Why Donald Trump is Right About Changing Anchor Baby Law Without Constitutional Amendment

[JimBowie1958]

Further demolishing this argument regarding domicile and jurisdiction was Plyer v Doe 1982, which struck down a law by Texas to deny education funding to the children of illegal immigrants.

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In it, even the dissenting opinion stated that even those who entered the country illegally were within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Birthright citizenship is one of the foundations of American Exceptionalism. I guess some "conservatives" think America is less than exceptional.

What a moron. WALKING INTO THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE YOU A US CITIZEN YOU LIBTARDS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE TO EVER WALK THE PLANET. WE DON'T OWE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHIT YOU ASS HOLE

Calm down, angry old man. That's not the argument.

That law was written for slaves dumb ass.

Toro doesn't care as long as he thinks it is useful for his 'Sell out America First' rhetoric.

 

[JakeStarkey]

i've read what you post. what you quote and what you say it means do not agree - please try again.

You still haven't spotted paragraph 96 of US v Wong yet? I didn't think so, you fucking liar.

no, i've read it. it just doesn't mean what you claim.

US v Wong Kim Ark says EXACTLY what I claim and I post for the umpteenth time for your chance to read it.

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.

http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

But of course we all know that you are aware of it, you are just a bald faced liar and a fraud.

if you're going to say that a person must have a domicile you also must say that they must be subjects of the emperor of china, since that is as relevant in the statement of facts.
further, they are entitled to the protections of and owe allegiance to the united states so long as they are permitted by the united states to reside here, but the word "and" meaning additionally, they are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' just as all other resident aliens are.

your misinterpretation of the decision does not make me a liar.

and how do you square the idea that an illegal alien can be arrested and prosecuted in the united states for entering the country illegally with the idea that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states?

At risk of offending you an others with *spam* in responding to your repeated dull witted comments, I post the following:

"at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

The us of the word 'but' conjunction means that it is in contrast to, not part of the reasoning of why the court made their decision.

Take a few reading comprehension courses, dude.

You failed to bold " and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States", which is every bit as important. The family was here, was permanently domiciledhere, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If aliens are subject to US jurisdiction and residing in the US, their children born here are citizens.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You still haven't spotted paragraph 96 of US v Wong yet? I didn't think so, you fucking liar.

no, i've read it. it just doesn't mean what you claim.

US v Wong Kim Ark says EXACTLY what I claim and I post for the umpteenth time for your chance to read it.

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.

http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

But of course we all know that you are aware of it, you are just a bald faced liar and a fraud.

if you're going to say that a person must have a domicile you also must say that they must be subjects of the emperor of china, since that is as relevant in the statement of facts.
further, they are entitled to the protections of and owe allegiance to the united states so long as they are permitted by the united states to reside here, but the word "and" meaning additionally, they are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' just as all other resident aliens are.

your misinterpretation of the decision does not make me a liar.

and how do you square the idea that an illegal alien can be arrested and prosecuted in the united states for entering the country illegally with the idea that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states?

At risk of offending you an others with *spam* in responding to your repeated dull witted comments, I post the following:

"at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

The us of the word 'but' conjunction means that it is in contrast to, not part of the reasoning of why the court made their decision.

Take a few reading comprehension courses, dude.

You failed to bold " and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States", which is every bit as important. The family was here, was permanently domiciledhere, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Jake, that is simply an additional disqualifier that SCOTUS noted that did not apply to Wong. They also noted the qualifiers that had to be met and which are not negated simply because there are also disqualifying criteria as well.

Sheesh.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If aliens are subject to US jurisdiction and residing in the US, their children born here are citizens.

Only LEGAL aliens, according to US v Wong Kim Ark. We have been effectively giving citizenship to children of illegals and more than is required by the 14th Amendment according to the Wong decision. The government can do that, but is not required to, as Reid understood when he was proposing that Birthright citizenship be ended for children of illegals back in the 90s.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie continues to parrot an opinion that is not shared in our legal system.

Too bad, so sad, been had, not glad, only silly opinion by Jim.

 

[Syriusly]

If the paragraph you keep quoting was all inclusive- and a statement of the requirements to be a citizen- which it isn't- then all of the statements would have to be met

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely,

• whether a child born in the United States,
• of parents of Chinese descent,
• who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China,
• but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and
• are there carrying on business, and
• are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China,

becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Then of course- only children of parents of Chinese descent would be citizens. And only those who are subjects of the emperor of China. And only those here carrying on business.

