coolbeans said:
What you're doing here is tantamount to Gish Galloping. The Howard quote I brought up is pretty clear in delineating this: -they're different in respect to situation and standing -they're similar in that they don't fall under the "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." clause of the 14th (as Congress originally framed) Obviously, the next logical question would bring up the implications with crime. But the emphasis on "jurisdiction" isn't limiting itself to geographical location, but rather total jurisdiction in respect to location, total allegiance (as some Congressmen framed it), and being wholly subject to the nation's laws. Initially, many Native American tribes (some referenced during the ratifying of this amendment) didn't fall under the 14th either, though this changed in the early 1900's via Congress + Presidential signing. Actually, the procedure in which Natives Americans went from outside the citizenship clause to inside via simple legislative majority + executive authorization destroys OP's assessment that a new amendment is needed. Anyways...you see how this comes back around, right? Illegals wouldn't fall under the "[total] jurisdiction" of US based on conflicted political allegiances (as how those framers assessed it). And if they sincerely wanted to legally pledge US allegiance and go the whole nine yards, well...we have a naturalization process and there's millions of said people in line who didn't decide to violate federal laws of their new-host country. |
The problem with everything you just said is that no where in the constitution did it stipulate 'Total jurisdiction". Also we are still talking about the CHILD born on US soil not the parents. You are confusing the 2 situations and totally ignoring the differences. Even the Indian act gives a Native Indian US citizenship if born on US soil, not a reservation. Even if Trump wanted to take away birthright Citizenship he would still need to go through congress whether you believe congress can just make a bill and have it signed by the president it still doesn't give him rights to do this based on an executive order.
Also there is a big whole in your claim using Native Americans. Congress did make all native Americans US citizens but that did not touch on the 14th amendment at all. They did not change the wording or interpreted the constitution but instead gave them citizenship because of the 14th amendment they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If anything you just actually killed your argument instead of supported it.
