Replies

Are you a lawyer? Because if you are, you should ask for your tuition back or your law student loan to be forgiven.

Unless you’re a liberal which means you have incomplete understanding and therefore specious reasoning ability, you cannot make an argument that an illegal alien has constitutional rights, benefits, and protections.

Illegal aliens are de facto criminals and therefore have no rights. There are voluntary US standards for humane treatment of illegals. There is an understood ‘humane policy’ for such aliens as they are processed for deportation or observed to leave of their own accord. But policy is not law, it is just an agreement on how to conduct human affairs in the moment. Policy can change day to day, hour to hour.

What you’ve done is to mix overly simplistic yet erroneous definitions of ‘illegals’ as ‘persons’ and think you have it all figured out that illegals are beneficiaries of US jurisdiction.

Indeed, illegals are human flesh persons but not ‘persons’ in the US legal sense. The US legal definition of ‘persons’ means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, or other organization followed by ‘subject to the US jurisdiction’. Looking at ‘person’ in isolation of ‘subject to X’ leads to error in law.

You found a definition of ‘person subject to X’ and immediately assumed this definition separates into ‘person’ and ‘X’. This is why it is easy to see you are not a lawyer or not a good one. Because you break off ‘person’ and see that anyone inside the US is a ‘person’. Your logic proceeds that an illegal is a person inside the US, therefore an illegal is a ‘person subject to’. You broke apart the meanings and put them back together in a way you wanted.

JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered an opinion of the Supreme Court:
“Since the late 19th century, the United States has restricted immigration into this country. Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and those who have entered unlawfully are ***subject to deportation***, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).”

SCOTUS thus pronounces illegal aliens “SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION”.

That’s the way the law is, it’s an attempt at being a science with all kinds of definitions, theories, corollaries, and case law. It tries to be scientific. The layman such as yourself comes in with an attitude “I know how to do law and stuff” and all you accomplish is to piss off the pros.

So go ahead and pat yourself on the back thinking illegals inside the nation deserve all kinds of benefits and such. When law enforcement arrives, they will look at you thinking you can have your thoughts but their orders are to process that illegal you’re defending, process him/her for DEPORTATION.

And they’re not going to listen a peep about your argument that Milago with the MS-13 tattoos is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’. They will warn you to stand aside or else.