Quote (Skinned @ Jun 16 2016 06:18pm)

They are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If they commit crimes they will be prosecuted. Legal decisions can be made about them by the state.

They are under the authority of the United States when born here.

The Constitution also has a clause against the Corruption of Blood, meaning children can't be punished for crimes of their parents. You're going back to savagery in positive law with punishing children by stripping them citizenship because of an immigration crime committed by somebody else.

Sorry if you think it is inconvenient.

Quote

sub·ject
NOUN

a person or thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with:
"I've said all there is to be said on the subject" · [more]
synonyms: theme · subject matter · topic · issue · question · [more]
a branch of knowledge studied or taught in a school, college, or university.
synonyms: branch of study · discipline · field
a citizen or member of a state other than its supreme ruler.
synonyms: citizen · national · taxpayer · voter · liege · liegeman · [more]
philosophy
a thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind; the ego, especially as opposed to anything external to the mind.

ADJECTIVE

(subject to)
likely or prone to be affected by (a particular condition or occurrence, typically an unwelcome or unpleasant one):
"he was subject to bouts of manic depression"
synonyms: susceptible to · liable to · prone to · vulnerable to · [more]
dependent or conditional upon:
"the proposed merger is subject to the approval of the shareholders"
synonyms: conditional on · contingent on · dependent on
under the authority of:
"legislation making Congress subject to the laws it passes"
synonyms: bound by · constrained by · accountable to

ADVERB

(subject to)
conditionally upon:
"subject to bankruptcy court approval, the company expects to begin liquidation of its inventory"

VERB

(subject someone/something to)
cause or force to undergo (a particular experience of form of treatment):
"he'd subjected her to a terrifying ordeal"
synonyms: put through · treat with · expose to
bring (a person or country) under one's control or jurisdiction, typically by using force.

Quote

Formally titled "An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication", the Act declared that people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude.[7] A similar provision (called the Citizenship Clause) was written a few months later into the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Quote (Santara @ Jun 16 2016 08:00pm)

They are not. You are conflating being subject to the criminal code (which even non-citizen "Indians not taxed" are subject to) with BEING SUBJECTS of a foreign jurisdiction. Everyone not granted a specific exemption (like a diplomat) is subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, born here or not. If the writers of the amendment had intended to allow birthright citizenship, there would have been absolutely zero reason to include the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But they did include it, and for very good reason. They did NOT want the states denying citizenship to the newly freed slaves in a Constitutional challenge of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which is how Congress initially granted citizenship to the freed slaves, because the Supreme Court already had precedent stating otherwise. This allowed them to grant citizenship to the blacks while still denying it to Native Americans who owed their allegiance to their own tribes which were sovereign powers.



Now what did the Civil Rights Act of 1866 have to say about birthright citizenship?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866



They weren't using the word subject as a verb like you're trying to get away with, they're using it as a noun to describe a person whose allegiance is owed to a foreign power.

Quote

Formally titled "An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication",the Act declared that people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude.[7] A similar provision (called the Citizenship Clause) was written a few months later into the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Quote (Skinned @ Jun 16 2016 08:03pm)

Children born here aren't subject to any foreign power, or subjects of. They aren't Mexican citizens. Just the United States. The bold is very clear, again.

Quote (Santara @ Jun 16 2016 08:09pm)

But they are! If they weren't, there would be zero reason for the language. Again, if they had intended to confer birthright citizenship, there's no reason to write the clause. And American citizens who give birth abroad are afforded American citizenship under the same sense - that the offspring owes an allegiance to the United States. Mexicans sneaking across the border who refuse to undergo the naturalization process clearly owe no allegiance to the United States, and neither do their offspring.

Quote (Skinned @ Jun 16 2016 08:18pm)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

We have the language, and the precedents. This is settled law. If you want to change the Fourteenth Amendment, well, good luck.

Congress can however actively define what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means and define it that way indeed...but we both know that this Congress can't accomplish anything.

This isn't the first time that certain people tried to kick out certain other people based on cultural differences.

Quote (Santara @ Jun 16 2016 08:26pm)

Bad case law based on misrepresenting what words actually mean.

Quote (Skinned @ Jun 16 2016 08:27pm)

It must be hard to be part of a small circle of elite people who know the true definitions of our words, while ignorant plebes rule the courts.

We settled this a long time ago. It gets dragged out every time some new people move in.

Quote (Santara @ Jun 16 2016 05:09pm)

But they are! If they weren't, there would be zero reason for the language. Again, if they had intended to confer birthright citizenship, there's no reason to write the clause. And American citizens who give birth abroad are afforded American citizenship under the same sense - that the offspring owes an allegiance to the United States. Mexicans sneaking across the border who refuse to undergo the naturalization process clearly owe no allegiance to the United States, and neither do their offspring.

Quote (thundercock @ Jun 16 2016 09:36pm)

This doesn't make much sense. Suppose that Mexico explicitly had a law that says in order to be a citizen, you have to be born on Mexican soil (regardless of the citizenship of the parents). Are they subject to NO jurisdiction then under your interpretation?

Quote (Santara @ Jun 16 2016 06:56pm)

Why engage in useless what-if supposition? I'm not aware of any country in the world that denies citizenship to the offspring of their citizens simply because they were abroad when the child came due. Besides, most of the world practices jus sanguinis just like my interpretation.