But of course the Court was not saying that those are the requirements to be born a U.S. citizen- those were statements of fact.

Anyone who has read all of Wong Kim Ark- and not cherry picked quotes from Wong Kim would know that that.

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

Kind of speaks for itself..

It does:



are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

And as noted in Plyler v. Doe- an illegal alien is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States just as every other alien in the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

If aliens are subject to US jurisdiction and residing in the US, their children born here are citizens.

Only LEGAL aliens, according to US v Wong Kim Ark..

Except of course- that is your interpretation- not what Wong Kim Ark says.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie continues to parrot an opinion that is not shared in our legal system.

Too bad, so sad, been had, not glad, only silly opinion by Jim.

"Too bad, so sad, been had, not glad, only silly opinion by Jim."

That is total bullshit. not only have there been several people that have agreed with me on this message board but most of the GOP Presidential candidates agree that Birthright citizenship needs to end, even Lindsey Gramnesty, for fucks sake.

Graham Supports Ending Birthright Citizenship: 'It's A Bad Practice'

Jake I think just about everyone here realizes that you are in all likelihood a greedy little shit that exploits illegal black market labor, or works for some that do this, and so you are merely arguing to defend your pocketbook and not what is Constitutional or best for the people of the United States.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If aliens are subject to US jurisdiction and residing in the US, their children born here are citizens.

Only LEGAL aliens, according to US v Wong Kim Ark..

Except of course- that is your interpretation- not what Wong Kim Ark says.

JimBowie can be silly as ShootSpeeders, Protectionist, MartyBegan, and Baiamonte, as well as PoliticalChic. The children are citizens and always will be so, and the law will not be changed except by amendment.

Jim, I have always worked within the system, have never hired illegals as I suspect Mud and Gramps of doing, and I agree that the law must be enforced.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If the paragraph you keep quoting was all inclusive- and a statement of the requirements to be a citizen- which it isn't- then all of the statements would have to be met

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely,

• whether a child born in the United States,
• of parents of Chinese descent,
• who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China,
• but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and
• are there carrying on business, and
• are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China,

becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Then of course- only children of parents of Chinese descent would be citizens. And only those who are subjects of the emperor of China. And only those here carrying on business.

But of course the Court was not saying that those are the requirements to be born a U.S. citizen- those were statements of fact.

Anyone who has read all of Wong Kim Ark- and not cherry picked quotes from Wong Kim would know that that.

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

Kind of speaks for itself..

It does:



are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

And as noted in Plyler v. Doe- an illegal alien is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States just as every other alien in the United States.

As long as they have legal domicile and the permission of the US government, sure.

Context is everything, even for libtard Big Liars like yourself.

 

[Syriusly]

Further demolishing this argument regarding domicile and jurisdiction was Plyer v Doe 1982, which struck down a law by Texas to deny education funding to the children of illegal immigrants.

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In it, even the dissenting opinion stated that even those who entered the country illegally were within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Birthright citizenship is one of the foundations of American Exceptionalism. I guess some "conservatives" think America is less than exceptional.

What a moron. WALKING INTO THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE YOU A US CITIZEN YOU LIBTARDS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE TO EVER WALK THE PLANET. WE DON'T OWE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHIT YOU ASS HOLE

Calm down, angry old man. That's not the argument.

That law was written for slaves dumb ass.

You are a fool- an ignorant walking slab of dumb ass.

The law was written to address a question of citizenship that freed slaves presented- but it was written for all American citizens.

That is why some of the legislators complained that it would even make children born to Chinese in California American citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

If the paragraph you keep quoting was all inclusive- and a statement of the requirements to be a citizen- which it isn't- then all of the statements would have to be met

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely,

• whether a child born in the United States,
• of parents of Chinese descent,
• who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China,
• but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and
• are there carrying on business, and
• are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China,

becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Then of course- only children of parents of Chinese descent would be citizens. And only those who are subjects of the emperor of China. And only those here carrying on business.

But of course the Court was not saying that those are the requirements to be born a U.S. citizen- those were statements of fact.

