Maroon Dawn said:

---

The ruling we need is that

-if you are here to two us citizens you are a citizen

- If you are born here to parents legally in the US, you have dual citizenship (ideally also meaning your parents don't get to stay here after their visa expires and must take you back to their country or origin and then when you turn 18 you can move back here yourself if you want)

And if your parent(s) are not here legally, too bad you all go back, no citizenship to you

---

I would modify that slightly.....

- If born in the US with atleast 1 parent a US citizen..... citizen
- If born outside the US with atleast 1 parent a US citizen..... citizen or fast track to citizen
- If born in the US to non-citizens legally in the US...... fast track to apply for dual citizenship
- If born in the US to non-citizens with either being in the country illegally...... no citizen

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

Again, Trump will not direct USCIS to strip their citizenship. If you want to force his hand, you are welcome to sue all the way up to SCOTUS.

---

It's not up to Trump, or any president, to simply choose to enforce the law or not.

This could even come up in private litigation. For example, you could have a divorce case where one parent was born in the US decades ago, but their parents were illegals, and in the custody dispute, the other spouse could show that they were not a citizen.

---

Ugh, hate to break it to ya, sir, but that's kinda how we got in this whole predicament in the first place. DECADES of willful unenforcement of immigration laws by the executive.

There is such a big assumption that the Supreme Court will take up the case, I'm going to laugh if they don't.

rgvag11 said:

---

There is such a big assumption that the Supreme Court will take up the case, I'm going to laugh if they don't.

---

I think you are correct!

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Immigration Courts are neither criminal nor civil courts. They're administrative offices under the DHS.

So your argument is flat out wrong.

---

Yeah, I'm a lawyer and well aware of that, and I've informed other posters of that here before.

Whether the proceeding initiated by the United States is civil, criminal, or quasi-criminal, you can only initiate the proceeding in the first place if there is jurisdiction over the defendant. Everyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, again with very limited exceptions not applicable here.

twk said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

If you go back and read the debates on adoption of the amendment, there was actually a some discussion on the topic, and the exclusion of Indian tribes, who were manifestly present in the US but still "...not subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." is a pretty good argument that the limitation is broader than children of diplomats and foreign combatants.

---

Not really. Indian tribes are a very particular category of persons that have cultural and historical significance in the United States, so it made sense to give them some kind of unique status and self-governing authority. They aren't just people who walked across the border. But I am pretty sure Indian tribes are within the jurisdiction of United States and subject to federal law.

American "citizens"

Slicer97 said:

---

Short and sweet: If you're parents are here illegally, you're all going back. And y'all will stay there until you find the means to come here legally.

There. That wasn't so hard.

---

And I had bacon and black coffee for breakfast

In other words, it isn't happening

the most cool guy said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Immigration Courts are neither criminal nor civil courts. They're administrative offices under the DHS.

So your argument is flat out wrong.

---

Yeah, I'm a lawyer and well aware of that, and I've informed other posters of that here before.

Whether the proceeding initiated by the United States is civil, criminal, or quasi-criminal, you can only initiate the proceeding in the first place if there is jurisdiction over the defendant. Everyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, again with very limited exceptions not applicable here.

---

I really don't understand this idea from many on here that the state and federal government can prosecute individuals who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I'm also a lawyer, and I have a current appointed client who is present in the US without lawful status. If the posters here were correct on what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, then this client is being unlawfully prosecuted by a state that has no jurisdiction over him, and I should be able to get his case dismissed, and yet, I can assure you that's not the case.

the most cool guy said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Immigration Courts are neither criminal nor civil courts. They're administrative offices under the DHS.

So your argument is flat out wrong.

---

Yeah, I'm a lawyer and well aware of that, and I've informed other posters of that here before.

Whether the proceeding initiated by the United States is civil, criminal, or quasi-criminal, you can only initiate the proceeding in the first place if there is jurisdiction over the defendant. Everyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, again with very limited exceptions not applicable here.

---

Oh you're a lawyer! Why didn't you say so in the first place. Are you also a vegan who's into CrossFit?

Friendly joking here. My opinion of lawyers has risen of late once I've needed one.

jacketman03 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Immigration Courts are neither criminal nor civil courts. They're administrative offices under the DHS.

So your argument is flat out wrong.

