Nice overview of history of 14th Amendment including acknowledgement by very anti immigrant Congressman that any child born to illegal immigrants would be US citizens. From laws that banned Blacks, Irish, Chinese, Native Americans etc... all passed under the idea that 14th A gave their children born here US citizenship. The law is the law despite what herr trump thinks. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/07/supreme-court-history-lesson-birthright-citizenship.html
there is never us citizenship, it exists in maga minds rent free… George Washington was born a British subject but became the first American president after leading the Continental Army to victory in the American Revolutionary War.While born in colonial Virginia, he was initially a subject of the British Crown.
Suppose I were to accept that argument.......then....... By what authority are the children of foreign diplomats excluded from citizenship by being born on U.S. soil......which is the current and historical situation in the U.S.? Upheld by the courts and enshrined in statute BUT not embedded in specific language in the Constitution?
ET trolls and numerous hacks including, attorneys with agendas have been promoting the birthright citizenship lie. This knowledgeable attorney debunks the lies and explains what the 14th amendment is really about.
Why Justice Jackson is a fish out of water on the Supreme Court https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-justice-jackson-fish-out-water-supreme-court
This is an easy question. Foreign diplomats (and their families) have legal diplomatic immunity and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Certain Indian tribes also fall into this carve out. “Law don’t go ‘round here, law dog.” - Ike Clanton, Tombstone the movie
Jeez.........have not seen you in a while Comrade then you re-appear to give an extremely lame answer. You might need to rest up a bit more before engaging with the forum. I asked what the source of authority was diplomatic immunity given that it was not specified in the Constitution and reply that is an easy question because diplomats have immunity. Ahh.....you might want to rest up and give an actual answer.....which will be wrong. But we will deal with that when we get there. Not sure, either, why you pulled that Indian tribes analogy out of your arse. Under Article 1, sec 8 the Constitution at least recognizes them as separate entities that can be negotiated with settle various matters. But El Concho Ochu and other are arguing that the Constitution says ALL persons born in the U.S. are citizens PERIOD and that no one- not the supreme court, not congress, not the president can tinker with that. I am asking, okay, if I were to accept that for the sake of argument what is your source and authority for the children of diplomats being excluded from citizenship? Come back when you have an actual answer that goes with the actual question.
Yeah it’s getting kooky all over. Best to let the weirdos figure out what the “source authority” is in their own. It’s kind like don’t feed the animals. Beat to find your own way. You’re pulling an Amy Coney con. Trying to sell us a bunch of nonsensical arguments to replace 150 years of law.
don't listen to idiots who just want to pretend they didn't fail basic history...trump may hate the constitution... but he has to follow it.
You conclude that because you cannot follow the logic of what I am saying. Others can. The Ocho's and lefties of your ilk argue that the 14th amendment is absolute and if you were born here you are a citizen - period. They/you argue that the "and subject to the jurisdiction" is just some added terminology that Congress cannot tinker with (probably the president cannot, so let's say Congress to keep it more solid). But why was that language added to the amendment if it added no conditions? Why was the amendment not written to just say "born in the country" and leave it there? The answer is because Congress has power to set some criteria/ definition around what subject to the jurisdiction means. JUST AS THEY DID WITH THE CHILDREN OF DIPLOMATS. There is nothing about the children of diplomats in the U.S. and we are talking about children who were definitely born the country. So how the hell can you argue that everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen- no exceptions- and then agree that the children of diplomats are not citizens- because obviously Congress has some power to place further conditions beyond the raw "born in the u.s." language??? Duh! The correct understanding is that Congress has the power to- if they passed legislation- distinguish between legal residents versus unlawful interlopers such as border crashers or chinese squat for a day birth tourists etc when considering who is properly accepted and being allowed to be subject to the jurisdiction. You and your ilk dismiss this but then when I ask you again about the children of diplomats not automatically being citizens you start saying stupid things and pointing over in other directions. Tell me again where the authority to exempt the children of diplomats resides. Oh, I see, Congress made a decision that they are not subject to jurisdiction and that the 14th that allegedly provides citizenship to EVERYONE born here has limits. Note that I am not saying that Congress's authority to limit is unlimited. Just that it is absurd to think that they have no power to define who is subject to jurisdiction. It would have to be for a reason. And being the child or temporary and illegal interlopers or chinese birth squatters for the day are plenty valid reason. If you think for one frigging minute that Alito or Barrett or Kavanaugh would have ANY objections to ending hit and run birthers from citizenship, you be deluded. Of course, you and your ilk are deluded. I do believe that the president would lose an argument at court where he is the sole decider of who is and is not subject. But in rejecting that argument the court would/will say that that is for Congress decide. Which would still make the same point, that language of the 14th is not absolute - Congress can make reasonable and defensible conditions as to is subject to the jurisdiction for immigration purposes. And no, arguing that everyone getting off a plane is subject to arrest if they commit a crime is not proof of subject to jurisdiction for immigration purposes.