American Citizenship and Immigration Clarification Act

[goldcatt]

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.

Go back and read that portion you highlighted again. The named plaintiff in Elk was a Native American attempting to claim birthright citizenship at a time when birthright citizenship was not available to Native Americans born on tribal lands. It was not his child born outside those lands attempting to claim birthright citizenship, as would be the case with anchor babies.

The examples given are the exceptions to birthright citizenship as they existed in 1884, with respect to immediate and direct allegiance as required by sovereign jurisdiction: the children of foreign nationals born in foreign lands, which is the exception that applied to Native Americans at the time under Elk, and the children of foreign dignitaries born in the US. Go look at the decision again and the entire discussion of "immediate and direct allegiance" - where does it state the children of foreign nationals born within the US other than the above are not citizens?

That was the state of the law when the 14th was ratified, it was the state of the law in 1884, and it's how the law still stands. It's not the judiciary's fault that circumstances have changed and the language as it was written then allows anchor babies now, that's solely on Congress and the States for not amending it if they don't want it to be that way. No garden variety law is going to change that, ONLY an amendment will do it.

 

[JBeukema]

'[O]wing immediate allegiance to... an alien power'

 

[goldcatt]

'[O]wing immediate allegiance to... an alien power'

Now you're just digging in your heels and being disingenuous. The analysis of "direct and immediate allegiance" in the case you chose and cited as it applies to the meaning of "jurisdiction" in the citizenship clause is laid out in detail and basically edited out of your post with an ellipsis because it's inconvenient. Tsk, tsk.

Anybody who wants can read the case and decide for themselves what it says and how the analysis has or has not changed when it comes to the modern treatment of the "anchor baby" issue. *shrug*

Thing is, we don't really disagree. I'd be in favor of amending the citizenship clause, depending on how it's done and the language used as previously stated. Where we differ is on the process necessary to do it. What you propose simply wouldn't change a thing.