American Citizenship and Immigration Clarification Act

[JBeukema]

American Citizenship and Immigration Clarification Act




A resolution clarifying the intent and purpose of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution of these united States.


A Resolution
Recognizing the intent and purpose of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution of these united States to protect the rights of African Americans following emancipation and clarifying the meaning thereof as pertains to the Law and the immigration and citizenship status of persons not legally within the borders of these united States.

• Be it recognized by these united States and all bodies and agencies thereof that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of these united States served the important function of protecting the legal rights and status of African American persons, including but not limited to Freed Persons following the abolition of slavery in these united States. Be it recognized that the intent of purpose of this this amendment was never to undermine the sovereignty of this republic by establishing birthright citizenship to those born to persons not legally present within this republic. Be it recognized that such an interpretation of this amendment as to establish birthright citizenship for those born to persons not legally present within this republic was not known or put into effect at the passing of the amendment, just as it remains to this day understood that those born to non-citizens legally present in this republic, including but not limited to foreign dignitaries are not bestowed citizenship upon birth within the borders of this republic.
  

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `American Citizenship and Immigration Clarification Act'.

SEC. 2. Enforcement of the original purpose and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of these united States

• (a) Clarification of the legal recognition of the citizenship status of children born within this republic
  1)Children born to parent who is a citizen of these united States are recognized as citizens of these united States so long as they are declared so by their parents or legal guardians and are not declared as citizens of any other sovereign nation by the same
  
  2)Those who are not legally present in these untied States are recognized as citizens of the sovereign from whence they have come are do not, therefore, meet the requirement laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment to these united States that a person be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the State in which they reside, or of this Republic as they remain subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign of which they are recognized by this republic as being a citizen, being subject to the law of the State in which they reside and this republic only in those same criminal matters as any other foreign national operating within the boundaries of this Republic and not subject to diplomatic considerations. Be it recognized that those born to such persons are recognized by this republic as citizens of and subject to the jurisdiction of the same sovereign as those to whom they are born, and therefore also fail to meet those requirements outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment (outlined above) to the Constitution of these united States.

 

[Speeddemon22]

Yeah, now to figure out how to get Obama to AGREE to such legislation...He'll hold any and all anti-illegal immigration legislation hostage indefinitely. I guess maybe if we promised him the DREAMERS' amnesty in exchange for no more anchor babies he MIGHT consider it, but even then I doubt he'd be willing to go along with something like this. You have to remember, he's a hoe. He "owes" Hispanic voters and they have him by the nuts now more than ever.

 

[goldcatt]

Uh, no. While the citizenship clause of the 14th did in fact establish citizenship of former slaves, its function went much beyond that. If it had only applied to freed slaves, it would have either stood alone or been incorporated into the 13th.

People forget to look at the entirety of the 14th and all of its clauses before rushing to judgment on this. The purpose of the 14th as a whole was to rehabilitate ALL residents of the former Confederacy as unquestionably US citizens rather than citizens of either the Confederacy or the State in which they resided, deal with Confederate debt, give Confederate leaders a mechanism by which they could regain status in the Union (or not), and so on. Each Amendment is an organic whole with an overriding purpose, a flaw in the system being addressed.

The word "jurisdiction" was used for a reason, and has a specific meaning as a term of art in law. The drafters of the 14th were well aware of that meaning and that's how the Amendment has been applied as circumstances have changed. Don't like it, change it. *shrug*

These folks can pass all the "statements" and "clarifications" they want, but at the end of the day it doesn't change a thing as far as actual history, as far as interpretation (which is the purview of the judiciary, not the legislative), or as far as the meaning and structure of the Amendment in its entirety. And they know it. Which tells me they either don't have the stones to actually change it by the Amendment process, or don't really want it changed but want to make it look like they do. Or they're going right back to where they left off, trying to force a confrontation with those evul nasties of the Judiciary. Either way, it's stupid and non-binding. They have much, much more important things to do with their time than this kind of dog and pony show.

 

[Speeddemon22]

From none other than the author of SB1070:

Original intent of the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

 

[goldcatt]

Are illegal aliens then immune from the laws of this nation, as are those with diplomatic immunity and foreign soldiers and sailors? Because "jurisdiction" means and has always meant in a nutshell "subject to the laws of the sovereign".

