The 14th obviously needs rewording. I think we can all agree on that. If a cross section of knowledgeable and good people on Aldeer can disagree on the definition of words and what they mean, then it needs correction to remove doubt.
In 1981, an illegal who was here outside of any lawful entry who gave birth 1 inch inside the border did not have citizenship granted to that child at birth merely based on the geographic location of the birth.. Same in 1950, 1920, 1899...etc...That was the law of the land based on the Constitution. So what changed? The Brennan footnote in 1982 erased all of that.
It makes no logical or rational sense for our nation, founded the way it was and standing for what it is, to give away consent to illegals.
Also, I'd love for the current court to rule on it again. If Brennan can change the whole concept of citizenship with a footnote in 1982, then the current Scotus can change it back to what it meant for the 100+ years prior to that decision. There is plain meaning in that too.
If everyone here is under the full "subject to the jurisdiction", then why even have that language in there if it is so plain?
If everyone here, legal or illegal is under the full " subject to the jurisdiction", then why can't illegals vote or hold office legally? Why...because there is a correct process of consent that has to be followed for citizenship and the privileges and rights that come with it.
I'll have to just respectfully agree to disagree.
Great discussion guys.
Not all people here are subject to our jurisdiction. Diplomatic personnel for instance. Under the jurisdiction of, doesn't mean they have all the rights of a citizen.