Anyone who has read all of Wong Kim Ark- and not cherry picked quotes from Wong Kim would know that that.

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

Kind of speaks for itself..

It does:



are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

And as noted in Plyler v. Doe- an illegal alien is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States just as every other alien in the United States.

As long as they have legal domicile and the permission of the US government, sure.

Context is everything, even for libtard Big Liars like yourself.

Context is everything- you keep calling people liars because you don't like our answers- but you have yet to manage to quote a single statement of mine that is a lie.

Which means of course- that it is you that is the liar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If aliens are subject to US jurisdiction and residing in the US, their children born here are citizens.

Only LEGAL aliens, according to US v Wong Kim Ark..

Except of course- that is your interpretation- not what Wong Kim Ark says.

Read paragraph 118 and 96 which in fact assert the same thing I am; only legal domicile parents here with the permission of the US government.

IT is absurd to assert that the people who passed the 14tyh amendment wanted to see our borders overwhelmed by invasion from Meheeko, dim wit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Further demolishing this argument regarding domicile and jurisdiction was Plyer v Doe 1982, which struck down a law by Texas to deny education funding to the children of illegal immigrants.

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In it, even the dissenting opinion stated that even those who entered the country illegally were within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Birthright citizenship is one of the foundations of American Exceptionalism. I guess some "conservatives" think America is less than exceptional.

What a moron. WALKING INTO THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE YOU A US CITIZEN YOU LIBTARDS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE TO EVER WALK THE PLANET. WE DON'T OWE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHIT YOU ASS HOLE

Calm down, angry old man. That's not the argument.

That law was written for slaves dumb ass.

You are a fool- an ignorant walking slab of dumb ass.

The law was written to address a question of citizenship that freed slaves presented- but it was written for all American citizens.

That is why some of the legislators complained that it would even make children born to Chinese in California American citizens.

RKM Brown is exactly right and you are the obvious liar.

Who do you think you are kidding? You have Jake the Fake Delegate backing you up, which amounts to an endorsement for those disagreeing with you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If the paragraph you keep quoting was all inclusive- and a statement of the requirements to be a citizen- which it isn't- then all of the statements would have to be met

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely,

• whether a child born in the United States,
• of parents of Chinese descent,
• who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China,
• but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and
• are there carrying on business, and
• are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China,

becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Then of course- only children of parents of Chinese descent would be citizens. And only those who are subjects of the emperor of China. And only those here carrying on business.

But of course the Court was not saying that those are the requirements to be born a U.S. citizen- those were statements of fact.

Anyone who has read all of Wong Kim Ark- and not cherry picked quotes from Wong Kim would know that that.

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

Kind of speaks for itself..

It does:



are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

And as noted in Plyler v. Doe- an illegal alien is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States just as every other alien in the United States.

As long as they have legal domicile and the permission of the US government, sure.

Context is everything, even for libtard Big Liars like yourself.

Context is everything- you keep calling people liars because you don't like our answers- but you have yet to manage to quote a single statement of mine that is a lie.

Which means of course- that it is you that is the liar.

I would quote the opinion for you, but I got hit for spamming so I cant repeat my post except to say it has already been answered countless times and I posted the text of the decision that backs up my assertion, while you do not.

Paragraph 96 of US v Wong Kim Ark:
"Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, JimBowie, you will be wrong everytime you post your silliness.

The laws are fine, and they will not change.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, JimBowie, you will be wrong everytime you post your silliness.

The laws are fine, and they will not change.

You like the idea of a foreign invasion of US soil, that makes you a traitor as well as a greedy liar.

Bobby Jindal gets it right perfectly.

“Let me say this about immigration — the left — they don’t like us to be the melting pot. America has proudly been the melting pot for years. What that means is that we tell folks, ‘If you want to come here, you should want to be an American if you come here,'” Jindal said to loud, enthusiastic applause.

“But now the left is telling us, ‘We can’t be the melting pot — that is culturally arrogant, that is xenophobic — we should be the salad bowl. We have a Divider-in-Chief who keeps trying to divide us. And I’m here to tell you something — I am done with the hyphenated Americans.”

“We’re not African-Americans, we’re not Asian-Americans, we’re not rich Americans, we’re not poor Americans, we’re all Americans, united as one,” a fired-up Bobby Jindal proclaimed to the crowd before saying that when immigrants come to America they should assimilate by learning English and our values and culture then “roll up your sleeves and get to work.”


