But what if my parents' parents were illegal?

Jasse, anyone under US jurisdiction and born here is a citizen

It's black and white to me and to 150 years of jurisprudence

I wasnt asking that.
I was asking where in 14th it says it?

the part where it says us jurisdiction

The first few sentences

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

@DrYuriMom Justicar disagrees with you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHNp8MAaNBM

@Jasse literally in the first 20 words of the amendment

It is meant that they have a legal right to be in the US, not all on US Soil.

The Justicar talks about that in lenth in that Video

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/10/30/no-the-president-cannot-end-birthright-citizenship/?utm_term=.9e74d3b0564b

35 minute video. Oh boy

150 years of jurisprudence, Cat? How far back do you have judicial rulings on the citizenship status of illegal foreigners?

He's already losing me with his assumption that natives do not give first allegiance to the US

But I'll keep going

Native American tribes certainly did not give first allegiance to the US prior to their integration, no.

I'm going back to the debate over the amendment itself

Like I said, I'll keep going even if I don't agree with that. It's a quibble.

If we're at war with a nation then anyone from that country is an enemy agent not subject to US law but rather the laws of war. Spies of countries we are at war with especially can be summarily shot.

So we can declare war on Honduras and Guatemala and everything changes. I said that waaayyy back.

Congress can declare war. Congress can ratify a treaty. These would be perfectly legal since it would change "jurisdiction".

The EEZ is not jurisdiction. It's international waters according to the law of the sea. We push that all the time when we do freedom of navigation exercises.

All the fun in the South China Seas is due to freedom of navigation exercises

In the Marianas they are not a state. It's up to congress to determine what constitutes American citizenship there.

Congress can certainly adjudicate citizenship in a place not a state

All this is at around 17:00

18:00 it's up to the US to say we can't conscript tourists. We could if we wanted to. I'm sure it wouldn't be popular internationally and would reek of impressment.

We could conscript illegals if we wanted to. We just don't want to. They are subject to our laws because they are here.

So up to 19:30 he hasn't convinced me at all

What makes you think we can conscript illegals? Pretty sure we can't do that to legal residents that aren't citizens.

They're in our borders and subject to our laws

We can conscript legal residents absolutely

Being subject to our laws and being able to be drafted isn't the same thing

If you have a green card you can be conscripted

The selective service doesn't include them but there's nothing stopping us from passing such a law

"Nothing stopping us from passing such a law"

Green cards serve in the military all the time

You also said legal residents. That by definition does not include illegals

So through 23:00 I'm not convinced of anything other than what I was saying before. Everything he has said, to me, supports what I'd been saying. Born in a state and subject to our laws - citizen.

But again, nothing stops us constitutionally from illegals serving in our military. And they are clearly subject to our laws by the fact that we prosecute them for crimes.