as referring, perhaps, to something from Italy”
Even supposing your understanding of jurisdiction here were accurate (it’s not), it would apply to any foreign national in the US, not just the ones here illegally, including even permanent residents. Is your argument that only the children of citizens are citizens by birth?
Going out on a limb here. If Robert Bowers was a German national, not here under diplomatic cover, he would be charged with the EXACT same Federal crimes. Does that not indicate that he would be “completely subject to our jusrisdiction”, just as he is now?
I have read and listened to arguments from both sides on this and as far as I’m concerned both make valid points. Whatever was the absolute intent at that time did not in any way envision what is happening today. Back then there was no welfare state. So whatever the intention, the people this applied to were going to be economic liability to the American taxpayers.
What we can be absolutely certain of, is whatever the genuine intent of the law, it was not to encourage poor from neighboring countries to come here for the sole purpose to get their kids on welfare to the detriment of the American taxpayers.
It is historically documented that the term under the jurisdiction thereof referred to the complete jurisdiction, political and legal. That is, subject to our laws no matter where you are, whether in this country or not. In addition, if it was meant to only not apply to foreign diplomats and Indians, there would be no reason to even include the phrase as those two had already been mentioned.
Senator Trumbull
The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
And again
“ It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens… ”
From the Attorney General of the US circa 1873, George Henry Williams, who was a senator at the time the fourteenth was passed
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)
You might be absolutely correct that it was never intended to “encourage poor from neighboring countries to come here” for whatever purpose, however, that is irrelevant. The constitution provides the mechanisms to propose new amendments in cases where the people want to make that change.
For instance, there was a short period of time where alcohol was prohibited in this country (see the 18th and 21st amendments).
People can debate this issue until the sun goes black and it won’t change the fact that there was no immigration policy whatsoever when the amendment was written and anchor babies were not a thing that actually even existed or had been considered at all. It is an unforeseen development of modern times and the Constitution is not up to the task; It needs to be clarified with another amendment that is carefully written and can put the issue to rest.
I don’t think it’s right for a foreign woman in labor to be able to slip over the border and make her child a US citizen when she herself is not a citizen and has no allegiance whatsoever to the country. I think someday there will be just such an amendment and I hope it leans in my direction.
You defeated your own argument, if the constitution is silent on the issue, it may be addressed legislatively or by the executive branch. Only if the constitution grants the children of illegal aliens citizenship would an amendment be needed to change it.
It is being interpreted that way and from what I have seen is likely to remain that way for a very long time. I have never agreed with the current interpretation.
I completely agree with you. The failure in this situation falls clearly with our representatives. This situation should have been addressed decades ago as soon as it was realized that this provision was being taken advantage of.
