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.
That’s odd. The drafters and Constitutional delegates all expressly agreed that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant that they were subject to US civil and criminal laws and could be prosecuted in US courts. It’s all laid out, complete with links to source documents in this post. If you were to deny illegal immigrants were subject to US jurisdiction, then they could not be prosecuted in a criminal or immigration court, nor could they be arrested by ICE or deported, since US immigration law would not apply to them. They would be like immune diplomats that could not be expelled.
Quite the conundrum.
The "subject to jurisdiction" clause is in reference to the persons born not the parents.
Are newborns subject to civil and criminal prosecution in courts?
You overestimate diplomatic immunity. First, there are various levels of diplomatic immunity. One, called "functional immunity", does not protect you from crimes committed outside your diplomatic role. And even if you cannot be formally charged you can be detained. Let's see a diplomat point a gun in an airport and see if they let him keep walking around. And finally, the host country can waive the immunity. We could make the alternative painful enough that they would do so.
Not that Trump gives a damn about the constitution, mind you.
Those who think Trump couldn't make such an executive order stick, remember that he now has a puppet majority in the Supreme Court, who will do his bidding. If they say it's constitutional, then it might as well be. Those who were complacent when he was stacking this court, will find that there will be outrageous complications. A radical supreme court majority with an agenda, plus a madman in the Presidency, becomes the equivalent of a dictatorship.
That’s odd. The drafter and Constitutional delegates all expressly agreed that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant that they were subject to US civil and criminal laws and could be prosecuted in US courts. It’s all laid out, complete with links to source documents in this post. If you were to deny illegal immigrants were subject to US jurisdiction, then they could not be prosecuted in a criminal or immigration court, nor could they be arrested by ICE or deported, since US immigration law would not apply to them. They would be like immune diplomats that could not be expelled.
Quite the conundrum.
That's retarded. Of course illegals can and should be deported. Just about everyone within in the US is subject to whatever jurisdiction they are in to some degree if they violate a law, but that does not impart citizenship. Subject to a jurisdiction for the purposes of citizenship is a different context.
The "subject to jurisdiction" clause is in reference to the persons born not the parents.
Are newborns subject to civil and criminal prosecution in courts?
You overestimate diplomatic immunity. First, there are various levels of diplomatic immunity. One, called "functional immunity", does not protect you from crimes committed outside your diplomatic role. And even if you cannot be formally charged you can be detained. Let's see a diplomat point a gun in an airport and see if they let him keep walking around. And finally, the host country can waive the immunity. We could make the alternative painful enough that they would do so.
That's retarded. Of course illegals can and should be deported. Just about everyone within in the US is subject to whatever jurisdiction they are in to some degree if they violate a law, but that does not impart citizenship. Subject to a jurisdiction for the purposes of citizenship is a different context.
Can’t have it both ways. Either they are subject to the jurisdiction of US courts and US laws or they aren’t. Jurisdiction is funny that way such that it doesn’t apply for certain expedient political purposes and yet not apply when it comes to others. Are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the US or not?
The "subject to jurisdiction" clause is in reference to the persons born not the parents.
Are newborns subject to civil and criminal prosecution in court?
So, in theory, a newborn could be left with legal residents while the parents deported and grow up in the US free from the constraints of tax law or civil/criminal statutes? Come on. You haven't thought this though
Can’t have it both ways. Either they are subject to the jurisdiction of US courts and US laws or they aren’t. Jurisdiction is funny that way such that it doesn’t apply for certain expedient political purposes and yet not apply when it comes to others. Are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the US or not?
They are supposed to be summarily deported. There are many jurisdictions in the US. To be fully subject to US jurisdiction means you are a citizen.
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.
