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

To: Pete Dovgan

It isn’t “under the jurisdiction”... it’s “subject to the jurisdiction.”

The first would apply to just about anyone as you place yourself under the jurisdiction of local laws by your presence. That’s how the Left views the 14th Amendment. The second refers to a status of citizenship. In language, the British are subjects of the crown while Americans are citizens of the United States. Location doesn’t change this.


32 posted on 03/31/2026 6:57:34 AM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: pgyanke

“The first would apply to just about anyone as you place yourself under the jurisdiction of local laws by your presence. “

Yes, the wording is important and your correct. However, from a standpoint the ‘invaders’ have not placed themselves under local law or authority. From my standpoint, if you invade a nation (with force or sneak in) your not ‘Subject to’ or ‘Under’ the jurisdiction. Only if your caught do you fall under that ‘Jurisdiction’. If your caught and going through ‘due process’ your Subject to Consequences, but are only ‘temporarily’ here. The understanding would be simpler for Americans if we called those here not ‘Undocumented’ or ‘Illegal’ but what they really are ‘Foreign Invaders’.


40 posted on 03/31/2026 7:17:33 AM PDT by Pete Dovgan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: pgyanke

To be “subject to the jurisdiction, requires government approval.


58 posted on 03/31/2026 8:47:12 AM PDT by batazoid (Natural born citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | 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