---

Yeah, I'm a lawyer and well aware of that, and I've informed other posters of that here before.

Whether the proceeding initiated by the United States is civil, criminal, or quasi-criminal, you can only initiate the proceeding in the first place if there is jurisdiction over the defendant. Everyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, again with very limited exceptions not applicable here.

---

I really don't understand this idea from many on here that the state and federal government can prosecute individuals who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I'm also a lawyer, and I have a current appointed client who is present in the US without lawful status. If the posters here were correct on what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, then this client is being unlawfully prosecuted by a state that has no jurisdiction over him, and I should be able to get his case dismissed, and yet, I can assure you that's not the case.

---

Your client can't be drafted or compelled to serve on a jury, or forced to pay a poll tax (if we had one). He's subject to the criminal laws of this country, but he's not subject to the jurisdiction of the US the way that a citizen is.

twk said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Immigration Courts are neither criminal nor civil courts. They're administrative offices under the DHS.

So your argument is flat out wrong.

---

Yeah, I'm a lawyer and well aware of that, and I've informed other posters of that here before.

Whether the proceeding initiated by the United States is civil, criminal, or quasi-criminal, you can only initiate the proceeding in the first place if there is jurisdiction over the defendant. Everyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, again with very limited exceptions not applicable here.

---

I really don't understand this idea from many on here that the state and federal government can prosecute individuals who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I'm also a lawyer, and I have a current appointed client who is present in the US without lawful status. If the posters here were correct on what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, then this client is being unlawfully prosecuted by a state that has no jurisdiction over him, and I should be able to get his case dismissed, and yet, I can assure you that's not the case.

---

Your client can't be drafted or compelled to serve on a jury, or forced to pay a poll tax (if we had one). He's subject to the criminal laws of this country, but he's not subject to the jurisdiction of the US the way that a citizen is.

---

I can't believe I'm having to say this, but if he's not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then he's not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and not subject to criminal prosecution.

And if he had a green card, he also wouldn't be able to be drafted or serve on a jury, but he would still be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States the same as he is now.

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Well it is at least worth it to argue in front of SCOTUS that there should be no citizenship for individuals who's mother crossed the border while pregnant for the purpose of gaining citizenship for one and perhaps all. I guess it can also be argued for a child of a woman who crossed illegally who has a baby 18 months later should also not be granted citizenship. This is one of those insane cases where our constitution and amendments having the best intentions provided a loophole. In 1868 the body politic never envisioned hoards illegally entering for this purpose.

There is something silly about all this and it comes from the fact that Leftists, Democrats (not quite the same thing) are so dishonest in motives.

Namely, its pretty obvious to any with a brain that the German spies landing in New York in 1943 couldn't do something as simple as have a kid and declare themselves and the kids citizens. At least not without some noticeable paperwork process and time.

That the meaning of citizenship gets watered down is asinine.

JayM said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Well it is at least worth it to argue in front of SCOTUS that there should be no citizenship for individuals who's mother crossed the border while pregnant for the purpose of gaining citizenship for one and perhaps all. I guess it can also be argued for a child of a woman who crossed illegally who has a baby 18 months later should also not be granted citizenship. This is one of those insane cases where our constitution and amendments having the best intentions provided a loophole. In 1868 the body politic never envisioned hoards illegally entering for this purpose.

---

I agree it is worth making the argument.

JayM said:

---

In 1868 the body politic never envisioned hoards illegally entering for this purpose.

---

One could say the same about 1787 and semiautomatic rifles with an effective range of 6 football fields.

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Different types of "jurisdiction".

Territorial Law Jurisdiction - Can't commit murder, can't enter illegally, can't steal, etc in the US.

Political Jurisdiction - An illegal is allegiant to a foreign government therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

It's the later version of jurisdiction that's written in the 14th Amendment.

The Slaughter House Case of 1872 held that children of ministers, consuls born in the US were excluded because they were subjects of foreign states. You can bet that the minister or consul here would be prosecuted for crimes committed here though. See, two kinds of jurisdiction.

jacketman03 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Immigration Courts are neither criminal nor civil courts. They're administrative offices under the DHS.

So your argument is flat out wrong.

---

Yeah, I'm a lawyer and well aware of that, and I've informed other posters of that here before.

