Mark Levin: Congress can end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution

[mudwhistle]

I thought right wingers worshipped the unchangable constitution?

Obviously the left has changed it's application from it's original intent.

Nope. It is you fools who are trying to redefine citizenship. The original intent has always been all children born under US jurisdiction are US citizens.

Children born to parents under US jurisdiction.....otherwise, children born to naturalized parents will be US citizens at birth. Children born to criminals who owe their allegiance to another country due to their foreign citizenship should not be awarded citizenship. If you're hiding in the shadows and are essentially a fugitive, you shouldn't be allowed the same rights as someone who has come forward and surrendered to authorities.

 

[g5000]

Rotagilla has kindly quoted the Congressional Record I have already quoted several times. In it, Howard makes it blazingly clear that all children born in the US are citizens, and that the only exceptions are the children born to ambassadors and foreign ministers.

When later asked if an exception could also be made for children born to Indians, Howard points out such an exception does not need to be spelled out since Indians are not under US jurisdiction and so the exception would be redundant. Thus, Howard reinforces the point children born under US jurisdiction are citizens.

Illegal immigrants, by definition, are under US jurisdiction. Otherwise they would not be illegal under our laws and could not be arrested or deported.

Therefore, their children born here are born to parents under US jurisdiction. So they are citizens. Ipso facto.

 

[g5000]

I thought right wingers worshipped the unchangable constitution?

Obviously the left has changed it's application from it's original intent.

Nope. It is you fools who are trying to redefine citizenship. The original intent has always been all children born under US jurisdiction are US citizens.

Children born to parents under US jurisdiction.....otherwise, children born to naturalized parents will be US citizens at birth. Children born to criminals who owe their allegiance to another country due to their foreign citizenship should not be awarded citizenship. If you're hiding in the shadows and are essentially a fugitive, you shouldn't be allowed the same rights as someone who has come forward and surrendered to authorities.

Your allegiance argument is false. The children born here to parents visiting on a visa have a US birthright. So it is clear that the "allegiance" exception does not apply to any foreigners except those who are performing an official duty for a foreign government who are accredited by the US government as agents of a foreign government.

Ambassadors and foreign ministers have diplomatic immunity (are not under US jurisdiction). Therefore, under the sole requirement of having to be under US jurisdiction, their children born here fail to meet the birthright requirement.

 

[kaz]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

What are you whining about now?

 

[g5000]

Everyone admits the children born to foreigners who are here legally have a US birthright.

This is what blows the "allegiance exception means all foreigners" argument out of the water.

The allegiance exception applies to those ambassadors and foreign ministers who have diplomatic immunity. By definition, they are not under US jurisdiction.

So once again, US jurisdiction is the only requirement for all kids born here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Unlike Obama, Levin is an actual Constitutional lawyer

Levin sounds like Cartman whining to his mother.

well THAT explains a lot...your cultural references are cartoons on tv...brilliant.
I don't care what he "sounds" like...as long as he tells the truth...and he does..he knows there are bitter, angry hyperpartisans listening who want to see if they can catch him.

Why don't you address something he specifically said and refute it....or go watch some more cartoons...whichever is easier

Levin is not telling the truth.

See my previous two posts, and every post I have made in this topic.

Levin doesn't care about the truth, for most on the right it's not about the truth, it's about repeating a lie often enough so it's perceived to be "true."

 

[mudwhistle]

Rotagilla has kindly quoted the Congressional Record I have already quoted several times. In it, Howard makes it blazingly clear that all children born in the US are citizens, and that the only exceptions are the children born to ambassadors and foreign ministers.

When later asked if an exception could also be made for children born to Indians, Howard points out such an exception does not need to be spelled out since Indians are not under US jurisdiction and so the exception would be redundant. Thus, Howard reinforces the point children born under US jurisdiction are citizens.

Illegal immigrants, by definition, are under US jurisdiction. Otherwise they would not be illegal under our laws and could not be arrested or deported.

Therefore, their children born here are born to parents under US jurisdiction. So they are citizens. Ipso facto.

Illegal immigrants living in the shadows aren't under anyone's jurisdiction. Nobody knows who they are. If the baby is born while they're living in the shadows they don't fall under 14th Amendment protections. They have to surrender to authorities first before they fall under US jurisdiction. The only reason they don't is because of a fear of deportation....which foils their attempts of giving birth to an anchor-baby.

