Or, in population: 13%.
This seems pretty clear to me. How else could you interpret it?
>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
And if you go back and read what the drafters of that amendment stated they meant on the floor of congress, they did not intend it to mean Jus soli. The idea was so ridiculous at the time that no one thought it worth writing it down. Pity. The controlling Supreme Court case spends a lot of time talking about English Common Law and what "subject to the jurisdiction of the King" meant. It is not hard to believe, at all, that the current SCOTUS may have a different interpretation than "anyone who happens to be born across this line on the map is a US citizen and is granted all rights, responsibilities, and privileges thereof".
Certainly that clause has weight. It excludes diplomats, members of occupying armies, and members of Native tribes. But it seems strange to apply it to others, unless you’re also going to say that they have immunity from our laws as well.
Howard, who introduced the Amendment, said this[1]:
>This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
>Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States ... If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.
Doubly funny that he added a line in that speech where he thinks all ambiguity is gone.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard#Speech_on_the_...
[2] https://archive.org/details/the-congressional-globe-39th-con...
They were absolutely aware that is what it. Indeed, they stated it outright:
> The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.
- Senator John Conness (R-CA), May 29, 1866 during Senate debates on citizenship amendment introduced by Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI)
The only real change came when they worried that citizenship would be extended to Indians in tribes we had treaties saying we wouldn't do just that leading to a change that excluded them.
People born in the Germany made up about 3.5% of the US population (1.11 million) in 1860. While they were one of the largest groups, many states/territories had large percentages of other non-British people like California, where 9% of the population was born in China. Then you have territories like New Mexico where most of the population had been born in Mexico.
Regardless, the debates for the 14th Amendment make it absolutely clear they understood they understood a child born to, say, Chinese parents in the US would get citizenship.
But ideally we wouldn't be making them orphans.
There ya go, the humane solution to this.
Jus solis is a bit like right of way at American intersections: the person that's been there the longest goes first. Whaaaaaa? What if two cars arrive at the same time? What if 4 arrive at roughly at the same time? What is people can't agree who arrived first? A lot of the rest of the world gives way to the car coming from the right. Which is obvious and basically non-negotiable.
Similar idea here.
All this status quo is doing is creating all sort of gray area cruelty. Just be open about it, become anti-immigration, but make it fair. The US is basically the only developed Western country that I know of where you don't even have fixed time frame to become a citizen. In the EU + CANZUK if you live lawfully in a country you become a citizen in N years. The N is well known ahead of time.
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
All people in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US (other than some very unusual situation like diplomats and, in the past, some Native American tribes).
You're this <> close from becoming a dictatorship, things could become very silly regardless.
If anything, I'd say Trump is just a silly Sulla. Sulla was somewhat benevolent, he retired. But he paved the way for Caesar and Augustus (people who really meant business, especially Augustus).
If the country turns into a dictatorship, then it is just rule by dictatorial fiat. But in that case this whole conversation is sort of pointless because we wouldn’t have democracy and our opinions about how things should be run wouldn’t matter anymore.
Alternatives include arranging legal custody for the child and to stay in the US with a relative (as one family was attempting), or finding a legal way for them to leave the country with their parents.
Instead, it seems the government is rushing to illegally remove these children before the courts can intervene
That's the last 4 months really.