United States | News & Politics

Here's section 1 in case anyone wants to read it.

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.

I have read the 14th amendment, and so have the people arguing against birthright citizenship as it exists now. Here's what they have to say. Some excerpts:

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Presumably you disagree with the Heritage Foundation (I'm quite surprised to find myself agreeing with them here) but they are in fact well-informed about the text of the Constitution, its history, and relevant case law.

Edit: Does tagging people like this work? I don't want to post the same reply multiple times.

/u/[email protected]

/u/[email protected]

/u/_[email protected]