The term and concept was used to clarify the status of those born or naturalized in the Confederacy, as you point out immigration was not controlled as we do today. But the clause has been applied according to what the term chosen by the drafters meant at the time and still does today.

I'm not championing the concept of "anchor babies", but two things must be pointed out: This "statement" is non-binding and will have zero effect as law, and it is incorrect as to the consistent nature and function of the Amendment and the meaning of the precise language used. If the drafters screwed up (and IMO, they didn't - just didn't think of all the ramifications of the exact language they used), then they screwed up. It's not the Courts' function to fix their mistakes, only to apply them.

Circumstances have changed, so go ahead and change the clause through the Amendment process. That's what it's for. But do it the right way, not taking up time and putting on the dog with a non-binding resolution for the cameras.

 

[Speeddemon22]

"putting on the dog" lol....good one.

As if 2/3 of both houses would even agree to propose such an amendment. The Dems still control the Senate and they are as indebted to Hispanic voters as Obama is. They'd rather see their own houses burn down than agree to propose a change to the 14th amendment. Am I right, gold?

 

[goldcatt]

"putting on the dog" lol....good one.

As if 2/3 of both houses would even agree to propose such an amendment. The Dems still control the Senate and they are as indebted to Hispanic voters as Obama is. They'd rather see their own houses burn down than agree to propose a change to the 14th amendment. Am I right, gold?

I honestly don't know whether the votes would be there or not. I think a lot depends on the language used and the new requirements they want to set. They may be able to drum up the votes if they simply require, in plain language, that one parent be either a citizen or legal resident at the time the child is born, without it being retroactive so that citizenship is stripped from those already citizens under the current clause. We don't want to be creating a class of stateless and newly illegal residents - for many reasons, some of which are obvious and some not so much.

Personally I'd be fine with that. If they get much stricter than that or try to get fancy with the language to have wiggle room for different applications, it will never pass.

What I'm thinking of as far as "wiggle room" are concepts such as changing the set definition of "jurisdiction" to use the seeming innocuous change in citizenship status to get around the Gitmo cases, for example. No games, enough conservative to moderate Dems might play. If the language seems loaded, no way.

But until and unless it's amended, it means what it says and all the "statements" and "clarifications" in the world aren't going to change that.

 

[Intense]

"putting on the dog" lol....good one.

As if 2/3 of both houses would even agree to propose such an amendment. The Dems still control the Senate and they are as indebted to Hispanic voters as Obama is. They'd rather see their own houses burn down than agree to propose a change to the 14th amendment. Am I right, gold?

I honestly don't know whether the votes would be there or not. I think a lot depends on the language used and the new requirements they want to set. They may be able to drum up the votes if they simply require, in plain language, that one parent be either a citizen or legal resident at the time the child is born, without it being retroactive so that citizenship is stripped from those already citizens under the current clause. We don't want to be creating a class of stateless and newly illegal residents - for many reasons, some of which are obvious and some not so much.

Personally I'd be fine with that. If they get much stricter than that or try to get fancy with the language to have wiggle room for different applications, it will never pass.

What I'm thinking of as far as "wiggle room" are concepts such as changing the set definition of "jurisdiction" to use the seeming innocuous change in citizenship status to get around the Gitmo cases, for example. No games, enough conservative to moderate Dems might play. If the language seems loaded, no way.

But until and unless it's amended, it means what it says and all the "statements" and "clarifications" in the world aren't going to change that.

What you say does make sense except for one thing. I agree that Constitutional Amendment is the final answer, and plain language is alway's critical. The one exception is the power of the Court to interpret what ever it wills arbitrarily, with a 5/4 majority. They will declare what ever they want, and there is little any of us can do about it without 75% support. From my perspective this power is a total abuse of Judicial Review, but we allowed it.

 

[goldcatt]

"putting on the dog" lol....good one.

As if 2/3 of both houses would even agree to propose such an amendment. The Dems still control the Senate and they are as indebted to Hispanic voters as Obama is. They'd rather see their own houses burn down than agree to propose a change to the 14th amendment. Am I right, gold?

I honestly don't know whether the votes would be there or not. I think a lot depends on the language used and the new requirements they want to set. They may be able to drum up the votes if they simply require, in plain language, that one parent be either a citizen or legal resident at the time the child is born, without it being retroactive so that citizenship is stripped from those already citizens under the current clause. We don't want to be creating a class of stateless and newly illegal residents - for many reasons, some of which are obvious and some not so much.

