Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

[CCTelander]

LOL

It makes them invaders that we have a right to expel.

Not subject to the jurisdiction of = not subject to the laws of, by definition. They therefore cannot be "illegal" immigrants, nor "invaders," nor any other unlawful entity since they are not subject to the laws in question to begin with. Assuming your claim that they "aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is factual, which of course it is not.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Invaders that you cannot, legally, expel.

If it were possible, it would make being an illegal immigrant the best status for a resident of the country. It would elevate them above citizens.

If they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the US", they are not illegally in the country. Anything they do would not be illegal- our laws would not apply to them. If they are subject to jurisdiction, then their children born in this country must be considered citizens under the Constitution- unless Congress and the states can change the 14th Amendment. Unless you want activist judges to interpret the Constitution and not follow the letter of the law. You don't get it both ways.

Not subject to the jurisdiction of = not subject to the laws of, by definition. They therefore cannot be "illegal" immigrants, nor "invaders," nor any other unlawful entity since they are not subject to the laws in question to begin with. Assuming your claim that they "aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is factual, which of course it is not.

LOL

We can expel an invading army and they are not subject to our jurisdiction, we can expel diplomats and they are not subject to our jurisdiction.

These invaders are no different.

 

[UWDude]

You apparently don't realize it (or think the rest of us are too stupid to realize it), but with your tortured misinterpretations of the English language and legal doctrine you're actually arguing against your own position. If, as you claim, "illegal" immigrants "aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US," then they quite literally, by definition, are not subject to the laws of the US, since that is exactly what being subject to the jurisdiction of means. They therefore could not be "illegal" immigrants but would be here perfectly legally, completely defeating your entire argument.

Laws exist because of force. Not because of some silly pantomiming and clown-logic.
Anyways, I don't believe in your laws, man. I believe in reality, and only reality.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-joint-resolution/46

+rep

Forwarded to:

whitehouse.gov & Twitter.
[MENTION=68777]real[/MENTION]DonaldTrump Re: Birthright Citizenship executive order. Please refer to former congressman Dr. Ron Paul's resolution
H.J.Res.46 — 110th Congress (2007-2008)

 

[Zippyjuan]

LOL

We can expel an invading army and they are not subject to our jurisdiction, we can expel diplomats and they are not subject to our jurisdiction.

These invaders are no different.

Diplomats have immunity from the laws of their host country. Their children thus are not automatically citizens under the 14th Amendment since they are not subject to our jurisdiction. Illegal immigrants are subject to the laws of the US. If you want to declare them exempt from US laws, then you can deny their children born in the US automatic citizenship. That is the choice.

 

[acptulsa]

Laws exist because of force. Not because of some silly pantomiming and clown-logic.
Anyways, I don't believe in your laws, man. I believe in reality, and only reality.

How does that change the reality that swordshyll is arguing against his own stated opinion?

Yeah, the post gave you all those irrelevant feelz. Who cares? You in no way disproved--nor addressed, nor, apparently, even understood--what he said.. So why would anyone care about your unrelated and irrelevant feelz?

 

[CCTelander]

LOL

We can expel an invading army and they are not subject to our jurisdiction, we can expel diplomats and they are not subject to our jurisdiction.

These invaders are no different.

Please, educate yourself. There really is no excuse for this level of ignorance.

 

[DamianTV]

An ARMY of Invaders are NOT Diplomats. It is nothing short of an ACT OF WAR.

 

[TheCount]

We can expel an invading army and they are not subject to our jurisdiction, we can expel diplomats and they are not subject to our jurisdiction.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. You "expel" diplomats by revoking their diplomatic accreditation, which invalidates both their diplomatic immunity and their visas. The diplomats then leave of their own accord because if they didn't, they would then be subject to your laws. They are not, in actuality, subject to your laws at any time. This is the entire reason that the 'subject to the jurisdiction' clause exists in the 14th amendment to begin with.

Article 9

1. The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.
2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this Article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.

...


Article 39

1. Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy them from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as may be agreed.
2. When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country, or on expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so, but shall subsist until that time, even in case of armed conflict. However, with respect to acts performed by such a person in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission, immunity shall continue to subsist.

