The 14th Admendment and "subject to the jurisdiction of" is not as decided/settled as some lead on. The 14th Amendment has come in front of the SC 10 times, but never for a matter related to birthright citizenship of people who are in the country illegally or anything remotely similar to that.
Tell me more about those kids that did not die in Alabama and Oklahoma.
Glad to see you are still reading the right wing blogs too....as well as believing the bullshit you are being fed.
Plyler v Doe, while dealing with education but also Fourteenth Amendment issues, held that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful."
Please see US v Wong Kim Ark for the concept of jus soli and English common law. It's not only the definitive case for this absurdity being put forth by your Orange Leader, but it is a virtual primer on English common law, citizenship, and the concert of jus soli (recall that the Founders were very learned in English Common law, as I would bet the authors of the Fourteenth also were, instead of the sorts of morons we have today in Congress), and a lesson in the intentions and reading of citizenship law up to the time of the case (including the absolute truth that the Fourteenth simply granted to negroes what had been assumed for whites*). Anyway, here is the passage you should chew on for a bit:
To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.
VI. Whatever considerations, in the absence of a controlling provision of the Constitution, might influence the legislative or the executive branch of the Government to decline to admit persons of the Chinese race to the status of citizens of the United States, there are none that can constrain or permit the judiciary to refuse to give full effect to the peremptory and explicit language of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares and ordains that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Also it is interesting to note that case calls his parents "subjects of the Emperor of China".
* From Wong:
As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford In plain English, the phrase you and BC are salivating over while readin' yer blogs was never meant to be exclusionary to anything other than the settled practice of the times: diplomats didn't count, and foreign soldiers while at war against the US did not count.
