Sure, and then we could declare that up is down and left is right and white is black.
If you want to end birthright citizenship, you’re gonna need a fucking Constitutional Amendment.
Do not these children also have citizenship in their parents’ home countries?
I know dual citizenship isn’t supposed to be a thing for the USA, but there are many who effectively are dual citizens.
For dual citizenship for the kids it would depend on which country their parents are from.
The US does not make you give up your citizenship in other countries when you get US citizenship.
I really think SCOTUS will rule 9-0 or 8-1 that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. But I will reiterate that people who are definitely visitors(tourists, students, temporary workers) may not be covered and it would be interesting to see how SCOTUS ruled on that.
Ah, but the child isn’t an illegal alien, is it? It didn’t illegally cross the border. And the 14th restriction, “subject to the jurisdiction”, applies to the child, not the parents. Regardless of the status of the parents, how do you separate the child from coverage from the 14th amendment?
Could this be defined legislatively? By no means am I experienced in Constitutional Law.
So your solution to children of illegal immigrants becoming citizens is to declare that illegal immigrants don’t have to follow US laws while in our country?
Are you not seeing why this is a stupid idea?
Ummm, they don’t follow US laws while in this country, which has to mean something. I don’t think you realize just how many laws you have to break to survive as an illegal alien in this country.
But if someone isn’t subject to a jurisdiction, they are immune from arrest. For example, Saudi Arabia can’t arrest me for drinking this beer I have right here for the sole reason that I am not subject to its jurisdiction.
Visitors are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A tourist who chucked a firecracker into a mailbox, or a foreign student who punched a federal agent at the federal courthouse, or a temporary worker who participated in wire fraud, would find that out veeeery quickly. 
Actually, foreigners are also under our jurisdiction. We just indicted several Russians for interfering with our elections even though they are in Russia. So your definition of jurisdiction doesn’t really hold up. As I understood it, “jurisdiction” means which country you are a subject of.
I’d also note again that the 1898 decision cited residency as a key factor. If it was just open and shut, baby was born here, baby is a citizen, there would have been no need to cite residency.
No. The United States has jurisdiction over everyone on its territory, with the exception of foreign diplomats. Due to treaties and practice, those individuals can commit crimes on US soil with legal impunity (although the US can expel them or insist that their home country waive this immunity under various threats). It’s for this reason that the Turkish government couldn’t just bust down the door of the Saudi embassy and arrest the consular officials for murder recently. Accordingly, the children of consular officials don’t get birthright citizenship for being born on US soil. The drafters of the 14th Amendment also considered children of foreign occupying armies, which really hasn’t come up that much, but it’s the same basic principle that the US government has no authority over hostile foreign armies. We’ve got jurisdiction over visitors, students, business people, etc. though. Edit - in the case of the Russians, they’re alleged to have committed crimes within the US, exposing them to arrest by US authorities. We wouldn’t have any authority to arrest Russians for committing crimes entirely in Russia.
Then there’s the other side of jurisdiction: people being under jurisdiction of other country’s laws even while here. Americans are subject to US laws when traveling overseas. For example, if you have sex with children where child prostitution is legal or at least not considered important enough to prosecute, you are still subject to being charged with sexual assault on a child when you get home. That’s why “jurisdiction” should probably be read to mean “sole jurisdiction”.
Huh? Why would I think you are a bigot?
What’s wrong with on-base doctors?
There are many who are in fact dual citizens. I know one, she lives just down the street. She was born in Montana, but escaped.
If they aren’t subject to US jurisdiction, under what authority will they be detained and deported?
U.S. law simply does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another.
There is the dual taxation problem…but that is not a prohibition on being a dual citizen.
Except that’s not what it says and hasn’t ever been interpreted that way. For instance, the aforementioned Wong Kim Ark’s parents were not US citizens and were in fact prohibited by law from ever becoming naturalized; Wong also had a claim to Chinese citizenship at birth.
Where did you get this understanding? Did you read it somewhere, or did you just think about it a little and decide “jurisdiction means which country you are a subject of”?
I’m just saying: think back and see if you can remember where it was that you heard this, or did you just kind of assume it?
No one is subject to “sole jurisdiction” tho. I can’t scheme to defraud Canadians out of their money from my home in Las Vegas and then claim that Canada has no jurisdiction over me for the crimes I committed against their citizens.
That’s why your Russian indictment example doesn’t hold up: they were indicted for crimes they committed against the US and its citizens.
There is no “sole jurisdiction” when someone commits crimes; hell, committing the crime is what brought them under the jurisdiction of that other country in the first place.
I don’t want them to follow US laws while in our country; I want them to be deported.
Let’s put this another way: are those of you seemingly implying that anyone present on US soil is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” saying that that clause is totally superfluous? I mean, according to you, it effectively says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” What do you think the framers of that amendment put “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in there for? Clearly, they thought there could exist persons who were born or naturalized in the United States but who were NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Who might those persons be?