Whether the proceeding initiated by the United States is civil, criminal, or quasi-criminal, you can only initiate the proceeding in the first place if there is jurisdiction over the defendant. Everyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, again with very limited exceptions not applicable here.

---

I really don't understand this idea from many on here that the state and federal government can prosecute individuals who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I'm also a lawyer, and I have a current appointed client who is present in the US without lawful status. If the posters here were correct on what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, then this client is being unlawfully prosecuted by a state that has no jurisdiction over him, and I should be able to get his case dismissed, and yet, I can assure you that's not the case.

---

I'm a little confused by your post but I think you're agreeing with me.

You are right. The very fact that somebody (citizen or not) can have civil charges, criminal charges, or quasi-criminal charges in an immigration court brought against them necessitates that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The examples of voting, being drafted, and serving on a jury don't have anything to do with jurisdiction. They are just forms of public service and government participation that are required of, or reserved for, citizens.

If you can have federal charges brought against you, then you're under the jurisdiction of the United States. If you're going to argue that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then you would have to agree that they can't be charged and deported for illegally entering the country, but we know they can be. Ergo, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Now, it is possible that the Supreme Court will take up this issue and say "illegal aliens and their children can be prosecuted for crimes or for immigration status, but we hereby hold that henceforth this kind of jurisdiction to prosecute unlawful activity is different from the 'jurisdiction' in the constitution that defines citizenship." But that is highly unlikely and I don't see it happening.

the most cool guy said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Immigration Courts are neither criminal nor civil courts. They're administrative offices under the DHS.

So your argument is flat out wrong.

---

Yeah, I'm a lawyer and well aware of that, and I've informed other posters of that here before.

Whether the proceeding initiated by the United States is civil, criminal, or quasi-criminal, you can only initiate the proceeding in the first place if there is jurisdiction over the defendant. Everyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, again with very limited exceptions not applicable here.

---

I really don't understand this idea from many on here that the state and federal government can prosecute individuals who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I'm also a lawyer, and I have a current appointed client who is present in the US without lawful status. If the posters here were correct on what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, then this client is being unlawfully prosecuted by a state that has no jurisdiction over him, and I should be able to get his case dismissed, and yet, I can assure you that's not the case.

---

I'm a little confused by your post but I think you're agreeing with me.

You are right. The very fact that somebody (citizen or not) can have civil charges, criminal charges, or quasi-criminal charges in an immigration court brought against them necessitates that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The examples of voting, being drafted, and serving on a jury don't have anything to do with jurisdiction. They are just forms of public service and government participation that are required of, or reserved for, citizens.

If you can have federal charges brought against you, then you're under the jurisdiction of the United States. If you're going to argue that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then you would have to agree that they can't be charged and deported for illegally entering the country, but we know they can be. Ergo, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Now, it is possible that the Supreme Court will take up this issue and say "illegal aliens and their children can be prosecuted for crimes or for immigration status, but we hereby hold that henceforth this kind of jurisdiction to prosecute unlawful activity is different from the 'jurisdiction' in the constitution that defines citizenship." But that is highly unlikely and I don't see it happening.

---

Okay, let me break it down for you (and anybody else who is confused by what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means):
1) if you can be haled into court, then you are subject to the jurisdiction of the government entity that has sanctioned the court.
2) if you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and you have a child in the United States, that child is a citizen by birth
3) not everybody physically present in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. There are 3 categories of people physically present in, yet not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, a) foreign diplomats and their families, 3) foreign citizens on a public ship owned by another country, and c) foreign troops of a hostile country currently in occupation of territory in the United States. If you're not in one of those 3 categories, you're subject to the jurisdiction
4) if you're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you cannot be sued or prosecuted in the courts of the United States without the explicit permission of the foreign government that sent you to the US.
5) if illegal immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they cannot be charged with crimes, or be forced to appear in immigration court, or be forcibly removed from the US.

Edit: yes, we are in accord on the status of the law currently.

Enviroag02 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Different types of "jurisdiction".

Territorial Law Jurisdiction - Can't commit murder, can't enter illegally, can't steal, etc in the US.

Political Jurisdiction - An illegal is allegiant to a foreign government therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

It's the later version of jurisdiction that's written in the 14th Amendment.

The Slaughter House Case of 1872 held that children of ministers, consuls born in the US were excluded because they were subjects of foreign states. You can bet that the minister or consul here would be prosecuted for crimes committed here though. See, two kinds of jurisdiction.

