>> Once you grant that, the argument that “subject to its jurisdiction” does not apply to aliens is nonsensical. Of course they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Aliens (resident or illegal) who commit crimes can be prosecuted and incarcerated as with any U.S. citizen. <<
No, the LAND they are ON is subject to its jurisdiction, so therefore are the CRIMES they commit ON that land.
Please read the article in its entirety before posting. I explain this in considerable depth:
Foreigners are subject to U.S. law while residing in the United States because the land they are on are the jurisdiction of the United States. But citizens are also the jurisdiction of the United States, not just land. Foreigners, even those in the United States, are only the jurisdiction of the United States where that jurisdiction has been granted by their home country under the terms of their entry.
If that sounds too abstract, let’s look at simple examples:
EXAMPLE 1: Joe is sent to war in Vietnam, and doesn’t return. Vietnam claims he is dead. Is he legally dead? Not until the United States declares him legally dead. He was in Vietnam, but he was under US jurisdiction, not Vietnamese.
EXAMPLE TWO: Bill sleeps with a sixteen-year-old while visiting Elbonia. Under Elbonian law, this is statutory rape. He is tried in Elbonia, not because HE is under Elbonian jurisdiction, but because he is on land within Elbonian jurisdiction.
EXAMPLE THREE: Elbonia passes a law granting divorce without spousal consent. Bob wants to divorce Maria. So he goes to Elbonia. But Elbonia will not grant him the divorce, because they respect that Bob is under American jurisdiction.
EXAMPLE FOUR: This gets tricky: Fatima is granted a divorce from Ali, and moves to America. She and her daughter become citizens, and convert to Christianity. Then Elbonistan rules that because she has become Christian, she loses custody rights. Both the U.S. and Elbonistan claim jurisdiction over Fatima’s daughter.
Oh, please, that's a strained reading of the language (to put it politely):
"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." The subject of the sentence is "persons." And those persons are said to be "born or naturalized" AND "subject to (U.S.) jurisdiction. "Subject to" refers back to "persons." There is no mention or hint of "land" being in view here.
If that sounds too abstract, let’s look at simple examples
The passage from the WKA opinion I quoted in my subsequent post renders all your speculation here moot.
Foreigners, even those in the United States, are only the jurisdiction of the United States where that jurisdiction has been granted by their home country under the terms of their entry.
This statement is flat-out wrong. Are you suggesting that the U.S. can exercise jurisdiction over an alien (arrest, prosecute, apply all other laws) ONLY IF that country of that person's nationality has bestowed that jurisdiction on the U.S.??? Here I'm moving from "strained" to "ridiculous."