- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Are illegal children “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:10 am to Wednesday
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:10 am to Wednesday
quote:
We should deport their arse.
wouldn't that require them to be subject to the jurisdiction of our laws?
just think of it this way
how would we deport them? our immigration laws
how do our immigration laws apply to them? they're subject to the jurisdiction of our laws
diplomats are not subject to our jurisdiction and are subject to the jurisdiction of international laws (which is why when they are expelled, it must conform with international law and not our domestic ones)
3
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
wouldn't that require them to be subject to the jurisdiction of our laws?
It doesn't say jurisdiction of laws.
Look SFP. I know you're a MarburyvMadison disciple of the law...but no.
It says jurisdiction thereof and the authors even stated it was NOT meant for aliens
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:13 am to CptBengal
quote:
and the authors even stated it was NOT meant for aliens
considering we didn't have immigration laws then like we do now, "alien" does not mean anywhere near the same thing
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:14 am to CptBengal
quote:
It doesn't say jurisdiction of laws.
what kind of jurisdiction was it referencing then?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
considering we didn't have immigration laws then like we do now, "alien" does not mean anywhere near the same thing
Lol. This is weak.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
It doesn't say jurisdiction of laws.
quote:
what kind of jurisdiction was it referencing then?
I had a conversation late yesterday on here that led to me asking this exact same thing. I'm still waiting for an answer.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what kind of jurisdiction was it referencing then?
The jurisdiction thereof.
Which is the government.
If I'm in Japan I am subject to their laws but I am not subject to their government. I am still a US citizen
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:18 am to CptBengal
quote:
It doesn't say jurisdiction of laws.
If that’s all they meant, it’s sort of a meaningless addition.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:19 am to CptBengal
quote:
The jurisdiction thereof.
Which is the government.
yes, and how does the government exert control over people? laws?
quote:
If I'm in Japan I am subject to their laws but I am not subject to their government.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:19 am to CptBengal
quote:
If I'm in Japan I am subject to their laws
This is the definition of jurisdiction.
I mean, you can open a copy of Merriam-Webster, look up jurisdiction, and it'll say the right of the government to apply the law.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 8:20 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:20 am to SlowFlowPro
We would deport them because they are not citizens under the jurisdiction of our laws. They are as illegally present as their illegally present parents. Whether their illegal presence was at the moment of birth or if they came over at 5 years old. They are illegally here.
The term “subject to the jurisdiction” referred to children of slaves who were born in the US, who were not born to citizens but to slaves and as slaves. As slaves, at the time of their births they were legally present and subject to the jurisdiction of US laws, but they were not citizens.
Thankfully, the 14A changed that and made clear that former slaves born in the US are in fact m citizens. The 14A naturalized a bunch of people born under specific and narrow circumstances 150 years ago as US citizens.
It didn’t naturalize poor people from all over the damn world born on Halloween 2018, or who are trying to capitalize on laws designed to help black people overcome a tragic and horrific history.
Illegal immigration needs to STOP. Their legal status is no different than the diplomats you refer to. Send. Them. Home.
The term “subject to the jurisdiction” referred to children of slaves who were born in the US, who were not born to citizens but to slaves and as slaves. As slaves, at the time of their births they were legally present and subject to the jurisdiction of US laws, but they were not citizens.
Thankfully, the 14A changed that and made clear that former slaves born in the US are in fact m citizens. The 14A naturalized a bunch of people born under specific and narrow circumstances 150 years ago as US citizens.
It didn’t naturalize poor people from all over the damn world born on Halloween 2018, or who are trying to capitalize on laws designed to help black people overcome a tragic and horrific history.
Illegal immigration needs to STOP. Their legal status is no different than the diplomats you refer to. Send. Them. Home.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 8:23 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:23 am to Wednesday
quote:
We would deport them because they are not citizens under the jurisdiction of our laws.
how would they be deported? by the authority of....laws
if they're deported by our laws, then how are they not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:23 am to Federal Tiger
quote:If an anchor baby grows up and commits a federal crime, can we areest him, charge him, try him and imprison him? If so, he is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Seems to me like progs like to stop reading bc they’re naturally lazy and criminal. The conjunction “and” is a very important part of the amendment.
Illegal children are clearly not subject to the jurisdiction of our country. Convince me otherwise.
Compare him to a diplomat.
The 14th is a case study in the unintended consequences of drafting feel good legislation while emotions are high, even with the best of intent.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 8:28 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
how would they be deported? by the authority of....laws
if they're deported by our laws, then how are they not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws
So, that clause basically serves no purpose? Why’s it there?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:26 am to Federal Tiger
quote:
Seems to me like progs like to stop reading bc they’re naturally lazy and criminal. The conjunction “and” is a very important part of the amendment.
Illegal children are clearly not subject to the jurisdiction of our country. Convince me otherwise.
This is classic
Step 1: look up the word jurisdiction
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:29 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
So, that clause basically serves no purpose? Why’s it there?
§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The terms person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and person subject to U.S. jurisdiction include:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;
(c) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(d) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.
§ 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States;
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 8:31 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:30 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
So, that clause basically serves no purpose?
It served a purpose in 1868.
ETA: And as bmy states in his post, it serves a purpose today.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 8:31 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:31 am to bmy
I understand all that. Now tell me how the amendment would be different WITHOUT that clause under your interpretation.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:33 am to GetCocky11
quote:
So, that clause basically serves no purpose?
It served a purpose in 1868.
To whom would it apply then absent that clause?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:34 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I understand all that. Now tell me how the amendment would be different WITHOUT that clause under your interpretation
Well my best guess would be it stays relevant because of embassies or other items related to foreign nationals, those being extradited, etc. where the US may have given up jurisdiction or other niche example.
Or its simply no longer relevant. Result is the same either way.. birthright citizenship is constitutional
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 8:36 am
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News