---

Please give me an example of any minister or consul prosecuted for crimes committed in the United States. I'll wait

jacketman03 said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Different types of "jurisdiction".

Territorial Law Jurisdiction - Can't commit murder, can't enter illegally, can't steal, etc in the US.

Political Jurisdiction - An illegal is allegiant to a foreign government therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

It's the later version of jurisdiction that's written in the 14th Amendment.

The Slaughter House Case of 1872 held that children of ministers, consuls born in the US were excluded because they were subjects of foreign states. You can bet that the minister or consul here would be prosecuted for crimes committed here though. See, two kinds of jurisdiction.

---

Please give me an example of any minister or consul prosecuted for crimes committed in the United States. I'll wait

---

Just because they haven't doesn't mean they wouldn't be. That's a ridiculous argument. If a serious crime is committed unrelated to their diplomatic role, they'd be prosecuted. Besides that was just one argument to show the concept of two types of jurisdiction and it's still valid.

All of your posts have been about 1 type of jurisdiction. Territorial law jurisdiction. You ignore the second, political jurisdiction, which was the intent of the 14th.

jacketman03 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Immigration Courts are neither criminal nor civil courts. They're administrative offices under the DHS.

So your argument is flat out wrong.

---

Yeah, I'm a lawyer and well aware of that, and I've informed other posters of that here before.

Whether the proceeding initiated by the United States is civil, criminal, or quasi-criminal, you can only initiate the proceeding in the first place if there is jurisdiction over the defendant. Everyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, again with very limited exceptions not applicable here.

---

I really don't understand this idea from many on here that the state and federal government can prosecute individuals who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I'm also a lawyer, and I have a current appointed client who is present in the US without lawful status. If the posters here were correct on what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, then this client is being unlawfully prosecuted by a state that has no jurisdiction over him, and I should be able to get his case dismissed, and yet, I can assure you that's not the case.

---

Sorry, you'd never be my lawyer with that logic!

He's "subject" as in "a subject of a king"...maybe look up the meaning of "subject of a king"...HTH

And I'm an architect...I know, I know...it's hard to make sense of building codes and zoning ordinances.

jacketman03 said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is going to be a loser for Trump even though I wish it wasn't. Everybody in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. There are a few limited exceptions, but a bunch of randos crossing the border illegally is not one of them. They're all under our jurisdiction. That's why we can bring them in front of an U.S. immigration court and have them deported. A court might say differently, but I doubt it. This will require a constitutional amendment and will never happen.

---

Different types of "jurisdiction".

Territorial Law Jurisdiction - Can't commit murder, can't enter illegally, can't steal, etc in the US.

Political Jurisdiction - An illegal is allegiant to a foreign government therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

It's the later version of jurisdiction that's written in the 14th Amendment.

The Slaughter House Case of 1872 held that children of ministers, consuls born in the US were excluded because they were subjects of foreign states. You can bet that the minister or consul here would be prosecuted for crimes committed here though. See, two kinds of jurisdiction.

---

Please give me an example of any minister or consul prosecuted for crimes committed in the United States. I'll wait

---

There have been a few here in the Washington DC area...can't name them of the top. Pretty sure there was a eurotrash woman that killed someone while driving a car a few years ago.

Typically, what happens is that those individuals are quickly whisked off by their delegations rather than make a bigger stink!

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

acketman03 said:


Please give me an example of any minister or consul prosecuted for crimes committed in the United States. I'll wait

---

There have been a few here in the Washington DC area...can't name them of the top. Pretty sure there was a eurotrash woman that killed someone while driving a car a few years ago.

Typically, what happens is that those individuals are quickly whisked off by their delegations rather than make a bigger stink!

---

You are making his point for him. There are not examples of ministers or consuls being prosecuted for committing crimes here, even though they do it! And probably a lot!

Nothing to worry about there will be a grandfather clause but it will need to be an illegal grandfather clause grandfather clause.

When you travel abroad you are still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. You still gotta pay your US taxes AND WHEREVER whatever country you traveled to you can be thrown into jail breaking that countries laws. Dropping a baby in that vacation country does not make that baby a citizen.

