Robert’s and Barrett did as expected
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (83)
sorted by:
Why would you think that "under the jurisdiction of" included illegals in the 19th century?
Because quite clearly, 'under the jurisdiction of' includes illegals. If an illegal commits a crime, where will he be prosecuted? Illegals are not like diplomats or red Indians.
The authors of the constitution did not declare birthright citizenship to be illegal because the very concept is anathema to any coherent definition of nation or citizen.
To be clear: you think we need to choose between "everyone can pop out a kid on our soil and that kid is automatically a citizen of this country" and "you can't enforce your own laws on your own land if the perpetrator is foreign born". You think the correct interpretation of an arguably vague or ambiguous clause should result in us facing this decision.
No, I think birthright citizenship is really stupid, and not just for anchor babies.
But as far as I understand it, that's what "under the jurisdiction of" means.
"Clearly" according to you, a 20th century immigrant to Europe. I'm going to need to see more documentation.
Clearly, and with argument.
BTW, Europe doesn't have birthright citizenship, so we're clearly doing something right.