Posted on 08/18/2015 12:04:39 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
It also has the HISTORY of changes that have been made and what they meant to change.
We can argue all forms of meaningless nuances. (how many angels can dance on the head of a pin etc.) It is all irrelevant against the written down law here.
This is LAW not constitution.
(a) a person born in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF
Do you mean, unconstitutional? Can you explain.
I'm no lawyer. My take on that sentence is the same as yours. If a person is in the US illegally, they aren't subject to our laws. As far as other non-citizens in the US, I can't imagine why they can't sign something that acknowledges that the citizenship of any children they have is not US citizenship.
Here’s someone who gets it:
laws can be changed by congress. Constitution requires the amendment process.
this is the 14th Amendment:
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
To change this requires a constitutional amendment process.
it is like child support. It is not the parent’s to waive.
I thought the text regarding the proof and age for obtaining citizenship before 24 was interesting. it neuters this Obama invasion effort.
The LAW is exactly what the Media and Democrats say it is. In other words, we live in a lawless former empire that is even now, crumbling around us.
So if an illegal alien murders someone, we can't prosecute them?
The "subject to the jurisdiction" language excludes foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity (even if they murder someone).
The law can be used to DEFINE the types of jurisdiction.
the law can be used to tie the hands of immigration judges (aka administrative judges NOT article III judges)
Actually, I think it includes invaders as well. The children of an invading army wouldn’t be citizens would they? So neither should the children of invading barbarians.
Then they can't be arrested for breaking them?
If they are subject to our laws then aren't they subject to our jurisdiction?
I believe that subject to the laws of a country, means subject to taxes, drafting into the military, voting rights, and such things. Of course of you are visiting a foreign country, you are subject to its criminals laws, contract and tax laws if you are doing business in the country, etc; but other laws and rights such as voting rights, right to receive welfare benefits and education, receiving a passport, military service, etc., you are not subject to, and they do not apply to you, because you are not a citizen of that country. This should mean that no one born here whose parents are not subject to our laws (such as voting, military service, etc.) is be a citizen; this person inherits the citizenship of his parents.
they can demand their ambassador intervene in criminal matters. that makes an immigration criminal case international.
I don’t understand what you mean or the point. May be my fault but, well ... there it is.
I see what you’re saying, Sopater. If a non-citizen breaks the law, they are subject to prosecution under US law, BUT they do not have the same rights & protections that a US citizen has under US law.
(not a lawyer, either)
That's what should happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.