"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction <http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS> thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
I think most of the confusion about the issue comes from the "jurisdiction thereof" clause. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868. Here is a summary of a case almost 20 years later. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Supreme Court denied the birthright citizenship claim of an American Indian. The court ruled that *being born in the territory of the United States is not sufficient for citizenship *; those who wish to claim citizenship by birth must be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The court's majority held that the children of Native Americans were: "no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. Here are some quotes and from and info about some of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, *except* that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments. Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said *Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes* meant *every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.* If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant. 'How can people say they want to have judges that "uphold the Constitution" and then do something to blatantly in the face of the plain wording of that very same document?' Based on the case above and quotes from the framers of the amendment, it doesn't seem to be blatantly flying in the face of the amendment, unless you count the Constitution as a "living and breathing" document, which I do not. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America#cite_note-1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317029 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
