Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DoughtyOne
Persons visiting in the United States, are not U.S. Subjects. They are the subjects of the nation where they are citizens.

They are subjects of another country from a citizenship standpoint. But visiting here is not a license to disobey our laws. Any person, regardless of citizenship, who breaks the law in the U.S. can be arrested, tried, and jailed. Any American who breaks the laws in a foreign country can have the same fate. Subject to our jurisdiction means subject to our laws and the penalty for breaking them. Every person visiting, legally or illegally, falls into that category. With the exception of those under diplomatic immunity.

54 posted on 05/26/2009 10:38:45 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur

“Subject to our jurisdiction means subject to our laws and the penalty for breaking them.”

You are implying that this amendment is only referring to the jurisdiction of our laws! That is the same bad ruling that decided that this includes anchor babies! You completely ignore the second sentence that specifically says it does not mean foreigners! In other words those that are NOT subjects of the US.

Now, you will say that it clarifies only those that are afforded diplomatic immunity, but I say it does NOT - it says foreigners, aliens and then mentions those that have immunity!


56 posted on 05/26/2009 10:45:10 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (For whatsoe'ver their sufferings were before; that change they covet makes them suffer more. -Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur

“They are subjects of another country from a citizenship standpoint.”

And tell me again where in the 14th Amendment that it states that this amendment is referring to the application of criminal laws? As I remember, since you did me the favor of posting it to me - this has to do with , uh...CITIZENSHIP!!!

Funny how all this comes full circle - isn’t it?


61 posted on 05/26/2009 11:05:46 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (For whatsoe'ver their sufferings were before; that change they covet makes them suffer more. -Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
I'm going to argue with you based on a layman's understanding.  If you continue to disagree, that's okay with me.  I still think you are wrong.  Here's why.

Constitution of the United States

Fourteenth Amendment:

Section One:

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.

Your interpretation the section is:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

I say this with confidence.  If this amendment meant what you state it does, then every person born in the United States would automatically be a citizen, and there would be no necessity to inclue the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  Including that phrase sets up a test.  And if there is a test, then there has to be an exception.  You have just addressed this as if there can be no exception.

Therefore I believe you to be wrong.



62 posted on 05/26/2009 11:06:39 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Obama is mentally a child of ten. Just remember that when he makes statements and issues policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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