"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
So if the argument that children of illegals are not citizens because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states,
This now puts them in the same status as diplomats, all illegals that are currently in the US, are no longer subject to US law, and are therefore diplomatically immune to arrest, or trial.
Other urls found in this thread:
law.cornell.edu
youtube.com
twitter.com
diplomats are here illegally or no?
Literally the stupidest take today.
this is some retardo logic, bro.
STOP MAKING SENSE!
The OP thought he found a loophole that makes illegal hispanics immune to U.S. law, when in reality he provided a rationale for denying any immunity to diplomats (as a class of illegal hispanics).
So then explain why legal argument on why the 14th amendment does not apply to children of illegals.
oooooooooooh the idiot is still here
Nice reading comprehension idiot, What I'm saying is that if the argument that children of illegals born in the US are not US citizens (As Trump claims) then the only argument for this is that the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the the US.
Still haven't refuted my argument in any way.
Diplomats are still subject to US jurisdiction, who do you think gives them immunity?
Because illegals aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, unlike citizens, freed slaves, and the remnants of Injun tribes. Illegals can be deported back to their home countries, which have jurisdiction over them.
>gets all takes from Orange Man Bad TV
>thinks he's smart
>"checkmate Drumpf"
If you're in the US you're subject to partial jurisdiction.
A citizen is subject to full jurisdiction.
So if you break the law in America and you aren't a citizen, you still get arrested. The original framers of the 14th amendment had intended, with their debates revealing, they had a desire for "Full jurisdiction" being the qualification, so that slaves who had no ties to any other country, could become citizens, but not foreign nationals and illegals.
With this executive order to challenge the statutes that expanded the 14A to include anyone with PARTIAL jurisdiction and not full jurisdiction, it will most likely go to SCOTUS to be defined clearly (Partial or Full jurisdiction required), with Partial, it remains as is, with Full, meaning they have no foreign allegiance, and are not born of foreign nationals, to be a citizen. So a person that demands asylum and casts off their national allegiance that they're leaving, may have a shot, but illegal aliens do not.
I'm not an US citizen living in US (green card holder)
Please tell me you won't call police on me if I come and steal your TV or kick your ass!
OR, if they arrest me, PLEASE tell me you'll defend me at trial!
A child of an illegal immigrant born in the USA is merely an illegal that has smuggled itself in via womb.
>Because illegals aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
That means if an illegal murders you, they cannot be arrested, or tried. Because they are not subject to the laws of the US.
However they are arrested, they are tried, they are incarcerated.
Actually they are not, they comply with US jurisdiction as a matter of protocol so that they can stay in the country.
>The OP thought he found a loophole
The OP is Jewish.
Funny, seems you never read United States v. Wong Kim Ark
>the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the the US
The fact that there are 50 million illegal spics here with their mutt children with no issue tells you everything you need to know
Diplomatic immunity is clearly immunity for diplomats. You don't automatically get it, the diplomat's country must submit names for approval and for access to the country they will be working in. So OP is has no understanding whatsoever.
Birthright citizenship for citizens makes 100% sense. Anchor baby citozenship for illegals and tourists does not. A basic understanding of how governments and laws work would assist OP. Also doing the historical research on the 14th amendment would help.
Doesn't matter to the constitution.
Exactly, my point. So basically illegals are subject to us jurisdiction, therefore any child born here is subject to us jurisdiction, therefor is a US citizen.
Also, I don't actually disagree with you're point about Anchor baby citizenship for illegals and tourists. However as the current amendment is written its very clear.
The answer is, amend the constitution not an executive order.
By that logic when I holiday in any country I am a citizen of that country. Op is an idiot.
No, but you are under the jurisdiction of that country. Key word you are missing is "born"
It may be clear in your mind but do the actual research and you will find the persons that wrote and voted on the 14th amendment had no such designs. Educate yourself.
Doesn't that just make provisions for Permanent Residents and not illegal aliens?
Permanent residents are not actively breaking the law when they reside in America, and law abiding was one of the clauses for Ark to be accepted as a citizen.
Funny because the words are explicit, and has been backed up by case law see
The immunity is still given by the respective government, they have a special protections but are still subject to laws They still get fined for speeding, arrested for murder.
You didn't read the actual court ruling did you..
Actually theoretically, they can't be arrested for murder, in practice, its not the case for several reasons.
He can be expelled, then extradited back into the US for the crime.
Or the host country can wave his diplomatic immunity. There was a case in 1997 of a Georgia diplomat that killed a person while drunk driving and this happened.
My point is, with only the exception of top diplomats, every person in this country, illegal or not, is subject to US jurisdiction.
Alright buddy... I actually did graduate with a law degree. The precedent in that case from the 1800s is a person legally resided in the US that has a child is provided citizenship to that child. It's pretty clear if you read for comprehension. That doesn't include tourists and illegal aliens.
You're welcome OP. Shill on.
Ask yourself, can the united states draft an illegal alien into the military? If not, the us doesn't really have jurisdiction.
The law says that an alien who entered without inspection or admission, has never, according to the immigration and nationality act, been in the united states.
Does the united states have to recognize for jurisdictional coverage? Can i go somewhere and demand a country cover me under their jurisdiction or is that their choice?
If someone comes here and demands jurisdictional coverage and the government says no, yet the person remains, what happens?
Is a foreign spy's child, born in the united states, able to receive citizenship even though the laws state the foreign spy should never obtain any status in the US and any status of a foreign spy can be revoked?
You do realize they only have immunity from imprisonment right? They still get deported.
Outlaws, not protected or restricted by the law. In that case you can do what you like to them.
Just been revoked.
You are correct. I would also add that the flawed "subject to the jurisdiction" ploy has been tried (and failed) several times by the "sovereign citizen" movement, who argue that they too don't have to follow the laws of the country.
The bottom line is this... the term "subject to the jurisdiction" in this case means being in a location (usually physically) where you are under the legal jurisdiction of the country.
Anyone who is physically in the US, whether they are legal or illegal, are required to follow the law. There ARE under the jurisdiction of the US
Tell me this, if a burglar broke into your home, would you have jurisdiction over them? Would you be responsible for providing health insurance, dinner every night, educational opportunities, etc? No, but you'd have a right to shoot them or remove them or have them thrown in jail. Does that mean that you claim responsibility for them? No. That means you're claiming what's yours as yours and defending it. The burglar has no right to enter, you never gave permission to enter, and you damn sure never claimed responsibility for them.
Is it really any different for illegals entering the country without permission?
That's not what that means, they would be considered foreign agents, they could not be imprisoned but have to be sent back to the country of origin, if they refuse then they fall under laws more aimed at 3rd state criminal activities, or espionage laws, tldr it becomes, go home or be automatically shot in the head as an unlawful combatant.
They are not immune in the sense they have impunity to commit crimes free of interdiction by LE and neither are diplomats. They are just not tried in a US Court they are referred back to their home nation.