Currently you do not determine what country makes your baby a citizen anywhere except the USA sans the current EO.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

acketman03 said:


Please give me an example of any minister or consul prosecuted for crimes committed in the United States. I'll wait

---

There have been a few here in the Washington DC area...can't name them of the top. Pretty sure there was a eurotrash woman that killed someone while driving a car a few years ago.

Typically, what happens is that those individuals are quickly whisked off by their delegations rather than make a bigger stink!

---

You are making his point for him. There are not examples of ministers or consuls being prosecuted for committing crimes here, even though they do it! And probably a lot!

---

It really doesn't matter that he's making the point for him. The main thing is that there are two types of jurisdiction, and he has not disputed that point.

Enviroag02 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

acketman03 said:


Please give me an example of any minister or consul prosecuted for crimes committed in the United States. I'll wait

---

There have been a few here in the Washington DC area...can't name them of the top. Pretty sure there was a eurotrash woman that killed someone while driving a car a few years ago.

Typically, what happens is that those individuals are quickly whisked off by their delegations rather than make a bigger stink!

---

You are making his point for him. There are not examples of ministers or consuls being prosecuted for committing crimes here, even though they do it! And probably a lot!

---

It really doesn't matter that he's making the point for him. The main thing is that there are two types of jurisdiction, and he has not disputed that point.

---

LOL. It does matter because saying "f a serious crime is committed unrelated to their diplomatic role, they'd be prosecuted. " is completely FALSE.


I know there are "two types of jurisdiction." It has been discussed ad nauseum on other threads!

jacketman03 said:

---

JayM said:

---

In 1868 the body politic never envisioned hoards illegally entering for this purpose.

---

One could say the same about 1787 and semiautomatic rifles with an effective range of 6 football fields.

---

No, one couldn't without being a liar. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to be able to fight off an oppressive government. There is no question about that except to dishonest people.

Citizens at the time could own cannons and whatever the latest military technology was. Now, fascists like Eric Swalwell and Joe Biden love to talk about killing American citizens with nuclear weapons and jets because...they're fascists. They underscore our need to be able to fight off oppressors because they would subjugate every one of us in a second. Swalwell and Biden are Corruptocrats. Our forefathers would have dealt with them severely.

The 14th Amendment was for dealing with freed slaves, not to allow any ****bird to walk into the country and drop anchor babies. There is no question about it except to dishonest people.

twk said:

---

oh no said:

---

We've got 350 million people, maybe closer to half a billion if all illegals were to be counted. It doesn't seem like we need to keep the incentive for anyone and everyone to keep sneaking in here to make babies anymore. We'll never get a repeal or another amendment, since there are too many America-hating communists in both the US and state legislatures to get 2/3rds + 3/4ths respectively. Can only hope for judiciary to uphold Trump admin's interpretation and I'm skeptical that can happen.

---

I agree with Trump's interpretation of the 14th, but his attempt to limit this interpretation to be prospective would have no basis in the constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it, and having an effective date for an interpretation would be unusual, to say the least. Maybe they did that with Miranda (I don't recall), but that's the kind of judicial activism that makes conservatives' skin crawl.

---

They did it with Chevron, too, when they shot that down.

It didn't affect cases that had occurred prior to the SCOTUS ruling.

So there IS precedent.

twk said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

twk said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

No one will have their citizenship stripped. It applies to those born after Trump's EO.

Also, it applies to illegal immigrants only. Children of those who migrated legally (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) are citizens.

---

Trump doesn't have the power to limit the 14th amendment.

Nor does the court, if they do their job properly.

It is an all or nothing proposition.

---

The court will simply agree with Trump that children of illegal immigrants do not fall under the 14th amendment. What he wants to do beyond that is up to him, but I highly doubt he will direct USCIS to strip someone's citizenship.

---

You don't get a card saying that you are a citizen. It's not like a car title. You either are, or you aren't. If Trump's interpretation of the14th prevails, then there will be millions of adults born in the US who are no longer citizens, although they may skate by without anyone challenging their citizenship for years or decades. It would be quite a thing to have hanging over your head.

---

jacketman03 said:

---

JayM said:

---

In 1868 the body politic never envisioned hoards illegally entering for this purpose.

---

One could say the same about 1787 and semiautomatic rifles with an effective range of 6 football fields.

---

Haven't there been cases challenging the second amendment?