Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This means, as expressly discussed by the delegates, that people like diplomats and their families who have diplomatic immunity and Native Americans who live areas not governed by US law (one Senator remarked, "can you sue a Navajo in Court?" to illustrate) are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of US civil and criminal law and cannot be compelled to appear in US courts enforcing that law. All of the delegates agreed including Sen. Howard) to that definition at the conclusion of the debate. I quoted many of them in a prior post.
Aliens, illegal or not, are subject to US law and can be prosecuted in US courts. You can sue them. They can sue you. They have to abide by (e.g., they are "subject to") US laws, including immigration and tax laws. In that way, they are distinguished from those "not subject to US jurisdiction" like diplomats and Native Americans.
So, those that support this...do you like the precedent that some future president could come along and sign an EO proclaiming that the 2nd amendment only applies if you register to join a militia?
no, he will just motivate some of them to turn off Fox long enough and go out and vote. No one else even believes this nonsense, it's very much like him promising a 10% middle class tax cut would be passed while congress is in recess...and some folks just swallow the bait every time, no matter how idiotic his latest claim is.
Putting aside constitutional interpretations. Illegal aliens and their children and their open borders Democrat enablers are thieves stealing from Americans. It's egregious we have had to put up with illegal immigration and birthright citizenship for so long regardless of interpretation of the 14th.
Yet, at the time the 14th Amendment was passed, all of the Delegates agreed that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant everyone - Mongols, foreigners, aliens, and gypsies alike - provided they were in an area governed by US civil and criminal law and subject to being brought before a US court to face the application of those laws. Never once was it suggested that "jurisdiction" meant only people who had lawfully emigrated to the US. Fancy that.
No, they did not. Had they done so, THIS would not have been US Nationality Law. It would have been struck down as unconstitutional over 100 years ago. It was not...
Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted 9 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States"
And I've already posted examples of Federal Government rulings from the late 1800s that those born in the US to alien parents are NOT US citizens. They're citizens of their parent's country.
Read TEPLimeys responses to a lot of your nonsense. Its excellently sourced. Your attempt to twist this into something it isn't is just foolish. If we allowed it the second amendment would be torn up by the next president that didn't like it.
You've picked a belief and refused to read other information that disagrees with you, I've read it. Someone is remaining purposefully ignorant, and its not me as you imply.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.