No. of Recommendations: 2
So this doesn't really support birthright citizenship as the Left claims.
The status of the child's parent(s) seems to be significant.
In Wong Van Ark, the parents had to be legal residents.
In the Canal legislation, one or both had to be a citizen.
When a baby is born the the citizenship of one or both parents, or their status as a legal resident, seems to have a significance and bears on whether or not the child should have citizenship conferred upon itself.
That could tie into the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. as stated in the Constitution.
Are illegal immigrants in the U.S. "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S."? In at least a limited fashion, yes--if they commit crimes in the U.S. they are subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts for purposes of adjudicating the criminal charges. And obviously they are subject to the jurisdiction of the immigration courts for deportation proceedings.
But, are they subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. in the sense intended by the Constitution in the 14th Amendment?
The specific purpose of the Amendment was to confer citizenship on freed former slaves. It would be ridiculous to retroactively try to claim that the intention of the drafters of the 14th Amendment was to confer automatic US citzenship on US born children of illegal aliens who snuck into the country.
