CDZ Q. Why are children of diplomats excluded from birthright citizenship?

[Agit8r]

A. Because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (14th Amendment)

Q. What does this mean?

A. They are citizens of another country who have not been granted permanent resident status.

Q. Why aren't children of illegal aliens excluded from birthright citizenship for the same reason?

A. You tell me. (And don't cite asinine court decisions.)

Diplomats are representatives of a foreign government, and reside on foreign sovereign soil (embassies). Their children are without controversy full citizens of the country which employs their parents.

Aliens (legal or otherwise) reside on U.S. soil. Their children do not have any obvious ties to a foreign power, and may not even be considered citizens in their mothers' homeland. The matter of paternity (especially those whose mothers have been the victim of trafficking) may be even more complicated. The simplest and most just action is to document the child (who bears no fault for his or her circumstances of birth), and assimilate him or her as best possible into American society.

LaRaza says other wise.
They are legal Mexicans and they advocate for wanting to get back all the lands that Mexico sold the USA.
Their allegiance is to Mexico not America.
And no they will not have that advertised at their webstie.

By that rationale, all the people who wave confederate flags are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

That does not even make any sense.

It does not make sense. It is no less the same rationale applied.

 

[peach174]

A. Because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (14th Amendment)

Q. What does this mean?

A. They are citizens of another country who have not been granted permanent resident status.

Q. Why aren't children of illegal aliens excluded from birthright citizenship for the same reason?

A. You tell me. (And don't cite asinine court decisions.)

Diplomats are representatives of a foreign government, and reside on foreign sovereign soil (embassies). Their children are without controversy full citizens of the country which employs their parents.

Aliens (legal or otherwise) reside on U.S. soil. Their children do not have any obvious ties to a foreign power, and may not even be considered citizens in their mothers' homeland. The matter of paternity (especially those whose mothers have been the victim of trafficking) may be even more complicated. The simplest and most just action is to document the child (who bears no fault for his or her circumstances of birth), and assimilate him or her as best possible into American society.

LaRaza says other wise.
They are legal Mexicans and they advocate for wanting to get back all the lands that Mexico sold the USA.
Their allegiance is to Mexico not America.
And no they will not have that advertised at their webstie.

By that rationale, all the people who wave confederate flags are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

That does not even make any sense.

It does not make sense. It is no less the same rationale applied.

Then talk to the LaRaza people that is what they want.
I talked to them during the protests that they had Tucson.
They did not even know that America paid for the land to Mexico.
Uninformed dangerous people who want to expand Mexico to what they think it should be.
They are doing a real good job of it in California, Nevada and Texas.