Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Republican Hypocrisy on 14th Amendment And 2nd Amendment
Trump and company have said a million times they want strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution. Right? They just want to stick to the texts especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. That's their argument with the Second Amendment about bearing arms. Don't apply it to now and the reality that we have. It only means what it says. And yet now when it comes to the Fourteenth Amendment they want the opposite. Don't look at what the Framers said, look at what it means today. They never envisioned this.
This isn't about changing the Fourteenth Amendment. It's really about reinterpreting in light of a new reality of illegal entrants. 100% correct CP
funny I have already asked this question here ... no answers shocking
|
Wrong again. It is exactly an application of the text "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," not a reinterpretation of it. That phrase was inserted into the 14A separately written from the exclusion of children of various foreign diplomats. Clearly, it is separate from the diplomats and official foreign government representatives. So the phrase encompasses ALL those who in some way are under the jurisdiction of a foreign country, which would include entrants who have not been naturalized.
That same meaning applies today. Naturalization then, as now, did not occur immediately upon entry. Then it was typically a matter of years in residence. Today it also requires some form of official documentation. In neither instance would someone crossing the border without official permission immediately become a citizen. So would still be under the jurisdiction of the country from which they came. So any baby of theirs born in that time before naturalization would be born of those who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., but to the jurisdiction of another country, at least until they were naturalized.
Hybrid Mode
