From the text of the 14th amendment:
"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."
This is the first sentence and I've always been under the impression that those born within the borders of the United States or in the jurisdiction of one of it's possession/protectorates always automatically granted US citizenship automatically. And as far as I can tell, that IS how it's done
... except ...
this little tidbit leaped to my attention in the recent Republican primary debat when it was recited ...
" ... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... "
Now... I have to rethink what I've always thought to be true. Does this really mean ANYONE born in the US ... or can an argument be made that an illegal immigrant ... being here illegally and not through an official process ... having never accepted or agreed to accept to be SUBJECT to the JURISDICTION ... cannot enjoy the birthright clause of the 14th amendment?
I honestly don't know the answer and I haven't researched it yet ... but it would SEEM that a damn good case can be made that anyone who has not subjected themselves OFFICIALLY to the jurisdiction of the US cannot invoke a right offered that REQUIRES them to do so either through the citizenship of the parents or the child born or through a legal immigration/visa/tourist/travel process that AT MINIMUM they MUST at least make some affirmation to respect the laws of this country.
If a woman arrives here illegally, how can she accept and acknowledge being SUBJECT to the JURISDICTION of our country? Now, this throws out the argument made by JEB Bush and others that Asians "abuse the birthright clause because even though they come here as "tourists" for the sole intent on having their child in the US, they DO need to acknowledge and accept the jurisdiction of the country they visit - the US. So their kids WOULD enjoy that right since the mother became SUBJECT to the jurisdiction as a condition of the tourist visa ... as I recall from my travels (limited as it was) to other countries - one must affirm that they will respect and abide by the laws governing the host country in order to gain access. Thus becoming "subject to the jurisdiction" of the host country.
But illegal immigrant never do this ... so ... because it's late ... and I'm feeling lazy, does anyone have some insight as to any legal case that applies to the "subject to jurisdiction" clause ... because, despite my normal uber liberal leanings ... I gotta say ... perhaps the conservatives have a leg to stand on with this argument. That said, I gotta assume that somewhere along the line this was argued in the courts and defined to mean ANYONE born within the borders - by geographic location - implicitly accepts that they are "subject to the jurisdiction" by mere presence.
Educate me please :)
