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.
Nope, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US by policy or by fact. The immunities come under (agreed to) international law. Immune from something in any event means you are de facto not subject to it.
Here's a 2018 Trump Administration USCIS memo on the their children "Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"
The 14th Amendment was not written absent knowledge of the position of diplomats. Not focused on them for sure, but not written absent of it. A body of law and customs regarding diplomatic activity and its legal ramifications was already well-established in the late 1800s.
Diplomats not being subject to our jurisdiction is well known though. Diplomatic immunity from most laws is a well understood concept.
Illegal aliens do not have any sort of immunity or exemption from our laws simply because they are here illegally. They are most definitely subject to US jurisdiction.
The New York Times is admitting that the process known as “chain migration” — whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. — is being used to import entire small villages of extended foreign families.
The Times published a report on two men from India that have used the U.S. legal immigration system to bring their entire extended families to the country for no other reason than the fact that they are related.https://canadafreepress.com/article/...-of-foreigners
Removing this would certainly help our poverty level. If it indeed is a worry to us, then we should be fixing it. The alternative is to just cut programs for the poor.
There are several obvious problems with Eastman's conclusion that "subject to the jurisdiction of" means "having full political allegiance" even upon a cursory review.
First, quite obviously, from a practical standpoint a newborn baby has no "allegiance" - it is not sentient enough to do so. Yet the 14th Amendment focuses on the jurisdiction of the US over child (rather than the parents) at the time of birth. It makes little sense to claim that someone born to immigrant parents would have less "allegiance" to the US than someone born of citizen parents at the time they were born. The argument would hold far more water if the 14th Amendment said "children born in the US whose parents are subject to US jurisdiction" but that it not what it says. By focusing on the "jurisdiction" over a baby, it would make little sense that the drafters meant the baby had to have "full political allegiance" to the US at the time of his/her birth to qualify for citizenship.
I agree with you in terms of "political allegiance" but you also just made the case that the US can hold jurisdiction over the illegal parents and not accept jurisdiction over the newborn. As the newborn is not going to be subject to taxation or criminal prosecution for many years anyway there is no need to hold jurisdiction over them prior to deportation.
Just as amusing how left wingers have no issue with legislating from the bench to achieve their desired social change but now are hollering for strict interpretation.
But republicans have always been strict constitutionalists or so I'm told, but now they're jumping through hops to make this happen. Its only legislating from the bench when the court decision doesn't support their opinion.
Can we all agree that the US Constitution is basically a 'social contract' between the US government and its US citizens alone, and not between the US government and the rest of the world? If we agree on this basic premise, it follows that the rights and all other benefits under the Constitution attribute solely to US citizens, and not foreign nationals or immigrants. And especially not illegal immigrants.
Therefore babies, born on US soil to non-citizens, do not have the right, under our Constitution, to automatically become US citizens at birth. However, they may choose later in life to naturalize as a US citizen through a legal process.
The content of the amendment and "subject to jurisdiction" clause applies to the baby not the parent. We can decline to accept jurisdiction over the baby. The baby isn't going to be subject to taxation or criminal prosecution for quite some time. Plenty of time to deport it (along with the parents, family unity). If it later illegally returns, it will be a non-citizen and subject to our jurisdiction.
The baby, at birth, is absolutely subject to US tax and other statutes. Whether those statutes impose any obligation on the baby is entirely different than whether it is subject to those laws.
Additionally, your argument that "we can decline to accept jurisdiction" (however that would work) undercuts the claim that they are not subject to jurisdiction on the first instance because of their illegal status (and Eastman's claim that "jurisdiction" means "full political allegiance"). Moreover, the drafters did not write "subject to jurisdiction unless we decline to accept it" and such an interpretation would basically give free subjective reign to Governmental officials to refuse to accept jurisdiction for any reason or no reason at all, even if the baby is borne of two US citizens. That cannot possibly be what the drafters meant when they drafted the 14th Amendment and set forth clear guidelines for citizenship.
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.
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.
Is that true?