[lmm]

> the 14th extended to the children of outright criminals

A criminal is very much "subject to the jurisdiction of" the US, far more so than an illegal immigrant who if caught will likely not be imprisoned or even tried, but simply deported.

> It is simply impossible to read the debate and argue that Congress' understanding of the amendment didn't include exactly the group people today are trying to exclude.

What Congress believed at the time is not binding on today's courts if they don't want it to be, as the history of interpretation of many other parts of the constitution shows.

[Dylan16807]

> A criminal is very much "subject to the jurisdiction of" the US, far more so than an illegal immigrant who if caught will likely not be imprisoned or even tried, but simply deported.

Deported using......jurisdiction?

You think if they do some big crime the US is going to ignore it and do nothing but give a referral because oops no jurisdiction?

This argument doesn't work.

[lmm]

> Deported using......jurisdiction?

No, just deported. When the Navy shoots at Somali pirates they don't worry about jurisdiction. The left has been at pains to point out that illegal entry is not a crime and border patrol is not law enforcement, but that cuts both ways.

> You think if they do some big crime the US is going to ignore it and do nothing but give a referral because oops no jurisdiction?

If they do a medium-sized crime the US ignores it and just deports them, that much happens all the time already, no-one wants more people in prison.

If they do a big enough crime then I'm sure the US would find some way to charge them, but that's no different from what they do for full-on foreigners who never come anywhere near the US. E.g. if they kill a US citizen on US soil then the US would claim jurisdiction on that basis, even if the perpetrator stayed on the other side of the border the whole time.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>You think if they do some big crime the US is going to ignore it and do nothing but give a referral because oops no jurisdiction?

If you were being reasonable, you might realize that short of those crimes deserving the death penalty, our country is better off just deporting. I don't want to spend $50,000/year (and up) on sequestering someone from our population, when deportation accomplishes that same result. Just make sure the deportation is successful. Send them with a crate of evidence for local prosecutors (who, in theory, should want to prosecute them... unless they really were sending them here to destablize our country with sabotage and rape).

This would remain true for me, even if it had no impact on citizenship of their children.

[Dylan16807]

I'm not saying there's a pressing need to prosecute and imprison, I'm saying the option exists because the US has jurisdiction. The US is not forced to do nothing about the crime.

And I could imagine situations where it makes sense to prosecute and then deport with a suspended sentence, which keeps costs relatively low but also gives them a much bigger incentive to never come back.

[Aloisius]

I didn't say anything about the parents being imprisoned, tried or even caught.

Indeed, Senator Cowan feared "Gypsies" who "settle as trespassers wherever they go" and whose "cunning is of such a transcendent character that no skill can serve to correct it or punish it." He argued the amendment to make those born here citizens would prevent their removal, as a class.

He went beyond that of course. His diatribe includes floods of "Mongol race", Chinese, Australians and even cannibals.

Really, the arguments against jus soli today almost sound like they're channeling the man.