By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Final-Fan said:

Let's get down to brass tacks here.  What do you imagine is meant by the word "jurisdiction"? 

I imagine it to mean the area and people over which the United States has full legal authority and power, which I believe includes illegal immigrants.  That is, I believe Mexico doesn't have the legal right to interfere with what the USA does with a Mexican who illegally immigrated to the United States.  Diplomats are an example of a group in the United States but not fully subject to its authority; their diplomatic immunity means that they cannot be held accountable for crimes without their country's permission.  The only thing the USA can do is expel them from its territory. 

We can look at the contemporary laws at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment to see what they meant by jurisdiction. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 states that "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." If someone from Mexico illegally enters the United States, they are still subject to Mexico, and any children they give birth to are Mexican subjects as well. You are still considered to be under the jurisdiction of your home country while abroad, which is why you can be prosecuted for US crimes in another country. Taking all this into account, the courts could certainly use legal precedent to rescind birthright citizenship to illegal aliens, if not all aliens.

Of course, that assumes that courts need any sort of precedent or legal arguments at all. Like I said, if abortion rights can be pulled out of thin air, anything goes. Thanks, judicial activism!