Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: semimojo

“Can you give me one or two practical implications of not being fully subject to political jurisdiction?”

I already gave one.

In the case of a prosecution for a capital crime, or even not so capital, the Consulate of the home nation could or would get involved to argue for fair treatment of their nationals.

Here’s another. When you apply for certain government jobs - or getting a security clearance from an agency of the United States - you will rapidly find out that you have disabilities since your allegiance is questionable. I can safely tell you that Kamala would have had serious issues getting federal clearances at certain levels. She has most likely never had to get them, or this would have already come up.

And as far as my analysis goes, it’s not a “post hoc” conclusion, it’s based on the Amicus Curiae submitted by John Eastman and Edwin Meese in the case of Hamdi, who was born under the same conditions as Kamala the Foreigner.


92 posted on 09/20/2020 4:21:31 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]


To: Regulator
In the case of a prosecution for a capital crime, or even not so capital, the Consulate of the home nation could or would get involved to argue for fair treatment of their nationals.

That has nothing to do with jurisdiction.

Yes, a foreign nation would be more inclined to advocate for one of their citizens but, a) they aren't obligated to, and b) countries make pleas all the time asking other countries to treat people well regardless of citizenship.

I asked for a right or obligation associated with political jurisdiction and you haven't provided one.

When you apply for certain government jobs - or getting a security clearance from an agency of the United States - you will rapidly find out that you have disabilities since your allegiance is questionable.

BS.

If the only question about allegiance is based on having parents from allied countries who hadn't naturalized yet it wouldn't get a second look. Our intelligence services aren't that stupid.

And as far as my analysis goes, it’s not a “post hoc” conclusion, it’s based on the Amicus Curiae submitted by John Eastman and Edwin Meese in the case of Hamdi...

OK. You have a couple of bitter enders arguing that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided in 1898.

Compelling.

I have the entire judicial history since the 14th, including the popular and Congressional election of Obama.

I win.

98 posted on 09/20/2020 5:30:07 PM PDT by semimojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson