- 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 10:31 am to Federal Tiger
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:31 am to Federal Tiger
Not that it’s binding on citizenship and naturalization issues but if you look to certain parts of the CFR being within the US is enough to make one subject to US jurisdiction.
Of course the CFR is full of “this definition applies for purposes of x and y, but not z.” Still, an interesting point for those looking at intent.
Of course the CFR is full of “this definition applies for purposes of x and y, but not z.” Still, an interesting point for those looking at intent.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 10:36 am
0
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:32 am to Wednesday
quote:
We should deport their arse. And once the federal authorities are ordered to - they can and will.
Both hateful and incorrect. The call of the white nationalist
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:41 am to slackster
You are simply wrong
Read the clause= "born" AND "subject to..." key word "and" meaning both items are required to complete this process
Tear down the clause and you will see this:
One can be "born" but one cannot be "subject to" unless prior set of circumstances is known. "subject to" defines an already predetermined state meaning... that before birth this person must already have "subject to" status and therefore it falls upon the carrier of the person which is the mother. If the mother(illegal) is not "subject to" and creation of this new person is within the body of the non "subject to" it makes it null and void. Same would apply to visa holders as they are not subject to any US laws
Read the clause= "born" AND "subject to..." key word "and" meaning both items are required to complete this process
Tear down the clause and you will see this:
One can be "born" but one cannot be "subject to" unless prior set of circumstances is known. "subject to" defines an already predetermined state meaning... that before birth this person must already have "subject to" status and therefore it falls upon the carrier of the person which is the mother. If the mother(illegal) is not "subject to" and creation of this new person is within the body of the non "subject to" it makes it null and void. Same would apply to visa holders as they are not subject to any US laws
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 10:45 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:43 am to Dale51
quote:The treaties that explicitly provide that the diplomats are not under the jurisdiction of the the US government, and those treaties are valid under the Constitution.
What language in the 14th establishes that discrimination against diplomats?
This also applied to Native American tribes, who were considered "alien nations and domestic dependent nations."
So in both cases, the individuals were explicitly under the jurisdiction of another nation, which had been the case well before the amendment.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:44 am to LSU Tigerhead
I can't say that I like that argument though. If you look at that statement closely, it doesn't read like people on here are interpreting it. It clearly only names children born to ambassadors or foreign ministers.
It doesn't say "foreigners, aliens, and families of..." Howard is using "aliens" to supplement his characterization of "foreigners". It's not a sequence; they are synonyms.
quote:
persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
It doesn't say "foreigners, aliens, and families of..." Howard is using "aliens" to supplement his characterization of "foreigners". It's not a sequence; they are synonyms.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:48 am to selest
quote:We weren't subject to any jurisdiction either, since all of us did not exist in any legal capacity until we became a person.
Read the clause= "born" AND "subject to..." key word "and" meaning both items are required to complete this process
Regardless, what was their specific jurisdiction and how would that jurisdiction somehow take precedence over the only jurisdiction that they had ever existed within? And if they weren't subject to US jurisdiction, then how could they be under the jurisdiction of any US law?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:52 am to Federal Tiger
If they commit a crime they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, if they were involved in a wreck a court would find them subject to the jurisdiction of the location of the accident, why would they not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US? If the response is because there parents were not US citizens, that has nothing to do with subjecting someone to a country's jurisdiction.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 10:54 am to WildManGoose
you must not see the commas??? it doesnt even make grammatical sense the way you are reading it...
its not who are foreigners or aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors
it is "who are 1 foreigners, 2 aliens, 3 who belong to the families of ambassadors" ... three separate and distinct items
its not who are foreigners or aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors
it is "who are 1 foreigners, 2 aliens, 3 who belong to the families of ambassadors" ... three separate and distinct items
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 10:56 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:00 am to WildManGoose
quote:While I still think that this is a moot point since it's not stated in the text, but was already covered by the jurisdictional agreements that satisfied their exclusion as stated in the text, this is a good point nonetheless since people are misrepresenting/misreading the comma usage since it seems to be delineating the appositives, rather than separating items in a series as others seem to believe.
