No. of Recommendations: 3
That's incorrect, Steve.
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.
By simple logic, being born in the U.S. does not automatically mean the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
That phrase needs to be defined by the Supreme Court.
Stop assuming the conclusion you want.
I have repeatedly said it could go either way or it could be punted entirely.
Given the current make up of this court, I would prepare yourself to be disappointed.
