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

To: higgmeister
Levin's point that an illegal is not under the jurisdiction of our government is totally valid. If the illegal gave himself over to US jurisdiction he would be detained and deported back to the country that does have valid jurisdiction. The illegal intentionally rejects US jurisdiction.

Levin's point is wrong, because the relevant person for 14th Amendment purposes is not the illegal alien him/herself, but rather the U.S.-born child. Levin may be correct that the illegal intentionally rejects U.S. jurisdiction, but the question of whether the child is subject to U.S. jurisdiction is far less clear.

19 posted on 08/18/2015 7:20:48 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Conscience of a Conservative

That’s total bs. If Obama can do whatever e wants, Trump can also. And e would have the constitution on his side.

http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=2591&c=10771&f=4733593


21 posted on 08/18/2015 7:22:13 PM PDT by GilGil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Is the child of a Mexican mother a Mexican citizen?


31 posted on 08/18/2015 7:28:37 PM PDT by amihow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

It is very clear especially if you read the comments by the authors of the 14th amendment. They explicitly prohibit foreigners from such protection or benefit.


44 posted on 08/18/2015 7:40:40 PM PDT by Ajnin (Wolves don't lose sleep over the opinion of sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Conscience of a Conservative; higgmeister

“... because the relevant person for 14th Amendment purposes is not the illegal alien him/herself, but rather the U.S.-born child. Levin may be correct that the illegal intentionally rejects U.S. jurisdiction, but the question of whether the child is subject to U.S. jurisdiction is far less clear. “

Incorrect. If it was correct, the children of ambassadors and of an invading army would be citizens by birth. They are not because THEIR PARENTS were not under the jurisdiction, or, in the words of Wong Kim Ark:

“predicable of aliens in amity” - in amity, ie, in mutual friendship with...

“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649


55 posted on 08/18/2015 7:48:27 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Can you remember what America was like in 2004?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

I think the point is you cannot by yourself enter into the jurisdiction of the united states.


90 posted on 08/19/2015 12:10:14 AM PDT by kvanbrunt2 (civil law: commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong Blackstone Commentaries I p44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | 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