Some on the left, as usual, claim this doesn't happen very often. My next door neighbor was an illegal. He has since applied and been accepted as a US citizen. Most of California is filled with illegals that have been living there for decades. It's how a conservative state, that was considered one of the richest states in America, turned into a liberal shithole.

 

[g5000]

Illegal immigrants living in the shadows aren't under anyone's jurisdiction. Nobody knows who they are.

Then they aren't illegal.

Your argument is foolish. If it were true, a murderer would not be under anyone's jurisdiction if a detective didn't know who killed the victim.

You can't be "illegal" unless you are under a jurisdiction which has declared what is illegal!

 

[Rotagilla]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Unlike Obama, Levin is an actual Constitutional lawyer

Levin sounds like Cartman whining to his mother.

well THAT explains a lot...your cultural references are cartoons on tv...brilliant.
I don't care what he "sounds" like...as long as he tells the truth...and he does..he knows there are bitter, angry hyperpartisans listening who want to see if they can catch him.

Why don't you address something he specifically said and refute it....or go watch some more cartoons...whichever is easier

Levin is not telling the truth.

See my previous two posts, and every post I have made in this topic.

Levin doesn't care about the truth, for most on the right it's not about the truth, it's about repeating a lie often enough so it's perceived to be "true."

Talk is cheap.
List some of these alleged "lies", then?

..and by the way...where and when did you get YOUR law degree and how many cases have YOU argued in front of the supreme court?
Just so we can have a fair comparison of your credentials versus levin's.

 

[Camp]

There has been plenty of time for the recognized Constitutional scholars and experts to examine and analyse Trump's proposal to consider the 14th Amendment and the birthright clause adjustable or interpreted the way Trump needs to make his immigration policy workable. Where are they?
All the reviews I have seen have been by persons without genuine credentials to call themselves constitutional authorities. The one who does have that recognition, Ken Klutkowski, wrote an article for Brietbart that others are distorting. Klutkowski listed reasons why it may be possible to make a challenge that would be strong enough to get in front of a federal court or even SCOTUS. His views are being distorted and used as evidence of the feasibility of Trump's contentions as if they are decided facts, not as points of possible debate in a court.
Perhaps I am missing a review by a known and recognized expert. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link or clue about how to access that review. I am not interested in more reviews by commentators, journalist or bloggers. I am interested in reading a review by someone with experience and recognized as a constitutional authority. Party affiliation does not matter.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

Here is the Congressional Record of the sponsor of the 14th Amendment talking about who is and who is not a citizen: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

All persons born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. He explains only ambassadors and foreign ministers are not under US jurisdiction. He then later adds that American Indians are not under US jurisdiction.

Everyone else is.


Here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship. There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.

When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.

Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.

Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.

The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, as explained by the sponsor of the 14th amendment, their children have birthright citizenship.

The "allegiance to a foreign power" gambit is a red herring which nativists think proves the children born to foreigners are not citizens. However, the fact that we grant citizenship to the children of foreigners here on a visa blows that out of the water. They have misread the law. The "allegiance" exception applies only to ambassadors and foreign ministers.

A foreigner here on a visa plainly does not fall under the "allegiance" exception, and so neither does an illegal immigrant.

The ONLY requirement for birthright is to be born to parents under US jurisdiction. An illegal immigrant, by virtue of being illegal, is intrinsically under US jurisdiction.

Thanks, I have seen and reviewed this material. Frankly, I believe it to be totally irrelevant, especially the much touted comment made by Howard, the so called author of the amendment. Obviously he wasn't the only author because the statements he made two years before the amendments passage were not reflected in the finished product that became the 14th Amendment. Unless some historian uncovers and reviews stacks of old letters and documents and tells us differently, for all we know a bunch of Senators might have approached Howard moments after his statement was made and told him his thoughts were not going to be considered and were being rejected. It's all just speculation. All we have is the finished product to review and that definitely shows rejection of Howard's thoughts on the topic.

 

[g5000]

When a person crosses into the United States, legally or illegally, they are now under US jurisdiction.

If it is legal to sell crack where they came from, that does not mean they can sell crack here. They are under US jurisdiction.

An illegal immigrant is under US jurisdiction.

For the reasons I have explained a zillion times, any children they give birth to while they are here are automatically US citizens.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rota et al, you have been handed your ass in this tread.

