"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Oldglory1]

So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.

Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Aliens and foreigners were mentioned. That's all you need to know. It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.

A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.

An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.

Wrong, diplomats nor their families are exempt from our laws. You are mixing apples and oranges here. You are using only one example of subject to our jurisdiction by just mentioning our laws. Illegal aliens are subject to our laws also but not subject to our full jurisdiction in regards to birthright citizenship for their kids.

 

[Oldglory1]

Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?

After all, didn't they also have legal training?

Mark

You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.

The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'

Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.

Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.

Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.

Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

Mark

Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.

And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.

If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.

We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.

Mark

Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.

The plain language is "AND" subject to our jurisdiction. That is the qualifier. If the children of illegal aliens were automatically subject to our jurisdiction when born there would have been no need for that qualifying word.

 

[BULLDOG]

Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.

As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.

Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.

You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?

Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.

The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....

and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?

I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything

If you bothered to actually read what comes up on your computer, you would see that, in the very next post, I gave you a myriad of references. But, you continue to make my point ... your goal is to feed your ego, rather than learn something. i think you need to look at your motivation ... are you here to learn, and to discuss, or are you here to try to give some meaning to your life, feed your ego, or bully people?

Forgive me for not knowing what you might be going to post at some later point. Is this a skill you are capable of?

 

[80zephyr]

Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?

After all, didn't they also have legal training?

Mark

You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.

The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'

Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.

Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.

Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.

Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

Mark

Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.

And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.

If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.

We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.

Mark

Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.

Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.

Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.

Mark

 

[BULLDOG]

Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.

As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.

Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.

You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?

Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.

The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....

and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?

I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything

Anyone who claims that the tea party members collectively are crazy (and they aren't baggers) is not someone I would place any credibility on.

Oh My.....Another teabagger doesn't think I'm credible. What ever will I do?

 

[Oldglory1]

As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.

Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.

You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?

Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.

The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....

and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?

I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything

Anyone who claims that the tea party members collectively are crazy (and they aren't baggers) is not someone I would place any credibility on.

Oh My.....Another teabagger doesn't think I'm credible. What ever will I do?

No such thing as a teabagger unless you are talking about a deragatory term applied to gays.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.

The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....

and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?

I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything

Anyone who claims that the tea party members collectively are crazy (and they aren't baggers) is not someone I would place any credibility on.

Oh My.....Another teabagger doesn't think I'm credible. What ever will I do?

No such thing as a teabagger unless you are talking about a deragatory term applied to gays.

In that case, you should tell the tea party members who produced and distributed this video that they don't exist. I'm sure it will come as a surprise to them.

 

[Syriusly]

You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.

The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'

Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.

Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.

Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.

Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

Mark

Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.

And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.

If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.

We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.

Mark

Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.

Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.

Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.

Mark

Yet here you are- whining about the 14th Amendment- and how you don't agree with how it is being interpreted.

But you don't care enough to try to affect any change.

 

[Syriusly]

You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.

The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'

Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.

Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.

Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.

Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

Mark

Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.

And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.

If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.

We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.

Mark

Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.

The plain language is "AND" subject to our jurisdiction. That is the qualifier. If the children of illegal aliens were automatically subject to our jurisdiction when born there would have been no need for that qualifying word.

LOL....yet they don't mention children of illegal aliens at all in the 14th Amendment.

"And subject to the jurisdiction" is there to differentiate between those subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- i.e. everyone here except:
a) foreign diplomats
b) invading armies
c) native americans living within their tribal lands

Still waiting for anyone to show how either illegal aliens or the children born to them are not within the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Aliens and foreigners were mentioned. That's all you need to know. It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.

A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.

An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.

Wrong, diplomats nor their families are exempt from our laws. You are mixing apples and oranges here. You are using only one example of subject to our jurisdiction by just mentioning our laws. Illegal aliens are subject to our laws also but not subject to our full jurisdiction in regards to birthright citizenship for their kids.

'exempt'= not within jurisdiction. They are exempt because they are not within the jurisdiction.

Show me an example of how illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I have shown you how diplomats are not.

 

[80zephyr]

Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.

Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

Mark

Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.

And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.

If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.

We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.

Mark

Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.

Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.

Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.

Mark

Yet here you are- whining about the 14th Amendment- and how you don't agree with how it is being interpreted.

But you don't care enough to try to affect any change.

Like I and others here have pointed out, there is nothing to change.

Mark

 

[Flopper]

So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.

Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Aliens and foreigners were mentioned. That's all you need to know. It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.

A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.

An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.

Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates. We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.

In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
"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." I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

 

[Oldglory1]

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Aliens and foreigners were mentioned. That's all you need to know. It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.

A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.

An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.

Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates. We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.

In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
"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." I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws. Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that. Yes, read what you quoted again. It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws. Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.

 

[Jackinthebox]

. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.

That's the core element as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Syriusly]

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Aliens and foreigners were mentioned. That's all you need to know. It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.

A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.

An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.

Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates. We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.

In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
"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." I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws. Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that. Yes, read what you quoted again. It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws. Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.

And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.

If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.

We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.

Mark

Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.

Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.

Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.

Mark

Yet here you are- whining about the 14th Amendment- and how you don't agree with how it is being interpreted.

But you don't care enough to try to affect any change.

Like I and others here have pointed out, there is nothing to change.

Mark

Then stop whining. Because the clear language of the 14th Amendment is being enforced, and that isn't going to change without a Constitutional amendment.

 

[80zephyr]

We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.

Mark

Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.

Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.

Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.

Mark

Yet here you are- whining about the 14th Amendment- and how you don't agree with how it is being interpreted.

But you don't care enough to try to affect any change.

Like I and others here have pointed out, there is nothing to change.

Mark

Then stop whining. Because the clear language of the 14th Amendment is being enforced, and that isn't going to change without a Constitutional amendment.

Your opinion only. I disagree.

Mark

 

[Syriusly]

Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.

Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.

Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.

Mark

Yet here you are- whining about the 14th Amendment- and how you don't agree with how it is being interpreted.

But you don't care enough to try to affect any change.

Like I and others here have pointed out, there is nothing to change.

Mark

Then stop whining. Because the clear language of the 14th Amendment is being enforced, and that isn't going to change without a Constitutional amendment.

Your opinion only. I disagree.

Mark

My opinion and your opinion- we disagree- and nothing wrong with that.

 

[80zephyr]

Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.

Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.

Mark

Yet here you are- whining about the 14th Amendment- and how you don't agree with how it is being interpreted.

But you don't care enough to try to affect any change.

Like I and others here have pointed out, there is nothing to change.

Mark

Then stop whining. Because the clear language of the 14th Amendment is being enforced, and that isn't going to change without a Constitutional amendment.

Your opinion only. I disagree.

Mark

My opinion and your opinion- we disagree- and nothing wrong with that.

Nope. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Mark

 

[Flopper]

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Aliens and foreigners were mentioned. That's all you need to know. It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.

A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.

An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.

Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates. We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.

In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
"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." I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws. Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that. Yes, read what you quoted again. It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws. Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.

"Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Just to make it simple for you:
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity), are citizens of the United States. It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens. The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.

The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.