Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am reading a man saying that those foreigners or aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject our laws and not entitled to citizenship. Had he meant to say what you claim, he would have said that it would not include "foreigners, aliens AND those who belong to ..." And, if you read the rest of the comments from the debate, you will understand that they clearly only intended to exempt for birthright citizenship those not subject to our jurisdiction because they were diplomats. Wong Kim Ark (you ought to try reading this case, by the way) contains a lengthy analysis of the history of the law governing citizenship that clearly and unequivocally provide that citizenship follows place of birth.I guess all those Supreme Court justices are just too stupid to know any better, eh?This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Of course they have. Here's one for ya:...
Supreme court justices have NEVER ruled on a case regarding illegal alien anchor babies.
You're misreading, dunce.AGAIN... in case you're slow... the man who WROTE the 14th says it doesn't apply to foreigners or aliens. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 doesn't give SCOTUS authority to decide naturalization issues anyway.
No, it means subject to the authority of the U.S.I am reading a man saying that those foreigners or aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject our laws and not entitled to citizenship. Had he meant to say what you claim, he would have said that it would not include "foreigners, aliens AND those who belong to ..." And, if you read the rest of the comments from the debate, you will understand that they clearly only intended to exempt for birthright citizenship those not subject to our jurisdiction because they were diplomats. Wong Kim Ark (you ought to try reading this case, by the way) contains a lengthy analysis of the history of the law governing citizenship that clearly and unequivocally provide that citizenship follows place of birth.I guess all those Supreme Court justices are just too stupid to know any better, eh?This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Well then the problem is, you don't comprehend English grammar. Figures.
Also.. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance owed and not geography. It cannot mean geography because that would mean that if you are born on an airplane in international air space outside the US to two American citizens, you are not an American citizen... which we know is not true.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!
No, it means subject to the authority of the U.S.I am reading a man saying that those foreigners or aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject our laws and not entitled to citizenship. Had he meant to say what you claim, he would have said that it would not include "foreigners, aliens AND those who belong to ..." And, if you read the rest of the comments from the debate, you will understand that they clearly only intended to exempt for birthright citizenship those not subject to our jurisdiction because they were diplomats. Wong Kim Ark (you ought to try reading this case, by the way) contains a lengthy analysis of the history of the law governing citizenship that clearly and unequivocally provide that citizenship follows place of birth.I guess all those Supreme Court justices are just too stupid to know any better, eh?This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Well then the problem is, you don't comprehend English grammar. Figures.
Also.. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance owed and not geography. It cannot mean geography because that would mean that if you are born on an airplane in international air space outside the US to two American citizens, you are not an American citizen... which we know is not true.
Jesus Christ.
Some people really are this stooopid.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!
No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...
So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.
Of course they have. Here's one for ya:...
Supreme court justices have NEVER ruled on a case regarding illegal alien anchor babies.
"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The dissenting opinion also rejected this claim, agreeing with the Court that "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state."
You're misreading, dunce.AGAIN... in case you're slow... the man who WROTE the 14th says it doesn't apply to foreigners or aliens. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 doesn't give SCOTUS authority to decide naturalization issues anyway.
If it was that simple, the SCOTUS' going back over 100 years would have read it that way too.
Black’s Law Dictionary : Jurisdiction” “[a] government’s general power to exercise authority.”No, it means subject to the authority of the U.S.I am reading a man saying that those foreigners or aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject our laws and not entitled to citizenship. Had he meant to say what you claim, he would have said that it would not include "foreigners, aliens AND those who belong to ..." And, if you read the rest of the comments from the debate, you will understand that they clearly only intended to exempt for birthright citizenship those not subject to our jurisdiction because they were diplomats. Wong Kim Ark (you ought to try reading this case, by the way) contains a lengthy analysis of the history of the law governing citizenship that clearly and unequivocally provide that citizenship follows place of birth.I guess all those Supreme Court justices are just too stupid to know any better, eh?Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Well then the problem is, you don't comprehend English grammar. Figures.
Also.. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance owed and not geography. It cannot mean geography because that would mean that if you are born on an airplane in international air space outside the US to two American citizens, you are not an American citizen... which we know is not true.
Jesus Christ.
Some people really are this stooopid.
