Quote (Santara @ Oct 2 2019 06:08pm)
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
--> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and a citizen or member of the state thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
As opposed to people who are born in the United States who are citizens of another state/jurisdiction by virtue of their parents' citizenship.
Like if you were to travel to Australia with your wife and she gave birth there, your child would still be considered Canadian.
This sentence says the same thing twice. If you are a citizen you are a citizen. Tautologies are tautologies.
Why would it say if you are already a citizen, you are a citizen? What's the point of that? That is how you know it is wrong.
You're doing so much interpretation you are ignoring the words.
More on the subject:
Quote
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-1538Plyler v. Doe
Facts of the case
A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child.
Question
Did the law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
Yes. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.
Quote
The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.
Looking for precedents, legal or historical, supporting Santara's argument. Seen on on Heritage Foundation but it isn't very objective.
This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 2 2019 05:06pm