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.
If we started grabbing foreign citizens at the US airport entries, and apprehend them for US federal tax evasion, and froze their bank accounts until they paid back taxes, or drafted them into the US military, or demanded they buy appropriate health care insurance in compliance with the ACA, their host countries would be outraged, declaring we do not have the jurisdiction to do such a thing.
We do not have full jurisdiction over their person, because they are citizens of another nation.
We have the limited jurisdiction over foreign citizens visiting the US. We have jurisdiction over our laws which govern the behavior of foreign citizen guests in our country. We have legal jurisdiction over their conduct, and can deport them if their behavior is improper. We do not have the type of jurisdiction over their person, as does the nation they are citizens of.
Yep exactly. And illegal aliens are foreign citizens who are invading.
Jose Inez Garcia Zarate was convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in the Kate Steinle case.
By the local jurisdiction who doesn't enforce citizenship, immigration and naturalization right? We are talking about the US jurisdiction regarding citizenship, immigration and naturalization. He was suppose to be held and deported.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;
-----------------------------------------------
It has never been repealed, rescinded, or struck down, so it remains fully in force today.
There was some question whether Congress had the authority to pass such a law at the time. But it was never brought before a court or otherwise legally challenged. And the enactment of the 14th amendment a short time later, made it completely constitutional.
Since illegal aliens are subject to a foreign power (the country they came from), they are clearly not citizens of the U.S. And neither are their US-born babies.
That's the hard part about laws and amendments, reminds me of covenants in an HOA.
People do not read the entire document, they like to pick and choose statements and then stop.
The 18th was repealed by the 21st amendment, in record time I will add.
Only way to get rid of an amendment is to create pass and then get 2/3 of the states to ratify.
3/4, not 2/3.
The 2/3 is the vote needed in each chamber (U.S. House and U.S. Senate) to send it to the states in the first place.
The only way 2/3 is part of the equation with the actual involvement of the states would be a 2/3 vote of the states at a convention of the states (a method that has never been used).
In what manner is an illegal alien residing in the US less subject to US jurisdiction than a legal alien, citizen, or even visitor in the US?
By not being authorized to enter or be present in the first place.
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.
