The reason we can deport illegals is because they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of U.S. immigration law. If an illegal alien wasn’t subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, we couldn’t prosecute them for the many crimes they commit.
I actually tend to agree with your analysis. I simply was saying that if I was arguing the other side that would be my basis.
Though - ambassadors can be expelled and they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So, that might be a good counter argument.
RE: The reason we can deport illegals is because they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of U.S. immigration law.
Here’s a question to answer before we make that conclusion... if a diplomat commits a crime in the USA, can we arrest him or kick him out?
Or is it the case that a diplomat can rape and kill anyone in the USA and be immune from prosecution in this country by virtue of his diplomatic status?
Actually, this might be an excellent argument to block the institution of Sharia law in the US as the Muslims have done in other countries. Sharia Law is completely in cconflict with our Constitution.
I think Wong Kim Ark (and FN 10 in Plyler) have used an incorrect meaning for "subject to the jurisdiction." Both roughly say that if the US can prosecute a criminal case against you, you are subject to the jurisdiction. Diplomats have immunity, so are considered not subject to the jurisdiction. As I note above, they can be expelled, and I don;t know if that makes the subject to our jurisdiction or not. Illegal aliens do not have diplomatic immunity, so they are subject to the jurisdiction.
The dissent in Wong Kim Ark has the better argument.