>>/180124/,  >>/180125/,  >>/180126/,  >>/180127/,  >>/180128/,  >>/180129/,  >>/180130/,  >>/180131/,  >>/180132/,  >>/180133/,  >>/180134/,  >>/180135/,  >>/180136/,  >>/180137/,  >>/180138/,  >>/180139/,  >>/180140/,  >>/180141/,  >>/180142/,  >>/180143/,  >>/180144/,  >>/180145/,  >>/180146/,  >>/180147/,  >>/180148/,  >>/180149/,  >>/180150/,  >>/180151/,  >>/180152/,  >>/180153/,  >>/180154/,  >>/180155/,  >>/180156/,  >>/180157/,  >>/180158/,  >>/180159/,  >>/180160/,  >>/180161/,  >>/180162/,  >>/180163/,  >>/180164/,  >>/180165/,  >>/180166/,  >>/180167/,  >>/180168/,  >>/180169/,  >>/180170/,  >>/180171/,  >>/180172/,  >>/180173/,  >>/180174/,  >>/180175/,  >>/180176/,  >>/180177/,  >>/180178/,  >>/180179/,  >>/180180/,  >>/180181/,  >>/180182/,  >>/180183/,  >>/180184/
You have to be within the jurisdiction of the United States, no other country.
Clearly, this would exclude children of aliens, legal or illegal. 
Of course, we're talking about children of illegal aliens right now. 
There's no evidence at all that the 14th Amendment's use of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to alter the meaning or the intent of the language in the 1866 Civil Rights Act. 
Well, why did they change it? 
Because it goes through a different process. 
But they didn't change its intent or meaning. How do we know? 
Because they said so.
Third, Senators Trumbull and Howard, remember them? 
Two of the principal authors of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment stated that, quote, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States means not owing allegiance to anybody else."
Got that? Allegiance.
How on earth is this an automatic grant of birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens?
It's not. And it was never intended to be.
Indeed, illegal aliens are by definition in the United States illegally. 
That is in direct violation of federal law.
Does anybody actually believe - even if we play this game that the left is playing or some of the justices - does anybody actually believe that a foreigner can confer upon herself legal jurisdiction for the purpose of or even accidentally creating citizenship for a child born here? 
They're not even here legally. 
How do they confer a status on their child born in the United States? Is that what the 14th Amendment says? 
Of course not.
And you won't find it in any of the discussions, any of the debates, and you won't find it in any of the ratification discussions in any of the States, which is why not a single justice pointed to it. 
There's nothing to point to.
Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice, he turns to the solicitor general who gives him some examples of how this can't be true. And he says, those are quirky examples. 
Well, then I would say to the Chief Justice, can you give us one scintilla of evidence to support the proposition that birthright citizenship was intended under the 14th Amendment rather than referring to esoteric English common law. 
I've done that. I know what it means. 
Or to Blackstone or to anything else. Just look at it. Just listen to what they said.
Can you show me any evidence, even quirky? 
But here we have an instance where people come into the country illegally and somehow they can confer a constitutional right onto their children. 
Such an absurdity never entered the discussion, let alone the thinking of anyone involved in the amendment process. 
Nobody brought it up. I'm sure nobody even imagined it.
The focus was on the newly-freed slaves and their children and addressing their ongoing plight in the old Confederacy. That's it.
The Constitution is not granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in our country, which it appears to be specifically denying. 
It seems to be the opposite. 
Fourth, there's been reference to a case in 1898, a decision by the Supreme Court in a case called the United States vs, Wong Kim Ark. 
 62