Personally I'd be fine with that. If they get much stricter than that or try to get fancy with the language to have wiggle room for different applications, it will never pass.

What I'm thinking of as far as "wiggle room" are concepts such as changing the set definition of "jurisdiction" to use the seeming innocuous change in citizenship status to get around the Gitmo cases, for example. No games, enough conservative to moderate Dems might play. If the language seems loaded, no way.

But until and unless it's amended, it means what it says and all the "statements" and "clarifications" in the world aren't going to change that.

What you say does make sense except for one thing. I agree that Constitutional Amendment is the final answer, and plain language is alway's critical. The one exception is the power of the Court to interpret what ever it wills arbitrarily, with a 5/4 majority. They will declare what ever they want, and there is little any of us can do about it without 75% support. From my perspective this power is a total abuse of Judicial Review, but we allowed it.

I know how you feel about judicial review, and we're never going to agree on that subject.,

But the plainer the language, the more straightforward it is in setting out exactly what it means to say so a third grader can get it right, the less likely it will need to be interpreted at all.

Something sort of like "All persons born as of (starting date) within the US or its possessions to at least one parent who is a United States citizen or a legal resident thereof shall be citizens of the United States. All persons naturalized under the law as Congress sets forth shall be citizens of the United States." is all that's required.

KISS method - it works every time.

 

[JBeukema]

The purpose of the 14th as a whole was to rehabilitate ALL residents of the former Confederacy as unquestionably US citizens

And not to undermine the sovereignty of the US by establishing birthright citizenship for children born to soldiers serving in an occupying military should we ever be invaded.

rather than citizens of either the Confederacy or the State in which they resided

We remain citizens of both the republic and the member State in which we reside.

The word "jurisdiction" was used for a reason, and has a specific meaning as a term of art in law.

Yes, it does.

“Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”
-Thomas Jefferson

"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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
-Jacob Howard

Elk v. Wikin established that '[a person] could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance to” [an alien nation], and not to the United States' and therefore was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth

This ruling was never overturned, merely made obsolete as relates to indian tribes by the Indian Citizenship Act.

The drafters of the 14th were well aware of that meaning

Unlike you, it seems.

 

[JBeukema]

Are illegal aliens then immune from the laws of this nation, as are those with diplomatic immunity and foreign soldiers and sailors? Because "jurisdiction" means and has always meant in a nutshell "subject to the laws of the sovereign".

When I visit Japan, I am subject to Japese law- but also to American law [eg: the U.S. will try American citizens who who commit certain acts abroad]. I remain subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign of which I am a citizen and/or has a claim to my loyalty and/or nationality. There is more to the matter than mere criminal jurisdiction.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

American Citizenship and Immigration Clarification Act




A resolution clarifying the intent and purpose of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution of these united States.


A Resolution
Recognizing the intent and purpose of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution of these united States to protect the rights of African Americans following emancipation and clarifying the meaning thereof as pertains to the Law and the immigration and citizenship status of persons not legally within the borders of these united States.

• Be it recognized by these united States and all bodies and agencies thereof that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of these united States served the important function of protecting the legal rights and status of African American persons, including but not limited to Freed Persons following the abolition of slavery in these united States. Be it recognized that the intent of purpose of this this amendment was never to undermine the sovereignty of this republic by establishing birthright citizenship to those born to persons not legally present within this republic. Be it recognized that such an interpretation of this amendment as to establish birthright citizenship for those born to persons not legally present within this republic was not known or put into effect at the passing of the amendment, just as it remains to this day understood that those born to non-citizens legally present in this republic, including but not limited to foreign dignitaries are not bestowed citizenship upon birth within the borders of this republic.
  

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `American Citizenship and Immigration Clarification Act'.

SEC. 2. Enforcement of the original purpose and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of these united States

• (a) Clarification of the legal recognition of the citizenship status of children born within this republic
  1)Children born to parent who is a citizen of these united States are recognized as citizens of these united States so long as they are declared so by their parents or legal guardians and are not declared as citizens of any other sovereign nation by the same
  
  2)Those who are not legally present in these untied States are recognized as citizens of the sovereign from whence they have come are do not, therefore, meet the requirement laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment to these united States that a person be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the State in which they reside, or of this Republic as they remain subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign of which they are recognized by this republic as being a citizen, being subject to the law of the State in which they reside and this republic only in those same criminal matters as any other foreign national operating within the boundaries of this Republic and not subject to diplomatic considerations. Be it recognized that those born to such persons are recognized by this republic as citizens of and subject to the jurisdiction of the same sovereign as those to whom they are born, and therefore also fail to meet those requirements outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment (outlined above) to the Constitution of these united States.

