Yes, it can. But not in this context. The government has jurisdiction over people living here or even visitors. It does not have jurisdiction over foreign diplomats. It didn't have jurisdiction over Native Tribes until they finally abolished all the Indian Nations and made them all citizens to steal what little land they had left.
If you want to declare immigrants (and not just illegal immigrants) as not being under the jurisdiction of the US, then you have to treat them like foreign diplomats.
Yet you've made throwing brown people out of the country the top priority in your life.
Except this isn't what Trump is arguing. He's arguing that ONLY American citizens can give birth to other American citizens. Shit, it's the Birther Bullshit all over again.
Overturning Roe was a complete clusterfuck, as we are seeing, but that's not the topic here.
The question is, would overturning Wong be a good idea? Most certainly not.
This article discusses proposals to end Birthright Citizenship in Canada, but most of her arguments could apply for the US as well.
Revoking birthright citizenship would affect everyone
The elimination of birthright citizenship doesn’t preserve or protect the integrity of citizenship. It is a dividing tool that fuels discrimination.policyoptions.irpp.org
The elimination of birthright citizenship would affect not just migrants, but all of us. A citizenship application will need to be made for every person born in Canada. More tax dollars would be needed to process the applications. Clerks would suddenly have the power to make substantive and legal determinations about the status of every person that applies for citizenship. Like any administrative system, mistakes would be made. Bad or wrong decisions would be challenged in the courts at great expense to both the state and the people affected. People would struggle with the fact that they are stateless in the interim.
Undoubtedly, doing away with birthright citizenship would increase the number of stateless persons in Canada. Being stateless has serious implications. Stateless persons have difficulty accessing education, employment, health care, social services and freedom of movement. Simple things like obtaining a bank account, cell phone account or registering birth, marriage or death are complicated if not impossible. Stateless persons would be subject to arrest, detention and potential removal to places they may never have been before.
The elimination of birthright citizenship would have the greatest impact on the most vulnerable: the indigent, those with mental illness, and children who are in precarious family situations or are wards of the state. These are the people that may not have the appropriate paperwork or proof that they do qualify for citizenship or do not have support for obtaining citizenship. For example, parents (who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents) of persons seeking citizenship may have lost paperwork, may not want to cooperate, may not be in the country, or may find out they are not the biological parent of that child.
OK, so we agree it can have different meanings. And now we're talking about context, and in this case, the writers give the context used in this example, for this amendment.
Sentor trumbull, in this example, said that "jurisdiction" meant not owing allilegience to anyone else. When they had this amendment in mind, they were not thinking of being subject to just a country's laws, they were talking about 'complete jurisdiction' which included not owing allegiance to anyone else or another country not being able to claim jurisdiction over you.
In these cases, non citizens were not under complete jurisdiction as they had allegiance to their home country and their home country could claim jurisdiction over them.
No, illegal immigrants would be treated like aliens (non citizens), who still owe allegiance and are subject to another country.
Once again, incorrect. You, like all leftist, love to weild the "racism" card like a weapon. And you are flat out wrong. Let us not forget it was you leftys who turned back the Cubans looking for asylum in america. Biden said "there is no room for you here".
If you're brown, pink, yellow, purple, or orange polka dotted, I don't care, are you legal? That's the question.
That's what is about to be debated. Was birthright citizenship intended to be for the children of non citizens, or people residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction (allegiece) of the US?
But it is an example of reversing a bad decision that, when decided, was grossly misinterpreted and led to 50 years of status quo thinking that it was somehow a "constitutional right"
The article about Canada insinuates a problem that doesn't exist. If the child is born to parents, one of whom is a citizen, then the child is a citizen. If you are 8 months and 3 weeks pregnant and you manage to get across the border so you can give birth here, the child is not a citizen because the parents are subject to the jurisdiction of another country.
