Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics


Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (61) |
Author: albaby1 🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 48481 
Subject: Re: "blatantly" unconstitutional
Date: 01/24/2025 4:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 6
But what about birth tourism? What about people here illegally? Neither of those were a thing back in 1868.

But all of those people are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So they're all covered by the 14th Amendment. It's not legally relevant whether they have any other attribute. The 14th Amendment doesn't say that it doesn't apply to people who are here on tourist visas. Or who crossed the border illegally (or who crossed the border legally, but overstayed their visas). Or any other category of people, whether it was a thing in 1868 or not.

I'm not sure what you (or the folks pushing this theory) thinks the ambiguity is. This clause of the 14th Amendment only has one condition. It says affirmatively that it applies anyone born in the U.S. who is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. All of those people are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. So they'd all be covered.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (61) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds