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

To: DiogenesLamp

“knowing this, a foreign government wouldn’t even try it.”

But you didn’t ask if they would, you asked if they could, which is a different thing. Nations are sovereign, which means they can pretty much do whatever they want. Whether they choose to do certain things that would provoke a response from a more powerful nation is a different matter.

“But this does not apply to one of theirs that did not naturalize in the US.”

So what is the real point you are trying to get at? Do you think that the ability or inability to draft someone is evidence if they are “under the jurisdiction” of a nation?


304 posted on 08/31/2023 10:57:02 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies ]


To: Boogieman; DiogenesLamp
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845

It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all per­sons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.

[...]

And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329

31 CFR § 515.329 - Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

The terms person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and person subject to U.S. jurisdiction include:

(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;

(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;

(c) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and

(d) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.

[50 FR 27437, July 3, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003; 80 FR 2292, Jan. 16, 2015; 81 FR 13991, Mar. 16, 2016]

- - - - -

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.330

§ 515.330 Person within the United States.

(a) The term person within the United States, includes:

(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;

(2) Any person actually within the United States;

(3) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and

(4) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, which is owned or controlled by any person or persons specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.

(b) [Reserved]

[28 FR 6974, July 9, 1963, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003]


311 posted on 09/01/2023 5:39:05 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | 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