![I'm sure it won't matter. [625x758 - 107KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/Zgvee6.jpg){kind=link}
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.
The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of another country, which anchor babies definitely are (their parents' country/countries).
Also true, they are not natural born citizens.
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does NOT mean "not subject to any other jurisdictions".
Is English a 2nd language for you?
That's exactly what it means.
You are subject to the jurisdiction of your county, state and federal governments. What world do you live in where extremely clear sentences take on new meanings if you don't like the message?
But the claim isn’t that the parents become citizens when an anchor baby is born, only that the anchor baby becomes a citizen. And the baby would not automatically be a citizen of the home(s) of its parents and so would only be subject to the jurisdiction of they are, which is the United States.
That's some egalitarian bullshit reading of it. Before the retarded open borders freaks got involved everyone understood that children of foreign nations were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their parents' countries, not the United States.
And, yes, they would be citizens of the country of their parents, since that's how citizenship works in almost every other nation on the planet.
Well you’re the only ones with birthright citizenship I think. And you still have to register for citizenship everywhere else. It’s obviously easy if you’re born there to native parents, but it’s not automatically granted. Sure most babies don’t even have a name to grant the citizenship to for the first few days, and what does a baby actually need citizenship for anyway?
(post is archived)