- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 8:56 am to Y.A. Tittle
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:56 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Now tell me how the amendment would be different WITHOUT that clause under your interpretation.
diplomats, basically
1
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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)
Total diplomatic immunity applies only to the highest ranking diplomats. Many people here in foreign assignment have no immunity at all. Some have partial immunity. None of those people in foreign assignment in the US have birthright citizenship privileges.
Diplomatic immunity is a privilege given to some foreign workers who are not subject to our jurisdiction. It is not the the result of not being subject to our jurisdiction.
If I swim across the English canal and sneak into Great Britain and commit a crime, I can be arrested for it. That doesn't make me a subject of the Queen.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 8:58 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:57 am to Wednesday
quote:
The same way diplomats are not. In your own damn example.
diplomats are not subject to our jurisdiction because they're subject to international jurisdiction
the US gave up its jurisdiction over diplomats when it became parties to those international agreements
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:58 am to SlowFlowPro
I don’t think subject to criminal laws if they break them is the same thing.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:59 am to CptBengal
quote:
Diplomatic immunity is GRANTED by the host country. F
pursuant to international, not domestic, law
the US ceded its sovereignty over the jurisdiction of diplomats by ratifying those treaties
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:02 am to WillRogue
quote:
SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Subject to the laws.
Moron.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:03 am to Jax-Tiger
quote:
That doesn't make me a subject of the Queen.
this ignores "jurisdiction" and what that means
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:05 am to SlowFlowPro
Lol.
Jurisdiction THEREOF
words aren't added meaninglessly
Jurisdiction THEREOF
words aren't added meaninglessly
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:06 am to SlowFlowPro
There are legal jurisdictions
Economic jurisdictions
Military jurisdictions
But keep only conflating the first
Economic jurisdictions
Military jurisdictions
But keep only conflating the first
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:06 am to CptBengal
quote:
Jurisdiction THEREOF
words aren't added meaninglessly
sure
but what is referencing the United states by using "thereof" changing about my argument?
isn't this argument about the jurisdiction of the US?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:07 am to CptBengal
If an American citizen goes to work overseas he is still subject to US taxes and other laws such as prostitution and sex with minors among others.
That is "under the jurisdiction of".
That is "under the jurisdiction of".
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:07 am to SleauxPlay
quote:
The irony on both sides, is that the left wants to “adjust” the 2A, but doesn’t want to budge on this and we don’t want to doing anything to the 2A, but want to adjust 14A, section 1.
This cannot be emphasized enough, but it won't go over well here.
Not analogous.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:19 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
quote:
and non-citizens can join the military.
quote:
Legal non-citizens.
Lots of illegal immigrants have joined the military.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Now tell me how the amendment would be different WITHOUT that clause under your interpretation.
diplomats, basically
It's hard to see how anyone would see that as such a big issue that they would feel the need to carve out a separate clause to specifically address it. I mean, I can't imagine it would have even applied to 100 people at the time it was enacted.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:21 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Lots of illegal immigrants have joined the military.
I'm sure they have, they are good at breaking the law.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:28 am to upgrayedd
Is that portion of the amendment not sufficient enough to, at minimum, refuse citizenship to a child born of someone here illegally? In my mind it is. Illegals are NOT guaranteed constitutional protections.
Its like breaking into someone's home and thinking you get to stay there forever because you added a few of your favorite shows to their DVR.
Its like breaking into someone's home and thinking you get to stay there forever because you added a few of your favorite shows to their DVR.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:33 am to Federal Tiger
quote:
Illegal children are clearly not subject to the jurisdiction of our country.
You're correct. The position of the statement "subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." makes all the difference. As written, it's a requirement for citizenship. Born/naturalized and "subject to jurisdiction" are the requirements. They must have been subject to the jurisdiction of the US before they could be granted citizenship. If they were to be made subject at birth, due to gaining citizenship at birth, then the text should read...
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:35 am to Federal Tiger
quote:The president could issue an executive order but it would likely end up in the supreme Court. However, given this information, it's likely to be written into law based on intent by the writer of the amendment. It could easily be extended to illegal aliens, not just children of legal aliens.
Birthright citizenship arises from the 14th Amendment that was passed just three years after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves. The senator who wrote the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard of Michigan, explained the point of it on the Senate floor at the time.
"The Amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers," he said.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this ignores "jurisdiction" and what that means
The main point of my post was that diplomatic immunity is not THE indicator that someone is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Immunity is a separate thing. Their are many diplomats and/or people in the US working for foreign governments have no diplomatic immunity - staff workers at an embassy and other low level workers. That doesn't mean they can have a kid and that kid is a US citizen.
Diplomatic immunity is reserved for high level diplomats. There are some diplomats that get partial immunity.
The home country can revoke diplomatic immunity and allow the host country to prosecute the diplomat. That has happened before. I believe a diplomat from one of the Soviet satellite state was convicted of hit and run in the US after his home country revoked his immunity. He served some prison time in the US before we shipped him back to his home country and he served more time there.
If that is the case, then we should just get Mexico to state that none of these illegal diplomats have immunity. Or better yet, we could just declare illegal aliens to be foreign combatants/invaders and return them to their home country according to customs and procedures of military law.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:37 am to Federal Tiger
"Illegal children are clearly not subject to the jurisdiction of our country. Convince me otherwise."
Illegal immigrants and their children are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of US courts. If they commit a crime, they do the time, just like anyone else and very unlike a diplomat who can just be expelled. While I don't intend to be disrespectful, the issue you raise is hardly even worth discussing.
So, the text of the 14th makes for a steep uphill climb for the president if actually issues an EO inconsistent with birthright citizenship. The wiggle room, if there is any, is probably in the original intent of the 14th. I don't believe there was even such a thing as "illegal immigration" at the time, so one could argue that the 14th left the issue open for Congressional action. I am too lazy to look it up, but I am 90% sure the 14th explicitly authorizes legislation to construe/enact the 14th.
Illegal immigrants and their children are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of US courts. If they commit a crime, they do the time, just like anyone else and very unlike a diplomat who can just be expelled. While I don't intend to be disrespectful, the issue you raise is hardly even worth discussing.
So, the text of the 14th makes for a steep uphill climb for the president if actually issues an EO inconsistent with birthright citizenship. The wiggle room, if there is any, is probably in the original intent of the 14th. I don't believe there was even such a thing as "illegal immigration" at the time, so one could argue that the 14th left the issue open for Congressional action. I am too lazy to look it up, but I am 90% sure the 14th explicitly authorizes legislation to construe/enact the 14th.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News