No, they aren't. Take the example of children of diplomats. They may be born here, but they are the children of foreign citizens subject to the laws of their own country. Their presence here is irrelevant to their birth, just as it is for an American born overseas.
Countless children were and are still born to American servicemen in Germa…
No, they aren't. Take the example of children of diplomats. They may be born here, but they are the children of foreign citizens subject to the laws of their own country. Their presence here is irrelevant to their birth, just as it is for an American born overseas.
Countless children were and are still born to American servicemen in Germany and Korea. But they are Americans, not Germans or Koreans.
Now if diplomats who are ALLOWED to be here can be subject to their home country's laws, how much more so a trespasser? Because literally every illegal alien is both a trespasser and a criminal, and the accident of their children's birth doesn't change the fact that they have no right to be here whatsoever.
You might as well say that if I steal your car it's now legally mine.
If you steal my car, and I can prove that in court, then it doesn't matter whether or not you're a citizen or a temporary resident or an illegal immigrant, you're going to be found guilty of that crime and punished under the laws which prohibit that act.
Your argument about diplomats is a distraction from the facts about the jurisdiction to which illegal immigrants are subject.
Even though you're right and they are trespassing and are criminals, they're criminal trespassers according to *checks notes*... US immigration laws.
So while diplomats are given immunity and are therefore not subject to the laws of their host nation, illegal immigrants are offered no such privilege.
You are dancing around the issue. In what reality are illegal immigrants not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the united states? By what unnatural principle are their children not subject to those same laws. Their children are born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
To interpret the amendment otherwise would require mental gymnastics of Olympic proportions.
No, they aren't. Take the example of children of diplomats. They may be born here, but they are the children of foreign citizens subject to the laws of their own country. Their presence here is irrelevant to their birth, just as it is for an American born overseas.
Countless children were and are still born to American servicemen in Germany and Korea. But they are Americans, not Germans or Koreans.
Now if diplomats who are ALLOWED to be here can be subject to their home country's laws, how much more so a trespasser? Because literally every illegal alien is both a trespasser and a criminal, and the accident of their children's birth doesn't change the fact that they have no right to be here whatsoever.
You might as well say that if I steal your car it's now legally mine.
If you steal my car, and I can prove that in court, then it doesn't matter whether or not you're a citizen or a temporary resident or an illegal immigrant, you're going to be found guilty of that crime and punished under the laws which prohibit that act.
Your argument about diplomats is a distraction from the facts about the jurisdiction to which illegal immigrants are subject.
Even though you're right and they are trespassing and are criminals, they're criminal trespassers according to *checks notes*... US immigration laws.
So while diplomats are given immunity and are therefore not subject to the laws of their host nation, illegal immigrants are offered no such privilege.
You are dancing around the issue. In what reality are illegal immigrants not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the united states? By what unnatural principle are their children not subject to those same laws. Their children are born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
To interpret the amendment otherwise would require mental gymnastics of Olympic proportions.