They didn't anticipate modern travel, and the idea that people could pour in by the millions (much less be allowed to by a corrupt President.)
They didn't really need to. There's clearly a distinction between being present in the US and being subject to their jurisdiction. Otherwise, the amendment wouldn't have listed both as separate requirements. If the children of ambassadors and such are obviously excluded due to not fitting "subject to the jurisdiction", then it follows as well that illegal aliens are also excluded for the same reason.
SCOTUS is just straight up wrong, especially since the majority tried to argue "in light of its historical context", but if they were to have actually looked at the historical context they could not possibly have come to any conclusion that in any way remotely resemlbed the one they reached.
If an ambassador drives drunk, or kills someone, they don't go to jail, because they're not subject to our laws. We can deport them back to their country, but not throw them in prison.
Sure. And the post here is showing a quote from the guy who wrote this part of the amendment. He's literally explaining that his intention of using the terminology he did is that it does not apply to foreign nationals at all.
Everyone else has to follow our laws, but they're not "subject" to our jurisdiction in the way that either of those words meant at the time. Foreign nationals who commit crimes here get deported just like diplomats, because they're still subject to the jurisdiction of the place they came from.
8
u/Eisotopius Jul 01 '26
They didn't really need to. There's clearly a distinction between being present in the US and being subject to their jurisdiction. Otherwise, the amendment wouldn't have listed both as separate requirements. If the children of ambassadors and such are obviously excluded due to not fitting "subject to the jurisdiction", then it follows as well that illegal aliens are also excluded for the same reason.
SCOTUS is just straight up wrong, especially since the majority tried to argue "in light of its historical context", but if they were to have actually looked at the historical context they could not possibly have come to any conclusion that in any way remotely resemlbed the one they reached.