Is that an actual proposed piece of law or is it your proposal?

Either way I like it.

 

[JBeukema]

American Citizenship and Immigration Clarification Act




A resolution clarifying the intent and purpose of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution of these united States.


A Resolution
Recognizing the intent and purpose of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution of these united States to protect the rights of African Americans following emancipation and clarifying the meaning thereof as pertains to the Law and the immigration and citizenship status of persons not legally within the borders of these united States.

• Be it recognized by these united States and all bodies and agencies thereof that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of these united States served the important function of protecting the legal rights and status of African American persons, including but not limited to Freed Persons following the abolition of slavery in these united States. Be it recognized that the intent of purpose of this this amendment was never to undermine the sovereignty of this republic by establishing birthright citizenship to those born to persons not legally present within this republic. Be it recognized that such an interpretation of this amendment as to establish birthright citizenship for those born to persons not legally present within this republic was not known or put into effect at the passing of the amendment, just as it remains to this day understood that those born to non-citizens legally present in this republic, including but not limited to foreign dignitaries are not bestowed citizenship upon birth within the borders of this republic.
  

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `American Citizenship and Immigration Clarification Act'.

SEC. 2. Enforcement of the original purpose and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of these united States

• (a) Clarification of the legal recognition of the citizenship status of children born within this republic
  1)Children born to parent who is a citizen of these united States are recognized as citizens of these united States so long as they are declared so by their parents or legal guardians and are not declared as citizens of any other sovereign nation by the same
  
  2)Those who are not legally present in these untied States are recognized as citizens of the sovereign from whence they have come are do not, therefore, meet the requirement laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment to these united States that a person be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the State in which they reside, or of this Republic as they remain subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign of which they are recognized by this republic as being a citizen, being subject to the law of the State in which they reside and this republic only in those same criminal matters as any other foreign national operating within the boundaries of this Republic and not subject to diplomatic considerations. Be it recognized that those born to such persons are recognized by this republic as citizens of and subject to the jurisdiction of the same sovereign as those to whom they are born, and therefore also fail to meet those requirements outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment (outlined above) to the Constitution of these united States.

Is that an actual proposed piece of law or is it your proposal?

Either way I like it.

I wrote it on the spot using some random bill from Thomas as reference for the proper format

 

[Mad Scientist]

If two Japanese citizens come here on vacation and the wife gives birth, you think that kid has US citizenship?

No.

Because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of", meaning they have no ties to the US beyond a tourist visa.

 

[goldcatt]

The purpose of the 14th as a whole was to rehabilitate ALL residents of the former Confederacy as unquestionably US citizens

And not to undermine the sovereignty of the US by establishing birthright citizenship for children born to soldiers serving in an occupying military should we ever be invaded.

rather than citizens of either the Confederacy or the State in which they resided

We remain citizens of both the republic and the member State in which we reside.

The word "jurisdiction" was used for a reason, and has a specific meaning as a term of art in law.

Yes, it does.

“Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”
-Thomas Jefferson

"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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
-Jacob Howard

Elk v. Wikin established that '[a person] could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance to” [an alien nation], and not to the United States' and therefore was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth

This ruling was never overturned, merely made obsolete as relates to indian tribes by the Indian Citizenship Act.

The drafters of the 14th were well aware of that meaning

Unlike you, it seems.

JB, dude, chill.

I had no idea you wrote this thing, so I understand the vehemence of your defense of it. But it's a non-binding piece of fluff and way outside the enumerated powers of Congress to try to enforce it. The words of the COTUS are the words, you have to change the actual words to change what it says.

No, invading foreign military is definitely exempt from the concept of "jurisdiction" as used in the sovereign sense. The term "jurisdiction" as used in this sense is a common law term of art inherited from the British colonial system, and was very much alive and well at the time the COTUS itself was drafted much less the 14th. Foreign diplomats and others present in the US as a direct result of service to their sovereign are also exempt. So are extradited criminals to whom criminal jurisdiction applies but sovereign jurisdiction would not due to the difference between working through action and dealing with sovereign territoriality and status.

