Subject: Re: I can't wait...

You're mixing up issues in a confusing and ambiguous area of the law.

There has to be a difference between simply being born in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of it. Or else there wouldn't be two distinct clauses in the Constitution.

Lambo, PoorGuy, and Marco, wrt the "under the jurisdiction of", that was added to the 14th, to clarify the Civil Rights Act of 1866, to make clear that people with diplomatic immunity could not squirt out US citizens, while in the US.

Remember when Colorado tried to use the insurrection clause to keep Trump off the ballot? SCOTUS held, unanimously, that Colorado did not have jurisdiction. A 5-4 majority also held that Section 3 is not enforceable. Section 5 of the 14th requires Congress to pass enforcing legislation. Congress never passed enforcing legislation regarding the insurrection clause, so it's unenforceable.

Congress *did* enact enforcing legislation for Section 1, in 1952.

Immigration and Nationality Act

https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and...

The act says, under Title III:

Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years,...

So, being an act of Congress, without which, Section 1 of the 14th is not enforceable, seems that an act of Congress is all that is needed to ammend the definition of who is a citizen.


Steve