[Cboldt]

-- If "jurisdictions" meant merely being present on our soil and then obeying our laws (excluding, apparently, illegally arriving here), then there would be no need for that word "jurisdictions". --

Yes there would. Diplomats and invading armies. That's the extent of application of "subject to the jurisdiction", as popularly applied by courts for the last 100 or so years.

[Mr. K]

Boy did you miss my point. If they apply the meaning as merely being on our soil, then it is better NOT TO have that language.

[drpix]

The infamous Brennan footnote in the Plyler v. Doe decision, that the open-border crowd is always crowing about, cites the Wong Kim Ark decision. But when you read the following excerpt from Wong Kim Ark [Link] it appears that Brennan misrepresented that decision"

Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States,are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. {All highlight added}

It clearly makes permission to reside in the US a requirement (contrary to Brennan).

Any thoughts? I'm not a lawyer. For links and excerpts of all the above see here [Link - Post#32].