Print is all we have.

So if our interpretation is so wrong how has it lasted for 150 years with a trail of precedent all through that time? This is not a new issue.

because it wasn't really an issue until recently, because the immigration act of ~1964 or so....

And again, if you were willing to remove illegals from US jurisdiction, I think it'd pass muster.

I...I'm not sure what you mean.

Its the fucking job of the Gouvernment to remove illegal aliens.

But as long as they are subject to US law, I really think we're stuck

as its the job of Security hired by a company to remove illegal entrys.

Illegals don't need to be removed from US jurisdiction. They are not under US jurisdiction in the first place.

As long as we can try an illegal for murder, they are in our jurisdiction

If we grant illegals diplomatic immunity like we do embassy staff then problem solved

That could be done by treaty

I don't understand. Do we not prosecute foreign nationals for crimes done to American people or property?

And a treaty, as ratified by the Senate, becomes part of the constitution

there is no problem. you are creating the problem through needless legalese.

@DrYuriMom What do you say about the Children born by Diplomats in the US?
If we follow your logic, they should be US Citizens, right?

they are not citizens. they are not residents. they are not tourists. they are not natives. they have no legal status, except as fucking invaders.

would you think it rational to either a) put a viking raider on trial or b) give them immunity? no. you'd just kill them or drive them off and have done with it.

No, Stefan. Diplomat children are specifically the *only* children not covered by the 14th

```there is no problem. you are creating the problem through needless legalese.```
There is a Problem. When you take the "are Indians White" Case, it would mean that the Citzienship of all illegaly born here could be revoked, wich means that tens of millions of people could be deportet and loose their Citizenship. that IS a Problem.

And foreigners, even with your current comma quibble.

that's not a problem to me

```No, Stefan. Diplomat children are specifically the only children not covered by the 14th```
And why is there a difference in your argument between Diplomats and Illegal Aliens?
Both are not considered to be residents of the US.

Unless *all* the commas are wrong.

if your parents stole something and gave it to you, you don't get to keep it.

Atkins, my ancestors came to Virginia in the 1640s. They didn't have a visa. So I'm an illegal?

right of conquest

Uh huh

Speaking of stealing

and unless you want to grant right of conquest to the entire god damned planet maybe we shouldn't lose like the natives did

Then perhaps we need to pass another amendment

Cat, it's highly disingenuous to compare the incredibly decentralized and in feuding Native American tribes to the United States government.

I didn't

Then I don't understand. Why do you contest the legality of your citizenship?

Stefan, diplomats are not subject to US laws. That are not in our jurisdiction.

I don't contest the legality of my citizenship. Under the 14th I was born here. I'm a citizen.

Were your parents United States citizens?

Yes. And going back to the 1640's I can trace my ancestry in Virgina.

Watch the god damn video, Cat!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHNp8MAaNBM

Okay. So then it doesn't even involve the 14th amendment, Cat.

He did an analysis and cites everything you need to know.