The Constitution and the 14th in particular have been explained to you. The great majority of America sees it that way.

You are not going to change it.

 

[g5000]

There has been plenty of time for the recognized Constitutional scholars and experts to examine and analyse Trump's proposal to consider the 14th Amendment and the birthright clause adjustable or interpreted the way Trump needs to make his immigration policy workable. Where are they?
All the reviews I have seen have been by persons without genuine credentials to call themselves constitutional authorities. The one who does have that recognition, Ken Klutkowski, wrote an article for Brietbart that others are distorting. Klutkowski listed reasons why it may be possible to make a challenge that would be strong enough to get in front of a federal court or even SCOTUS. His views are being distorted and used as evidence of the feasibility of Trump's contentions as if they are decided facts, not as points of possible debate in a court.
Perhaps I am missing a review by a known and recognized expert. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link or clue about how to access that review. I am not interested in more reviews by commentators, journalist or bloggers. I am interested in reading a review by someone with experience and recognized as a constitutional authority. Party affiliation does not matter.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

Here is the Congressional Record of the sponsor of the 14th Amendment talking about who is and who is not a citizen: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

All persons born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. He explains only ambassadors and foreign ministers are not under US jurisdiction. He then later adds that American Indians are not under US jurisdiction.

Everyone else is.


Here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship. There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.

When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.

Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.

Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.

The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, as explained by the sponsor of the 14th amendment, their children have birthright citizenship.

The "allegiance to a foreign power" gambit is a red herring which nativists think proves the children born to foreigners are not citizens. However, the fact that we grant citizenship to the children of foreigners here on a visa blows that out of the water. They have misread the law. The "allegiance" exception applies only to ambassadors and foreign ministers.

A foreigner here on a visa plainly does not fall under the "allegiance" exception, and so neither does an illegal immigrant.

The ONLY requirement for birthright is to be born to parents under US jurisdiction. An illegal immigrant, by virtue of being illegal, is intrinsically under US jurisdiction.

Thanks, I have seen and reviewed this material. Frankly, I believe it to be totally irrelevant, especially the much touted comment made by Howard, the so called author of the amendment. Obviously he wasn't the only author because the statements he made two years before the amendments passage were not reflected in the finished product that became the 14th Amendment. Unless some historian uncovers and reviews stacks of old letters and documents and tells us differently, for all we know a bunch of Senators might have approached Howard moments after his statement was made and told him his thoughts were not going to be considered and were being rejected. It's all just speculation. All we have is the finished product to review and that definitely shows rejection of Howard's thoughts on the topic.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

 

[Katzndogz]

When a person crosses into the United States, legally or illegally, they are now under US jurisdiction.

If it is legal to sell crack where they came from, that does not mean they can sell crack here. They are under US jurisdiction.

An illegal immigrant is under US jurisdiction.

For the reasons I have explained a zillion times, any children they give birth to while they are here are automatically US citizens.

It isn't true, if it is, then there needs to be a change in the law to prohibit people temporarily present in,the country from unilaterally conferring citizenship on their children.

 

[g5000]

When a person crosses into the United States, legally or illegally, they are now under US jurisdiction.

If it is legal to sell crack where they came from, that does not mean they can sell crack here. They are under US jurisdiction.

An illegal immigrant is under US jurisdiction.

For the reasons I have explained a zillion times, any children they give birth to while they are here are automatically US citizens.

It isn't true, if it is, then there needs to be a change in the law to prohibit people temporarily present in,the country from unilaterally conferring citizenship on their children.

It is true. And it isn't unilateral. It's a birthright bestowed by our Constitution.

If you want to take away the rights of the babies you fear and loathe, you will have to change the Constitution.

 

[g5000]

Only once in our history did we change the Constitution to make our country less free. And we reversed that change a few years later.

(Well...if you count the income tax, that's two times )

It is sad there are fearful bigots who want to make our country less free for people they hate. The Constitution should only be changed to make us more free.