Members of invading armies are not expelled, they are killed or captured. Once captured, they can be prosecuted, not only under the laws of war but under local laws. In other words, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the territory that they are in.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

Since corporations are people, if a corporation is started in one of these countries it also becomes a citizen/entity of that country?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Diplomats have immunity from the laws of their host country. Their children thus are not automatically citizens under the 14th Amendment since they are not subject to our jurisdiction. Illegal immigrants are subject to the laws of the US. If you want to declare them exempt from US laws, then you can deny their children born in the US automatic citizenship. That is the choice.

Diplomatic immunity is limited and in any case they can be expelled but illegals are more like an invading army because they weren't invited like diplomats are, they are not subject to our jurisdiction until we capture them but we can expel them or punish them for war crimes they committed before we caught them.

Illegals aren't subject to our jurisdiction until we catch them but they can be expelled or punished for crimes they committed before we caught them

 

[angelatc]

If you want to declare (illegals) exempt from US laws, then you can deny their children born in the US automatic citizenship.

Being that they're here, we can easily make a case that they consider themselves exempt from US Law.

 

[angelatc]

Since corporations are people, if a corporation is started in one of these countries it also becomes a citizen/entity of that country?

Oh FFS. Corporations aren't people. They are groups of people.

 

[acptulsa]

Illegals aren't subject to our jurisdiction until we catch them but they can be expelled or punished for crimes they committed before we caught them

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. If they can be prosecuted for laws they break before they are caught, then they are subject to the jurisdiction while they are in it.

In the 1970s, "It's only illegal if you get caught" was one of the standard jokes of the era. Seeing that used as a serious argument is a damned sight funnier.

 

[Swordsmyth]

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. You "expel" diplomats by revoking their diplomatic accreditation, which invalidates both their diplomatic immunity and their visas. The diplomats then leave of their own accord because if they didn't, they would then be subject to your laws. They are not, in actuality, subject to your laws at any time. This is the entire reason that the 'subject to the jurisdiction' clause exists in the 14th amendment to begin with.

How can you revoke anything if they aren't subject to our laws?
And they are ordered out of the country as part of the revocation.

Members of invading armies are not expelled, they are killed or captured. Once captured, they can be prosecuted, not only under the laws of war but under local laws. In other words, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the territory that they are in.

They most certainly are expelled, at the end of the war they are sent home and during the war they are killed and pursued for capture until they leave, I said illegals in custody may be subject to our jurisdiction and that they should be expelled before they can give birth but they can be tried for crimes committed against our people while they were not subject to our jurisdiction just as enemy soldiers can.

 

[angelatc]

If they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the US", they are not illegally in the country. Anything they do would not be illegal- our laws would not apply to them. If they are subject to jurisdiction, then their children born in this country must be considered citizens under the Constitution- unless Congress and the states can change the 14th Amendment. Unless you want activist judges to interpret the Constitution and not follow the letter of the law. You don't get it both ways.

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

 

[Swordsmyth]

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. If they can be prosecuted for laws they break before they are caught, then they are subject to the jurisdiction while they are in it.

The laws already existed so it isn't Ex post facto, their living in a state of outlawry doesn't grant them immunity and it never has in history.

In the 1970s, "It's only illegal if you get caught" was one of the standard jokes of the era. Seeing that used as a serious argument is a damned sight funnier.

That isn't the argument, the crimes are always illegal they just aren't subject to our laws while living in a state of outlawry.

 

[acptulsa]

How can you revoke anything if they aren't subject to our laws?.

How do you revoke immunity? It's pretty damned simple, isn't it? You remove the diplomatic plate from their car, and if they don't pull over the next time they run a light, you lay stop sticks in front of them.

Why is this silly-assed rhetorical distinction you're trying to conjure out of thin air so damned important to you?

That isn't the argument, the crimes are always illegal they just aren't subject to our laws while living in a state of outlawry.

Jesus. Look. What about citizens? Are citizens "living in a state if outlawry" subject to the law before they get caught?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Please, educate yourself. There really is no excuse for this level of ignorance.

Take your own advice.

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

 

[Swordsmyth]

How do you revoke immunity? It's pretty damned simple, isn't it? You remove the diplomatic plate from their car, and if they don't pull over the next time they run a light, you lay stop sticks in front of them.

Why is this silly-assed rhetorical distinction you're trying to conjure out of thin air so damned important to you?

So you admit we can revoke their immunity even though they aren't subject to our jurisdiction?
Good, we can expel them without them being subject to our jurisdiction too.