Posted on 08/22/2015 7:31:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
subject to the jurisdiction thereof clearly refers to diplomatic staff. Illegals either have the immunity of diplomatic staff or they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Feds and States. Clearly from 1787 to present EVERYONE not in diplomatic staff is and has been under the jurisdiction of the Feds and States.
Claiming illegals have diplomatic immunity is absurd. But that is where some are going with the dimplomatic immunity language.
Trump is no more a Constitutionalist than Obama. They are alike in that they both think the winner can do whatever with no regard to what people thought 100 or 227 years ago.
So if one of their parents commits a murder we can't prosecute and punish, only deport?
Exactly!
it was Bill Buckley himself who pointed out that liberals usually fail to make critical distinctions. Well, this is an example from his own magazine.
The critical distinction here is between the child of legal immigrants (who went home after their visa expired) and the children of illegal immigrants, those whose very presence here is illegal. It's one thing to argue that the birth of a child to a to an alien LEGALLY present in our country confers citizenship; it's entirely another to argue that this same principle applies to one who is here ILLEGALLY!
Then how can Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal be citizens? Much less natural born citizens?
Their parents were legal residents and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Yoo betcha
Except at the time the 14th was written there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. After the fact we can try to guess how the amendment might have been worded differently, but as it stands the language doesn't draw any distinction.
But .. don’t both of them have one parent/or both who are already citizens ..??
I’m asking because I don’t know the answer.
My guess - he meant “decimated “.
According to Mexican law a child born abroad to Mexican citizens is a Mexican national.
How about “intent”...The fact as u state... “ Resident aliens (there was no such thing as an illegal alien at the time)” begs the question of why... “AND” subject to the jurisdiction is there for a reason.... as it is clearly applied to Indians and diplomats with out naming them....common sense would put anchorbabys in that same category of the times and again.... "intent'
The Philippines are an odd sort of duck.
Once a territory of the US (much like Hawaii and Puerto Rico), the natives of the Philippines were, at one time, US subjects, and until the Philippines were given independence in 1946, all citizens of the Philippines were automatically US citizens when they entered US proper.
This sort of went away with independence, but Filipinos were still given preference on entering and applying for citizenship in the US, such as it was. Service in the US military service was enough to establish the necessary residency requirements (but that holds for ALL foreign nationals who enter the US legally).
clearly refers to diplomatic staff.<<<......HUH??
...where did u find that written??...source please...how about Indians at the time?
Indians are in their own sovereign country when on the reservation of the 14th Amendment time. When Indians are off the reservation in the US they are under the jurisdiction of the Feds and States, just like you and me. (actually who has “jurisdiction” over what and whom on a reservation depends on the language of the treaty, etc. Not all reservations are the same.)
John Yoo? Is he an anchor baby or does he have one?
Sure sounds like it.
His article is misleading at best... Intentionally dishonest probably.
The 14th as the vehicle and US v Ark are nothing but smoke screens to a lie.
Oh, wait...
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
Nevermind.
wink
RE: John Yoo? Is he an anchor baby or does he have one?
John Yoo was born in South Korea. His parents migrated LEGALLY to the USA.
He is a NATURALIZED American Citizen. SO the answer to the question is ‘No’.
All of the above. We need to approach it at every angle. Then if not successful, do it again. That’s what the liberals do.
But diplomats and Indians for the most part had immunity from our laws - hence not subject to our jurisdiction. Illegals and their children did not have immunity. That seems to me to be the big distinction.
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.