 

[Katzndogz]

There has been plenty of time for the recognized Constitutional scholars and experts to examine and analyse Trump's proposal to consider the 14th Amendment and the birthright clause adjustable or interpreted the way Trump needs to make his immigration policy workable. Where are they?
All the reviews I have seen have been by persons without genuine credentials to call themselves constitutional authorities. The one who does have that recognition, Ken Klutkowski, wrote an article for Brietbart that others are distorting. Klutkowski listed reasons why it may be possible to make a challenge that would be strong enough to get in front of a federal court or even SCOTUS. His views are being distorted and used as evidence of the feasibility of Trump's contentions as if they are decided facts, not as points of possible debate in a court.
Perhaps I am missing a review by a known and recognized expert. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link or clue about how to access that review. I am not interested in more reviews by commentators, journalist or bloggers. I am interested in reading a review by someone with experience and recognized as a constitutional authority. Party affiliation does not matter.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

Here is the Congressional Record of the sponsor of the 14th Amendment talking about who is and who is not a citizen: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

All persons born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. He explains only ambassadors and foreign ministers are not under US jurisdiction. He then later adds that American Indians are not under US jurisdiction.

Everyone else is.


Here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship. There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.

When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.

Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.

Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.

The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, as explained by the sponsor of the 14th amendment, their children have birthright citizenship.

The "allegiance to a foreign power" gambit is a red herring which nativists think proves the children born to foreigners are not citizens. However, the fact that we grant citizenship to the children of foreigners here on a visa blows that out of the water. They have misread the law. The "allegiance" exception applies only to ambassadors and foreign ministers.

A foreigner here on a visa plainly does not fall under the "allegiance" exception, and so neither does an illegal immigrant.

The ONLY requirement for birthright is to be born to parents under US jurisdiction. An illegal immigrant, by virtue of being illegal, is intrinsically under US jurisdiction.

Thanks, I have seen and reviewed this material. Frankly, I believe it to be totally irrelevant, especially the much touted comment made by Howard, the so called author of the amendment. Obviously he wasn't the only author because the statements he made two years before the amendments passage were not reflected in the finished product that became the 14th Amendment. Unless some historian uncovers and reviews stacks of old letters and documents and tells us differently, for all we know a bunch of Senators might have approached Howard moments after his statement was made and told him his thoughts were not going to be considered and were being rejected. It's all just speculation. All we have is the finished product to review and that definitely shows rejection of Howard's thoughts on the topic.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

It's also not what the Amendment says. It says AND subject to juisdiction. Otherwise there would be no need for a statement about jurisdiction at all. Or it would have said ARE subject to jurisdiction. Clearly two events confer citizenship. Born in the United States and subject to US jurisdiction.

This means more than just obeying US laws. US citizens go to other countries all the time and do not become citizens of that country simply because they obey its laws.

 

[Rotagilla]

Rota et al, you have been handed your ass in this tread.

The Constitution and the 14th in particular have been explained to you. The great majority of America sees it that way.

You are not going to change it.

no one handed me anything and purposely looking for ways to twist and distort words to "support" their arguments is comical.
you haven't done anything except be a cheerleader...I doubt you have a clue about the topic....just wait for your side to say something snarky and then chime in "yeah!"
Regardless.

Deport. All. Illegals.

watch and see.It'll happen. Another "Operation *******" in 2016

americans are sick and tired of 3rd world peasants illegally entering and that's a fact...

 

[Rotagilla]

There has been plenty of time for the recognized Constitutional scholars and experts to examine and analyse Trump's proposal to consider the 14th Amendment and the birthright clause adjustable or interpreted the way Trump needs to make his immigration policy workable. Where are they?
All the reviews I have seen have been by persons without genuine credentials to call themselves constitutional authorities. The one who does have that recognition, Ken Klutkowski, wrote an article for Brietbart that others are distorting. Klutkowski listed reasons why it may be possible to make a challenge that would be strong enough to get in front of a federal court or even SCOTUS. His views are being distorted and used as evidence of the feasibility of Trump's contentions as if they are decided facts, not as points of possible debate in a court.
Perhaps I am missing a review by a known and recognized expert. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link or clue about how to access that review. I am not interested in more reviews by commentators, journalist or bloggers. I am interested in reading a review by someone with experience and recognized as a constitutional authority. Party affiliation does not matter.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

Here is the Congressional Record of the sponsor of the 14th Amendment talking about who is and who is not a citizen: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

All persons born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. He explains only ambassadors and foreign ministers are not under US jurisdiction. He then later adds that American Indians are not under US jurisdiction.

Everyone else is.


Here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship. There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.

When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.

Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.

Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.

The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, as explained by the sponsor of the 14th amendment, their children have birthright citizenship.

