In 1866, the author of the 14th Amendment –Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan – explained and clarified it's purpose. Here's what he said...
Howard wrote “that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Interesting.
Right, and "subject to the jurisdiction [of the US]" was included in the 14th Amendment specifically to exclude "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States." If they intended to say that anyone born in the US under any circumstance was automatically a citizen, they wouldn't have included that part of the text, it serves no other purpose.
If they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, then our police and courts can not arrest them, charge them, or bring them to trial. Let alone imprison them. They ALL have "diplomatic immunity", basically.
Not true, if you're a visitor in another jurisdiction, you're still legally obligated to obey their laws, they just don't "own you," basically, the way they own a citizen. If they don't like you, they can deport you home, they can't kick a citizen out. And if an American is living outside the US, you still have to file US taxes because you're still subject to their jurisdiction and your location doesn't change that.
It's easy to be furious, when you have blind hate..
I love how he says "of course," .... ironic.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Point is, as of now, anyone born on American soil is an citizen. I have no problem changing the 14th to not consider anchor babies citizens, but trump does not have the authority to unilaterally change the constitution. If he wants it changed, go through proper channels.
The 14th Amendment doesn't need to be changed, it just needs to be correctly interpreted. Most people haven't given much thought to what it actually means to be subject to the jurisdiction of a country, but it's a fairly simple concept. I'll see if I can explain.
As a Canadian, if I visit the US I don't become subject to US jurisdiction. I don't have a right to work, or vote, and I don't owe them taxes, because I'm just a visitor, I'm subject to Canadian jurisdiction. Just as if you go to some other country, you are still subject to US jurisdiction, you're obligated to fill out a US tax return no matter where on earth you are. So which jurisdiction you're subject to has nothing to do with your location, as the IRS will be happy to remind you if you ever decide to spend some time overseas.
WRONG!
You DO become subject to US jurisdiction.
You break a law, we can arrest you - charge you - and bring you to trial.
If you purchase anything in a state with sales tax ... you WILL pay that tax.
If you purchase a "vacation home" in a state with property tax ... you WILL pay that tax.
..
"Jurisdiction" (legal definition): the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal cases.
A visitor is obligated to obey the laws of whatever jurisdiction they're visiting, but you don't automatically become an American if you visit the US. Yes, if you purchase a property, that property is subject to US jurisdiction, so you'll have to pay property taxes, but unless you've been granted a green card, you're not allowed to work and do not have to file taxes with the US, but rather with the jurisdiction you belong to.
All citizens of a country are subject to the jurisdiction of their country, not just diplomats. If you go overseas, that doesn't mean you stop being an American. Do you think the IRS lets borders get in the way of taxing you? It doesn't matter where you go, you are still subject to their jurisdiction. The only way to get out of their jurisdiction is to become a citizen of some other country and then formally renounce your US citizenship. Once all the paperwork clears, then you're out of their jurisdiction. And if I take a trip to the US, I don't automatically become part of their jurisdiction, I don't owe them taxes, or have the right to work, or to vote, because I'm just a visitor from another jurisdiction.
A legal immigrant is under the jurisdiction of the country they immigrated to because they've been legally accepted into that jurisdiction. A foreigner who is a visitor (or an intruder) has not been legally accepted into that jurisdiction and as such is not subject to it, but rather subject to some other jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is really a question of which country legally owns you, and you can tell that by which one is asking you for taxes.
Democrats would agree with you - when it suits their purposes. Like Harry Reid in 1993 -
Republicans would agree with you - if they're pretty sure that the media won't get mad at them, and if the polls suggest that it's a good idea, AND they're not up for re-election for two years.
Trump is my man! He alone has gnads large enough to bring it up and force the issue. Why? Because it makes sense to do so! The recent interpretation of 14 simply makes no sense. Get here, squirt out a kid and it's an American? - Unless you're an ambassador! What if only the ambassador's wife? Or, paramour? What about the ambassador's daughter? Close friend?