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.

Only if we grant them immunity to our laws are they no longer under our jurisdiction.

Wtf "In addition, non-US citizen men between the ages of 18 and 25 (inclusive) living in the United States must register. This includes permanent residents, refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented immigrants.[2]"

Off Wikipedia

😃

Like I said, they are subject to our laws.

They are in our jurisdiction.

Which amendment is currently being argued about with this birthright citizenship?

The 15th?

The 14th

The first sentence thereof

Okay, that's an after the fact justification though. The original arguments from the 14th exclude illegals

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So the laws that come after that say that illegals are subject to stuff are unconstitutional

Actually, I disagree with the original intent.

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

Lol Wapo

The most conservative editorialist on their staff

@DrYuriMom There are already some things that prove you wrong with "even illegal aliens". "wherein there reside". And "Citizens of the United States".

it never says anything about illegal aliens.

It's hard to disagree with the intent of the original framers of the 14th when they state pretty explicitly that there are lots of exceptions to who becomes a naturalized citizen

Saying that anchor babies are fine is blatantly ignoring their writing

But with birth they are explicitly clear.

And they explicitly said that there are exceptions

You miss the Intent of the Text, wich is important. Justicar says that at the end of the Video

For naturalization, not birth. The only exception to birth are those not under our jurisdiction.

And you're making post hoc justifications for illegals being subject to our jurisdiction.

@DrWittMDPhD , I'm not "blatantly ignoring" anything that hasn't been "ignored" for 150 years. With that much precedent I'm not sure if it's "ignoring" or if it simply isn't there.

Yes, all that precedent is unconstitutional

Only if you essentially ignore the 14th amendment which says that anyone born here and subject to our laws is a citizen.

The gal of this cat. Saying that I'm the one ignoring the 14th amendment when it clearly mentions that the people have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The argument here is about jurisdiction, not that everyone born here is a citizen

We are **supposed** to be arguing about who falls under this jurisdiction.

Can you prosecute an illegal alien for murder?

In other words: Babys born to US Soldiers in Germany, Japan and Honolulu are not US Citizens, right @DrYuriMom

We're supposed to send them to their country when they commit crimes on our soil. We Extradite them.

we actually do routinely deport murderers

@DrWittMDPhD , if we ratify a treaty with a country that grants all their nationals immunity to our laws then I totally agree with you.

Not being allowed to murder in the US while not being a citizen isn't the only thing that makes someone under the jurisdiction of the US

You are being super reductionist

Stefan, actually babies born in hospitals in other countries have to be naturalized, even if one parent is in the military