The "allegiance to a foreign power" gambit is a red herring which nativists think proves the children born to foreigners are not citizens. However, the fact that we grant citizenship to the children of foreigners here on a visa blows that out of the water. They have misread the law. The "allegiance" exception applies only to ambassadors and foreign ministers.

A foreigner here on a visa plainly does not fall under the "allegiance" exception, and so neither does an illegal immigrant.

The ONLY requirement for birthright is to be born to parents under US jurisdiction. An illegal immigrant, by virtue of being illegal, is intrinsically under US jurisdiction.

Thanks, I have seen and reviewed this material. Frankly, I believe it to be totally irrelevant, especially the much touted comment made by Howard, the so called author of the amendment. Obviously he wasn't the only author because the statements he made two years before the amendments passage were not reflected in the finished product that became the 14th Amendment. Unless some historian uncovers and reviews stacks of old letters and documents and tells us differently, for all we know a bunch of Senators might have approached Howard moments after his statement was made and told him his thoughts were not going to be considered and were being rejected. It's all just speculation. All we have is the finished product to review and that definitely shows rejection of Howard's thoughts on the topic.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

incorrect...it IS very simple when you look at it objectively without trying to play hyperpartisan amateur lawyer engaging in semantic distortions.

Explain the benefits of allowing anyone who wants to wander across our border stay here?
90 million out of work..more really...
45 million on food stamps
we don't need unskilled 3rd world peasants to support..it's over..those days are done..people are waking up...and it scares you liberals...it's so obvious...comical watching you guys scuttle around trying to be relevant...do carry on!

 

[Camp]

There has been plenty of time for the recognized Constitutional scholars and experts to examine and analyse Trump's proposal to consider the 14th Amendment and the birthright clause adjustable or interpreted the way Trump needs to make his immigration policy workable. Where are they?
All the reviews I have seen have been by persons without genuine credentials to call themselves constitutional authorities. The one who does have that recognition, Ken Klutkowski, wrote an article for Brietbart that others are distorting. Klutkowski listed reasons why it may be possible to make a challenge that would be strong enough to get in front of a federal court or even SCOTUS. His views are being distorted and used as evidence of the feasibility of Trump's contentions as if they are decided facts, not as points of possible debate in a court.
Perhaps I am missing a review by a known and recognized expert. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link or clue about how to access that review. I am not interested in more reviews by commentators, journalist or bloggers. I am interested in reading a review by someone with experience and recognized as a constitutional authority. Party affiliation does not matter.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

Here is the Congressional Record of the sponsor of the 14th Amendment talking about who is and who is not a citizen: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

All persons born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. He explains only ambassadors and foreign ministers are not under US jurisdiction. He then later adds that American Indians are not under US jurisdiction.

Everyone else is.


Here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship. There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.

When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.

Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.

Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.

The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, as explained by the sponsor of the 14th amendment, their children have birthright citizenship.

The "allegiance to a foreign power" gambit is a red herring which nativists think proves the children born to foreigners are not citizens. However, the fact that we grant citizenship to the children of foreigners here on a visa blows that out of the water. They have misread the law. The "allegiance" exception applies only to ambassadors and foreign ministers.

A foreigner here on a visa plainly does not fall under the "allegiance" exception, and so neither does an illegal immigrant.

The ONLY requirement for birthright is to be born to parents under US jurisdiction. An illegal immigrant, by virtue of being illegal, is intrinsically under US jurisdiction.

Thanks, I have seen and reviewed this material. Frankly, I believe it to be totally irrelevant, especially the much touted comment made by Howard, the so called author of the amendment. Obviously he wasn't the only author because the statements he made two years before the amendments passage were not reflected in the finished product that became the 14th Amendment. Unless some historian uncovers and reviews stacks of old letters and documents and tells us differently, for all we know a bunch of Senators might have approached Howard moments after his statement was made and told him his thoughts were not going to be considered and were being rejected. It's all just speculation. All we have is the finished product to review and that definitely shows rejection of Howard's thoughts on the topic.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

It's also not what the Amendment says. It says AND subject to juisdiction. Otherwise there would be no need for a statement about jurisdiction at all. Or it would have said ARE subject to jurisdiction. Clearly two events confer citizenship. Born in the United States and subject to US jurisdiction.

This means more than just obeying US laws. US citizens go to other countries all the time and do not become citizens of that country simply because they obey its laws.

What does jurisdiction mean to you? Do you think people with diplomatic immunity are under US jurisdiction?