Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Ancesthntr

This doesn’t sound quite right.

Declaring that someone born in the US, to whomever, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US would effectively decriminalize unlawful actions committed by such persons - you can not prosecute someone not subject to your jurisdiction. “Subject to the jurisdiction” was included to specifically EXCLUDE diplomats and such. Not immigrants.

There is an excellent treatise on this written by a senator back in the mid 60’s - I’ll see if I can find the link.


17 posted on 02/24/2017 8:38:05 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: An.American.Expatriate
Declaring that someone born in the US, to whomever, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US would effectively decriminalize unlawful actions committed by such persons

Incorrect.

You are comparing territorial jurisdiction to political jurisdiction - the second one being the one that defines your nationality and thus what nation you are a "subject" of and to whom you owe allegiance.

Just because you're a subject of the English King doesn't mean we can't arrest and prosecute you for murder within our territorial boundaries. But we don't have to afford you the same rights as one of our nationals, as you are not part of our polity. Unless of course we decide to - i.e. the Congress acts to do so.

John Eastman and Edwin Meese wrote a great amicus curiae brief for the Hamdi case defining all of this. A good discussion of it is here:

Defining American: Birthright Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment.

27 posted on 02/24/2017 9:43:52 AM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: An.American.Expatriate
“Subject to the jurisdiction” was included to specifically EXCLUDE diplomats and such. Not immigrants.

This is incorrect. I am aware that this is the common wisdom on the 14th amendment, but it does not jive with History. The earlier legislation intended to address citizenship for freed slaves, made it much clearer that the children of temporary foreign visitors were not intended to be made into citizens.

My tagline is a statement by John Bingham, the author of the 14th amendment. He made it clear in congressional debates that there was no intention of granting citizenship to the children of aliens who were born in this country.

41 posted on 02/24/2017 3:52:21 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Your interpretation is simply not correct.

By having the Congress state in a bill, which would be signed into law by the President, that the United States has no jurisdiction over someone for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress would not be saying that we can’t clap them in jail for committing a crime, it would only be saying that this person would not meet the eligibility requirements for US citizenship. If you care to take a look at the actual text of the 14th Amendment, the very first sentence of Section 1 indicates that someone born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, is a citizen of a country and the state in which they reside. Eliminate jurisdiction over them for this purpose only) and you have eliminated their birthright citizenship. That is the whole point.


46 posted on 02/24/2017 11:30:30 PM PST by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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