½ûÂþÌìÌÃ

The critical phrase is near the beginning of the XIV amendment.   It reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..."  Subject to the jurisdiction thereof has always been deemed to exclude children born to foreign diplomats who had diplomatic immunity and were immune from certain parts of US law.  The woman in question was the child of a diplomat but there was a grey area as he was fired by his country shortly before her birth.  The case will likely go all the way to the Supreme Court.

THIGV wrote:

but there was a grey area as he was fired by his country shortly before her birth.

That actually throws another wrinkle in it.  If he was fired I assume he wouldn't have been covered under immunity any longer so therefore WOULD have been "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" .

But the article also says the govt didn't recognize he left his post until after the birth.  Throw in her actions in the last two years and this is a cluster all around.

The link says ...

She promoted the group's ideology on social media and called on Muslims to commit attacks in America, such as drive-by shootings and attempts to assassinate former President Barack Obama.

No further comment

I don't think she can or will get back.  Actions have consequences.  The jails are full of people that made bad decisions when young.  Hers is just a little more permanent.

Now just wait for Cortez and Omar to throw a tantrum over the decision.

Left or right wing hardly matters, but common sense does.

Just send her to Canada, Trudeau will welcome her with open arms and maybe even give her a CAD$10M cheque.

Fred wrote:

Left or right wing hardly matters, but common sense does.

I agree with you, but as an attorney and unfortunately practicing inside the beltway and know these people better than I should, politics is pervasive in the practice of law, especially in Federal Courts. 

As Thigv pointed out, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is currently a hot legal topic as there are special interest groups bringing legal actions against the "birth right citizenship" and trying to remove the U.S. citizenship given to babies born to illegal mothers in the USA.  Their argument is similar, the illegal mothers are "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA. 

Unfortunately, historical Supreme Court precedence has held that if a person enters the U.S. illegally and is not legally admitted into the U.S., that person is denied full legal rights.

vndreamer wrote:

Came across this current Federal case here in the USA where a foreign diplomat residing in the USA gave birth to a child in the USA and that child, now an adult, has lost her U.S. passport and barred from the USA and deemed not a U.S. citizen.  What is interesting, the Federal District Court stated:

" Children born to diplomats are not granted automatic citizenship in the U.S." 

Who would have known as most of us think if a baby is born in the USA, they are guaranteed U.S. citizenship (i.e., birthright citizenship), but looks like that is not true. 

lol...Faux News. A highly 'credible' source to quote from.

QuidProQuo wrote:

vndreamer wrote:

Came across this current Federal case here in the USA where a foreign diplomat residing in the USA gave birth to a child in the USA and that child, now an adult, has lost her U.S. passport and barred from the USA and deemed not a U.S. citizen.  What is interesting, the Federal District Court stated:

" Children born to diplomats are not granted automatic citizenship in the U.S." 

Who would have known as most of us think if a baby is born in the USA, they are guaranteed U.S. citizenship (i.e., birthright citizenship), but looks like that is not true. 

lol...Faux News. A highly 'credible' source to quote from.

So will you trust it if you read it on CNN.

Then why do so many remain in the US illegally?  Why are so many given even more 'rights' than the citizens themselves over the pervious decades? 
Another reason I have no trust or faith in the United States political circus...far too many decades of turning a blind eye or prolonging the 'rule of law' as it is written.  Being 'illegally in the US' is being 'illegal'...I see only a black and white area here and there is nothing to be decided other than wrong.  I can understand how and why those who enter who have an actual fear for their lives...but there are also legal ways to do this and enter. 
I've traveled to many countries over my years...I've had enough respect and caution not to attempt going around their laws or entering illegally.  Why would I want someone who does not believe in the laws of another country being a neighbor to me?  It shows a lack of respect for self and their own lack of honor.  What else would they do to justify their 'means'???