No, it does NOT mean that. You're not "subject to the authority" if you're born in Guatemala to two American citizen parents. Does that mean you're NOT a citizen? Does it mean American citizens are ONLY citizens when they are within the borders of the US?
Yes... SOME people really ARE this stooopid!
" the man who WROTE the 14th says it doesn't apply to foreigners or aliens" No, he did not. First of all, he did not write anything. What you have seen from Ann Coulter's article is the record of debate in the Senate. And the word "or" does not appear. The words "foreigner, alien" is related to the words that follow..." who belong to the families of ambassadors..." The "who" this passage refers to are "foreigners, aliens." You need some grammar lessons.I guess all those Supreme Court justices are just too stupid to know any better, eh?This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Supreme court justices have NEVER ruled on a case regarding illegal alien anchor babies.
AGAIN... in case you're slow... the man who WROTE the 14th says it doesn't apply to foreigners or aliens. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 doesn't give SCOTUS authority to decide naturalization issues anyway.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!
No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...
So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.
That is the EXCEPTION the author declared! Because if they were born in the US to someone in diplomatic service to another Nation, who would be granted immunity, Amendment XIV did not apply to them! Are you really that fucking obtuse or is it something you play at?
It was about that. To get to that issue the Court, all nine members, accepted as a given that any person born in the US, regardless of the status fo their parents, was a citizen. They did this quoting to Wong Kim, which held precisely that.Of course they have. Here's one for ya:...
Supreme court justices have NEVER ruled on a case regarding illegal alien anchor babies.
"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The dissenting opinion also rejected this claim, agreeing with the Court that "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state."
You're misreading, dunce.AGAIN... in case you're slow... the man who WROTE the 14th says it doesn't apply to foreigners or aliens. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 doesn't give SCOTUS authority to decide naturalization issues anyway.
If it was that simple, the SCOTUS' going back over 100 years would have read it that way too.
Plyler v. Doe is about due process rights and "jurisdiction" in that context. Again.. "subject to the jurisdiction" doesn't mean "within the jurisdiction." I can be within a jurisdiction but not subject to it.
Clearly, grammar is not your strong suit. Why are the words "who are" present if not to refer to "foreigners, aliens"?This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!
No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...
So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.
That is the EXCEPTION the author declared! Because if they were born in the US to someone in diplomatic service to another Nation, who would be granted immunity, Amendment XIV did not apply to them! Are you really that fucking obtuse or is it something you play at?
Again... for the stoopid... No need to include "who are foreigners, aliens," in the sentence. The commas in the sentence represent the conjunction "or" in language, it is a list of things which includes foreigners (or) aliens (or) diplomats. Illegal aliens are aliens and foreigners, they are excluded.. they are exceptions.
I am reading a man saying that those foreigners or aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject our laws and not entitled to citizenship. Had he meant to say what you claim, he would have said that it would not include "foreigners, aliens AND those who belong to ..." And, if you read the rest of the comments from the debate, you will understand that they clearly only intended to exempt for birthright citizenship those not subject to our jurisdiction because they were diplomats. Wong Kim Ark (you ought to try reading this case, by the way) contains a lengthy analysis of the history of the law governing citizenship that clearly and unequivocally provide that citizenship follows place of birth.I guess all those Supreme Court justices are just too stupid to know any better, eh?This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Well then the problem is, you don't comprehend English grammar. Figures.
Also.. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance owed and not geography. It cannot mean geography because that would mean that if you are born on an airplane in international air space outside the US to two American citizens, you are not an American citizen... which we know is not true.
Black’s Law Dictionary : Jurisdiction” “[a] government’s general power to exercise authority.”No, it means subject to the authority of the U.S.I am reading a man saying that those foreigners or aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject our laws and not entitled to citizenship. Had he meant to say what you claim, he would have said that it would not include "foreigners, aliens AND those who belong to ..." And, if you read the rest of the comments from the debate, you will understand that they clearly only intended to exempt for birthright citizenship those not subject to our jurisdiction because they were diplomats. Wong Kim Ark (you ought to try reading this case, by the way) contains a lengthy analysis of the history of the law governing citizenship that clearly and unequivocally provide that citizenship follows place of birth.I guess all those Supreme Court justices are just too stupid to know any better, eh?
Well then the problem is, you don't comprehend English grammar. Figures.