Read more at Bobby Jindal: ‘Immigration Without Assimilation is Invasion;’ Slams Bush, Walker


Where the GOP 2016 Candidates Stand on Birthright Citizenship

Donald Trump: "This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration," he said in his immigration proposal.

Rand Paul: "This resolution makes clear that under the 14th Amendment a person born in the United States to illegal aliens does not automatically gain citizenship," he said in 2011 about a constitutional amendment he proposed with Sen. David Vitter.

Rick Santorum: "Other enticements to illegal immigration, such as birthright citizenship, should be ended… Of developed countries other than the United States, only Canada has birthright citizenship," he wrote back in May.

Ben Carson: "The 14th Amendment has been brought up recently about anchor babies, and it doesn't make any sense to me, that people can come in here and have a baby and that baby becomes an American citizen and allows them to come in," he said in Phoenix this week. "There are many countries in the world where they simply have recognized that and don't allow that to occur."

Lindsey Graham: "Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake," he said in 2010. "We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen." (He added to Kasie Hunt on Monday: "I've been saying for a long time that I'm willing to change birthright citizenship after we fix the current broken immigration system.")

Chris Christie: "I think all this stuff needs to be reexamined in light of the current circumstances," he told Laura Ingraham this month. "[Birthright citizenship] may have made sense at some point in our history, but right now, we need to re-look at all that."

Bobby Jindal: "We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants," he tweeted.

So, Jake the Fake Delegate, every time you say there is no one that agrees with me on Birthright citizenship, you just make yourself out to be a liar over and over again.

 

[Syriusly]

If the paragraph you keep quoting was all inclusive- and a statement of the requirements to be a citizen- which it isn't- then all of the statements would have to be met

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely,

• whether a child born in the United States,
• of parents of Chinese descent,
• who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China,
• but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and
• are there carrying on business, and
• are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China,

becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Then of course- only children of parents of Chinese descent would be citizens. And only those who are subjects of the emperor of China. And only those here carrying on business.

But of course the Court was not saying that those are the requirements to be born a U.S. citizen- those were statements of fact.

Anyone who has read all of Wong Kim Ark- and not cherry picked quotes from Wong Kim would know that that.

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

Kind of speaks for itself.

The 14th Amendment has only 2 requirements- birth in the U.S.- and being born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And Plyler v. Doe states- as your own citation of Jonathan Turley notes- that a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And that settles the issue.

No it does not as Plyler was not addressing birthright citizenship but only whether illegals have a right to due process, and they do. No one disputes that. I want them to have due process as well, and good and hard as they get their asses kicked out of the country.
.

I am going to try to lead you through this and see if you can get it- my guess is that you will not.

Section 1. 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.

So there are two and only two requirements:

1. Born in the United States and
2. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

I presume that we have no dispute about the 'born in the United States' part- and only with the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' part.

So lets go to Plyler v. Doe again.

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause[14th Amendment], which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term.

This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

Okay lets review that statement again- the 14th Amendments protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a state- because they are 'within its jurisdiction'

The 14th Amendment again: Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Plyler v. Doe: "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State.

The operative word here is 'jurisdiction'- you seem to be arguing that in Plyler v. Doe that jurisdiction means one thing for 'due process' and another thing for citizenship- all within the same paragraph of the 14th Amendment.

But jurisdiction means one thing- and one thing uniformly: anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State.

Plyler v. Doe confirms that

In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction."


So is 'subject to the the jurisdiction' the same as 'within the jurisdiction'? Plyler v. Doe says conclusively yes:


Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used.

He further noted that it was impossible to construe the words
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], 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."

 

[Syriusly]

No, JimBowie, you will be wrong everytime you post your silliness.

The laws are fine, and they will not change.

“We’re not African-Americans, we’re not Asian-Americans, we’re not rich Americans, we’re not poor Americans, we’re all Americans, united as one,” a fired-up Bobby Jindal proclaimed to the crowd before saying that when immigrants come to America they should assimilate by learning English and our values and culture then “roll up your sleeves and get to work.”.

I grew up with proud Italian Americans and Irish Americans.

Why does the right only object to cultural identification when it comes to African Americans and Asian Americans?