You're confusing criminal jurisdiction (action) with the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States as an entity (status) here. You're right, they are two different concepts - but you've got it mixed up in some respects as to which is which. When you start looking at ties and actions, you're going into the realm of criminal jurisdiction wherein the US can reach out because of those ties and claim jurisdiction over an individual through his or her actions whether they've ever set foot on US controlled soil, rather than by territoriality and sovereignty.

Go back to your first premises. What is "jurisdiction" in the sovereign sense, and what is the difference between criminal behavior and the relatively new concept of criminal status that requires no behavior?

You're probably right that the citizenship clause was not intended to create "anchor babies", because the term was completely unknown at the time of ratification. There was no such thing as an illegal alien, as immigration wasn't controlled. If you could get here, you were in. So as with many things in the COTUS circumstances have changed, but the language and its actual meaning has stayed the same. The way it is applied to the current circumstances reflects the meaning as it always existed, applied to new facts to acheive the outcome. If you want to change that, you need to change the language. Not just make a "statement".

Elk v. Wilkins (1884) is an interesting case to cite, because it dealt exclusively with Indian law and interpreted the citizenship clause against the history of Indian relations from the drafting of the COTUS. In doing so, it concluded that the constitution had to that point been clear in its exclusion of citizenship and other rights for Indians not taxed (on tribal treaty lands and subject to the tribal sovereign) unless specifically stated otherwise. So under the law as it then existed, members of the subject Indian nations who were born in the boundaries of that nation were citizens of that nation and must go through the naturalization process as any other "foreigner". Birthright citizenship was not available to them if they were born on tribal lands within US borders, as tribal lands literally belonged to a foreign nation. As you know, as subject nations under treaty the Native American tribes on tribal lands were and are in a class by themselves and Native Americans have a status that cannot ever be duplicated by other groups.

Have a look at the decision for yourself:

ELK V. WILKINS, 112 U. S. 94 :: Volume 112 :: 1884 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

This portion of the analysis is particularly interesting as it addresses what they call "direct and immediate allegiance" in the concept of jurisdiction:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If two Japanese citizens come here on vacation and the wife gives birth, you think that kid has US citizenship?

No.

Because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of", meaning they have no ties to the US beyond a tourist visa.

According to those against clarifying the 14th ammendment you are correct.


The 14th's original intent was to prevent the children of slaves from being denied citizenship since their parents were FORCED to come to america as labor.

Its original intent does not cover the children of illegal immigrants who CHOSE to come to america as labor.

 

[goldcatt]

If two Japanese citizens come here on vacation and the wife gives birth, you think that kid has US citizenship?

No.

Because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of", meaning they have no ties to the US beyond a tourist visa.

According to those against clarifying the 14th ammendment you are correct.


The 14th's original intent was to prevent the children of slaves from being denied citizenship since their parents were FORCED to come to america as labor.

Its original intent does not cover the children of illegal immigrants who CHOSE to come to america as labor.

The original intent went beyond slavery though. There was also the problem of children born to non-slaves within the Confederacy and citizens naturalized by the Confederacy, confirming the status of former Confederate citizens including those who had renounced their US citizenship, and final clarification of citizenship as a State vs. a Federal status which was one of the causes of the divisions that led to the Civil War in the first place.

Look at the 14th in its entirety, not just Section 1, and you'll see the pattern here:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

Since the Union never renounced its claim of sovereignty over the Confederacy or its citizens, the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" makes perfect sense when looking at it from this point of view. The problem arose later, as the facts surrounding controlled immigration changed. But the issues that arise now did not exist then, so even though the meaning of the words haven't changed they simply have different consequences when applied to new facts. So...if it isn't working for us now, change the words. With an Amendment.

 

[Bullfighter]

Mexicans don't care about American laws, but they do respect a loaded shotgun.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You summed up the spirit of this thread nicely goldcatt.

 

[JBeukema]

You're confusing criminal jurisdiction (action) with the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States as an entity (status) here.

Fail.

I'm the one drawing the distinction and highlighting the failure of wetbacks to meet the conditions outlined in the 14th.

The anchor baby supporters are the ones purposely confusing the two in order to undermine American sovereignty.

This portion of the analysis is particularly interesting as it addresses what they call "direct and immediate allegiance" in the concept of jurisdiction:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Illegals are citizens of an alien power and owe their allegiance thereto. So too their offspring.