Also.. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance owed and not geography. It cannot mean geography because that would mean that if you are born on an airplane in international air space outside the US to two American citizens, you are not an American citizen... which we know is not true.
Jesus Christ.
Some people really are this stooopid.
No, it does NOT mean that. You're not "subject to the authority" if you're born in Guatemala to two American citizen parents. Does that mean you're NOT a citizen? Does it mean American citizens are ONLY citizens when they are within the borders of the US?
Yes... SOME people really ARE this stooopid!
Then you're not truly an American.ANY citizen from ANY country that comes here and does NOT renounce their citizenship from their country of origin may NOT become a U.S. citizen.
I came here and did not renounce my Canadian citizenship and became an American.
Fail. Again.
Citizenship to person born outside the United States to American citizens is not addressed in the Constitution; it is addressed by statute. Citizenship of persons born in the United States is addressed, rather clearly, by the 14th Amendment.I am reading a man saying that those foreigners or aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject our laws and not entitled to citizenship. Had he meant to say what you claim, he would have said that it would not include "foreigners, aliens AND those who belong to ..." And, if you read the rest of the comments from the debate, you will understand that they clearly only intended to exempt for birthright citizenship those not subject to our jurisdiction because they were diplomats. Wong Kim Ark (you ought to try reading this case, by the way) contains a lengthy analysis of the history of the law governing citizenship that clearly and unequivocally provide that citizenship follows place of birth.I guess all those Supreme Court justices are just too stupid to know any better, eh?This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Well then the problem is, you don't comprehend English grammar. Figures.
Also.. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance owed and not geography. It cannot mean geography because that would mean that if you are born on an airplane in international air space outside the US to two American citizens, you are not an American citizen... which we know is not true.
I am reading a man saying that those foreigners or aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject our laws and not entitled to citizenship. Had he meant to say what you claim, he would have said that it would not include "foreigners, aliens AND those who belong to ..." And, if you read the rest of the comments from the debate, you will understand that they clearly only intended to exempt for birthright citizenship those not subject to our jurisdiction because they were diplomats. Wong Kim Ark (you ought to try reading this case, by the way) contains a lengthy analysis of the history of the law governing citizenship that clearly and unequivocally provide that citizenship follows place of birth.I guess all those Supreme Court justices are just too stupid to know any better, eh?This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Well then the problem is, you don't comprehend English grammar. Figures.
Also.. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance owed and not geography. It cannot mean geography because that would mean that if you are born on an airplane in international air space outside the US to two American citizens, you are not an American citizen... which we know is not true.
You posted this, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance owed and not geography." And yet, the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark held just the opposite: "It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Let me explain. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof means the same thing as within the jurisdiction. Get it? If you are born within the jurisdiction of the United States, you are born subject to that jurisdiction.
Black’s Law Dictionary : Jurisdiction” “[a] government’s general power to exercise authority.”No, it means subject to the authority of the U.S.I am reading a man saying that those foreigners or aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject our laws and not entitled to citizenship. Had he meant to say what you claim, he would have said that it would not include "foreigners, aliens AND those who belong to ..." And, if you read the rest of the comments from the debate, you will understand that they clearly only intended to exempt for birthright citizenship those not subject to our jurisdiction because they were diplomats. Wong Kim Ark (you ought to try reading this case, by the way) contains a lengthy analysis of the history of the law governing citizenship that clearly and unequivocally provide that citizenship follows place of birth.
Well then the problem is, you don't comprehend English grammar. Figures.
Also.. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to allegiance owed and not geography. It cannot mean geography because that would mean that if you are born on an airplane in international air space outside the US to two American citizens, you are not an American citizen... which we know is not true.
Jesus Christ.
Some people really are this stooopid.
No, it does NOT mean that. You're not "subject to the authority" if you're born in Guatemala to two American citizen parents. Does that mean you're NOT a citizen? Does it mean American citizens are ONLY citizens when they are within the borders of the US?
Yes... SOME people really ARE this stooopid!
Again, there are different contextual definitions. I'll ask you again... If I am born on an airplane flying in international air space to two American citizens, am I NOT an American citizen? Does the 14th NOT apply to me? What if my American parents are visiting Japan, which is clearly NOT within the US government's general power to exercise authority... am I NOT a citizen?
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not a geographical reference. It is talking about political allegiance and every person who debated the language of the 14th acknowledged this.
