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.

I'd have to look up the specific law, but it's much older.

But if you take the 14th away, how far back do you go?

The...first generation back?

you don't go back, you go forward

Your parents.

@DrYuriMom where exactly in 14th admentment it says that illegal aliens kids should get citizenship?

anyone being born from now on, must be a us citizen first

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