It doesn't say "foreigners, aliens, and families of..." Howard is using "aliens" to supplement his characterization of "foreigners". It's not a sequence; they are synonyms.
I tell you what though: formal legal language is far more imprecise than it should be, and it's often unnecessarily complex, like the tendency to use pronominal adverbs, which only makes it even more confusing.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:00 am to buckeye_vol
quote:Neither are foreigners who are here illegally. Otherwise subject to that jurisdiction, they would be sent home.
diplomats are not under the jurisdiction of the the US government
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:05 am to NC_Tigah
quote:That BTW is why open-borders socialists prefer the term undocumented over illegal. But again, if one is undocumented or unknown to the jurisdiction, how then can they be fully subject to it?
Neither are foreigners who are here illegally.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:12 am to buckeye_vol
I agree the complexity is only causing an unnecessarily broadened spectrum of interpretation. I guess it comes to the question of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”...
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:14 am to selest
quote:No. Those aren't clearly 3 distinct items, since a serial listing requires a coordinating conjunction, to determine the logic of the list itself (e.g., and v. or).
it is "who are 1 foreigners, 2 aliens, 3 who belong to the families of ambassadors" ... three separate and distinct items
Instead the commas seem to be acting around an appositive which further identifies the noun or noun phrase preceding it.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:21 am to NC_Tigah
quote:But they are under the jurisdiction since they are still subject to the laws, and Plyer v. Doe explicitly recognized this:
Neither are foreigners who are here illegally. Otherwise subject to that jurisdiction, they would be sent home.
quote:I mean if they're not under the jurisdiction then how does one argue that they can be detained and deported under the law, or any law for that matter?
Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.
And since the majority of those who are here illegally, have overstayed their legal visas, were they somehow magically removed from jurisdiction because their visa expired even though nothing else changed?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:23 am to Dale51
It's not language in the 14th but as a matter of international law - then and now - diplomats and their families do not submit to jurisdiction of the host country.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:27 am to selest
quote:
you must not see the commas??? it doesnt even make grammatical sense the way you are reading it...
its not who are foreigners or aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors
it is "who are 1 foreigners, 2 aliens, 3 who belong to the families of ambassadors" ... three separate and distinct items
You are 100% and undeniably incorrect. It's not a series. You have to have commas and a conjunction to have a series.
Read this sentence:
"That bathroom is meant for women, females, who have vaginas."
Do you see the commas? Did I list three seperate and distinct items? Or did I simply qualify the first noun with a second? And that is a valid sentence structure based on oral sentence tendencies.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:28 am to buckeye_vol
quote:If they are under the jurisdiction then how does one argue that they have not been detained and deported under the law.
I mean if they're not under the jurisdiction then how does one argue that they can be detained and deported under the law
On the other hand,
Saddam Hussein was not under our jurisdiction, yet he was detained and returned to his countrymen. OBL was not under our jurisdiction, yet we deported him to the afterlife.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 11:29 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:34 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Why aren't all drug dealers, murders, rapists, etc. detained under the law? Are they not under the jurisdiction then because they haven't been caught?
If they are under the jurisdiction then how does one argue that they have not been detained and deported under the law.
quote:OK? That's irrelevant to this discussion, but I appreciate the history lesson regarding the leaders of entities we were at war with.
On the other hand, Saddam Hussein was not under our jurisdiction, yet he was detained and returned to his countrymen. OBL was not under our jurisdiction, yet we deported him to the afterlife.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:56 am to buckeye_vol
quote:If they were previously documented, they are under jurisdiction.
Are they not under the jurisdiction then because they haven't been caught?
Posted on 10/31/18 at 12:20 pm to biscuitsngravy
My understanding is that with the Wong case, the parents were legal residents at the time. This would make sense. Someone living here legally as a resident for generally a lengthy period of time, then has a child, that child should be granted citizenship.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News