As for the 3rd, 4th, and 6th generation–you can say that where they are now is there legal domicary since no other country can claim responsibility for them. That is what I believe the 'subject to jurisdiction' was meant to imply but the text isn't clear in today's language but it might have had clear meaning at the time.

Also if they intended that any person born here was to be a citizen then they would have left it as any person born in America. Instead they added another qualifier that said they had to be born here and be subject to the jurisdiction. What that qualifier means is debatable but since it is there then just being born here is not sufficient enough to give qualify for citizenship under this amendment.

"… the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that "where birth in the United States was clear, a child of Chinese parents was, in the Court's opinion, definitely a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, even though Chinese aliens were ineligible to naturalize under then-existing law."

The Court stated that long before the adoption of the 14th Amendment, "all white persons" born in the U.S., including children of "foreigners," were considered native-born citizens (provided that they were not "children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government"), and that "[t]o hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States."

So, if we want to play the anchor baby game, there's going to be millions and millions of white Americans who will need to realize their papers are wrong because they cannot trace their heritage to someone who came here and filled out an application. It would be ironic that descendants of Pilgrims (the Pilgrims filled out no applications) and the founders of Jamestown (who did not fill out applications), are not legal.

I might fit into that category of descendants. So, obviously, there is something about my having been born here that establishes my proper citizenship even though there might be undeniable proof that I am an ancestor of a person who came here without documentation permitting his entrance.

Here's the article: http://mediamatters.org/research/201008090027

Let's make this easy. If a child is born here to illegals, and the child is therefore, illegal, are the children born to the illegal children (the grandchildren) illegal? If the grandchildren are illegal, then, what about their children (the great-grandchildren)?

Is there some point, maybe the 4th, 5th or 6th generation, where you would finally recognize that a person born here is a citizen? Or are all their progeny illegal forever?

If so, are the descendants of the Pilgrims illegal, or are they not? If they are not, what makes them citizens? Answer what makes the descendants of the Pilgrims citizens, and I think you might find the reasoning which will allow you to rest more peacefully with this issue.

The doctor perhaps threw you off course by the part of the article that discusses jurisdiction, by the suggestion that this clause means , "those who are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the US and are not beholden to the jurisdiction of another nation."

People expatriate to other nations all the time. Even Americans expatriate to retire in Mexico, Belize, France, etc. When they expatriate, they are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They now have their new homes in other nations and live under the laws of those nations.

The converse applies. People from many other nations expatriate and come to America to start their new lives and raise families here. They might be illegal, but they have expatriated, are in a foreign land, and are not subject to their former jurisdictions. As illegals, they are here and subject to our jurisdiction. Sure, we can send them back and re-submit them to their previous jurisdiction.

Children born to them on US soil are subject to this jurisdiction, and they are not subject to any other jurisdiction. To test this, ask, "If a child is born here to a Pakistani couple who came here illegally, would we have to extradite the child back to Pakistan if Pakistan demanded us to do so?" The answer is "no." Pakistan has no jurisdiction. We do. We claim the child as a citizen, and Pakistan has no claim to the child, period.

You might even understand this better if you consider our political asylum system. During the Cold War, we gave political asylum to many Soviets. We did not give them citizenship, but by being residents here, we subjected them to our jurisdiction and refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the USSR to demand that we extradite them back.

Citizenship does not depend on the citizenship or residency of the parents. If it did, the 14th would have stated such. But it does not. It states, people born here and subject to our jurisdiction are citizens of the US and of the states where they reside. It's as plain as can be.

This gave them all the rights, immunities that any other citizen had but if illegals are in the same catagory then simply residing here gives them the right to vote and simply giving them the full benefits of citizensship because they reside here goes around the naturalization clause of the constitution.

"The residency requirement could mean people who are legally allowed to stay within the legal jurisdiction of the state." No. Same cart before the horse problem. The states were required to allow all US citizens to reside within their jurisdictions. The purpose of the amendment was to make clear who were citizens.

"… but illegals can be deported so they don't have a legal right to reside in this country. The 14th amendment may not apply to them or their descendents." Yes, partly. Illegals do not have a right to reside here. Citizens do. As to the application of the 14th, you need to read it. In some cases, citizens are afforded greater rights than non-citizens, but the 14th does, in fact, afford non-citizens certain protections, too, e.g. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The difference in usage of "citizen" and "person" was intended and not accidental.

"Contrary to what most people on the left think we were not all anchor babies since many people arrived through ellis island and legally applied to reside here. " Who did the Pilgrims apply to? How about Columbus? Shall we make the citizen requirement hinge on applications filled out on Ellis Island? Then, what do we do with all the descendants of the Pilgrims and the members of Columbus' numerous expeditions?

If you will re-read my previous post, I think it will convince you that the 14th is written in plain English and means exactly what it says. You just have to think in terms of "why" this rule was written the way it was.

The residency requirement could mean people who are legally allowed to stay within the legal jurisdiction of the state. I can't imagine that applies to people who don't have a legal right to stay within the jurisdiction of the state. Many people reside in this country such as terrorist and illegal aliens but that doesn't mean they can reside here legally.

Former slaves and their descendants for which this amendment was created for did reside here legally since they could not be deported. This is why it applied to them and their situation but illegals can be deported so they don't have a legal right to reside in this country. The 14th amendment may not apply to them or their descendents.

Contrary to what most people on the left think we were not all anchor babies since many people arrived through ellis island and legally applied to reside here.

This leaves out those born here during their parents' vacation when their intent is to return home outside of the US in short order.

If you are born in the US to parents who have come here with the intent to reside here, you are a citizen. You are not second class. That is what the amendment says.

Just like royalty was scorned, any notion that you would be inferior due to who your parents were was also scorned.

To understand better, keep thinking to the purpose of the privileges and immunities clause.

"Anchor babies" is really a problem concept because it is so contra to the Constitution. What do you do with babies of anchor babies? What about the grandchildren of anchor babies? Is that enough, or maybe you'd finally recognize as equal a great grandchild of an anchor baby and not demand the right to deport him, too.

Remember, the purpose is to provide a broad definition of citizenship, such that class distinctions based on birth (e.g., race) are eliminated.

If residency in the US is not the only standard, then, what would be? What to do with all those descendants born here of slaves who were brought over from Africa?

That is much the problem that has been going on for a long time: this idea that people who are citizens should be exposed to other people trying to attribute second-class status to them. And you wonder why racism persists.

The fact is, we are all descendants of anchor babies – some just have the luxury of counting back a few more generations to get to their "fresh off the boat" ancestors. So, how to you distinguish citizenship under the 14th based on how many generations one must count to find the ancestor who came here from another nation?

On the other hand–subject to the jurisdiction could mean subject of that jurisdiction like a person is a subject to the kings authority which makes that person a kings subject. The constitution and the law is king so perhaps it is saying subject to the law's jurisdiction in the same way a person was subject to the king's authority. This would mean a person who belongs to that state or owes allegieance to that state.

To be honest, I tend to think the author is correct but the language by itself doesn't suggest that which makes it a toss-up for me at this point in time. I just don't know yet what is correct.