Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

[Swordsmyth]

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

LOL

 

[acptulsa]

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.

No. Once immunity is revoked, they are subject to the jurisdiction they're in.

Are citizens "living in a state of outlawry" subject to the jurisdiction they're in before they get caught?

LOL

You really seem to enjoy making an ass of yourself.

 

[CCTelander]

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.

Grammatical and legal realities are, apparently, irrelevant. All that seems to matter is enabling Trump to embrace and expand the imperial presidential powers set in precident by the Bush and Obama administrations so he can tickle Swordy's feelz on this issue, lawful proceedure be damned.

 

[Origanalist]

He seems kind of directionless without McCain.



Trump?

It would seem that way.

 

[CCTelander]

No. Once immunity is revoked, they are subject to the jurisdiction they're in.

Are citizens "living in a state of outlawry" subject to the jurisdiction they're in before they get caught?



You really seem to enjoy making an ass of yourself.

Oh, he EXCELS at that.

 

[acptulsa]

Grammatical and legal realities are, apparently, irrelevant. All that seems to matter is enabling Trump to embrace and expand the imperial presidential powers set in precident by the Bush and Obama administrations so he can tickle Swordy's feelz on this issue, lawful proceedure be damned.

Oh, I don't know. If he had the decency to admit that he doesn't consider himself as a citizen to do anything illegal until he gets caught, just like aliens, we'd all see that he's not even doing anything as heavy as trashing the Constitution and promoting the Imperial Presidency. He's just playing rhetorical Silly Buggars.

 

[Swordsmyth]

No. Once immunity is revoked, they are subject to the jurisdiction they're in.

But we can revoke their immunity while they are not subject to our laws or it couldn't be revoked since they have it.
We can also expel them.

In diplomacy, a persona non grata (Latin: "person not appreciated", plural: personae non gratae) is a foreign person whose entering or remaining in a particular country is prohibited by that country's government. Being so named is the most serious form of censure which a country can apply to foreign diplomats, who are otherwise protected by diplomatic immunity from arrest and other normal kinds of prosecution.

Under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a receiving state may "at any time and without having to explain its decision" declare any member of a diplomatic staff persona non grata. A person so declared is considered unacceptable and is usually recalled to his or her home nation. If not recalled, the receiving state "may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission".[SUP][1][/SUP]
With the protection of mission staff from prosecution for violating civil and criminal laws, depending on rank, under Articles 41 and 42 of the Vienna Convention, they are bound to respect national laws and regulations. Breaches of these articles can lead to a persona non grata declaration being used to punish erring staff. It is also used to expel diplomats suspected of espionage (described as "activities incompatible with diplomatic status")[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] or any overt criminal act such as drug trafficking. The declaration may also be a symbolic indication of displeasure.
So-called "tit for tat" exchanges have occurred (whereby ambassadors of countries involved in a dispute each expel the ambassador of the other country), notably during the Cold War. A notable occurrence outside of the Cold War was an exchange between the United States and Ecuador in 2011: the Ecuadorian government expelled the United States ambassador, as a result of diplomatic cables leaking (WikiLeaks), the United States responded by expelling the Ecuadorian ambassador.[SUP][2][/SUP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata

Are citizens "living in a state of outlawry" subject to the jurisdiction they're in before they get caught?

No, they are not.

You really seem to enjoy making an ass of yourself.

You are the one who does that.

 

[TheCount]

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

Wow, you really have no idea how any of this works, do you?

Diplomatic accreditation is granted by the receiving country prior to the arrival of the diplomat. It signals that the country will recognize them as a diplomat and - as per the Vienna Convention - regard them as not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the country. It's not a legal process, it's a diplomatic process.

And they are ordered out of the country as part of the revocation.

No. They leave of their own accord.

If they were to stick around beyond the grace period that they have been granted, then you could deport them because at that point they would be subject to your jurisdiction.

It's the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

They most certainly are expelled, at the end of the war they are sent home

They can be sent home. They can be prosecuted for crimes, war or otherwise. There is no law which gives soldiers immunity from prosecution.



Side note: Have you suddenly developed a devotion to international law? Do you believe that the United States is actually bound by any of the conventions related to the law of war?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Grammatical and legal realities are, apparently, irrelevant. All that seems to matter is enabling Trump to embrace and expand the imperial presidential powers set in precident by the Bush and Obama administrations so he can tickle Swordy's feelz on this issue, lawful proceedure be damned.

LOL

Grammatical and legal realities are on my side.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Oh, I don't know. If he had the decency to admit that he doesn't consider himself as a citizen to do anything illegal until he gets caught, just like aliens, we'd all see that he's not even doing anything as heavy as trashing the Constitution and promoting the Imperial Presidency. He's just playing rhetorical Silly Buggars.

Proving that you are incapable of understanding my argument so you just make things up yet again.

 

[TheCount]

But we can revoke their immunity while they are not subject to our laws or it couldn't be revoked since they have it.
We can also expel them.

Dude, I quoted the source document for that wiki article. You even replied to that post, but obviously you couldn't didn't read it. It's the Vienna Convention. The part I quoted was even about the exact thing you're trying to talk about. Here it is again:

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.

The sending state recalls them. They are not expelled.



1) Declare PNG
2) Grant grace period for person to leave
3) They don't leave
4) They are now subject to your laws (no longer a diplomat)
5) Now you can expel them

Again, the exact and polar opposite of what you claim.

 

[Origanalist]

I'm just glad we have a autistic screeching retard on board, it makes it so much livelier.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Wow, you really have no idea how any of this works, do you?

Diplomatic accreditation is granted by the receiving country prior to the arrival of the diplomat. It signals that the country will recognize them as a diplomat and - as per the Vienna Convention - regard them as not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the country. It's not a legal process, it's a diplomatic process.

There are laws that create the diplomatic process.

No. They leave of their own accord.

If they were to stick around beyond the grace period that they have been granted, then you could deport them because at that point they would be subject to your jurisdiction.

It's the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

In diplomacy, a persona non grata (Latin: "person not appreciated", plural: personae non gratae) is a foreign person whose entering or remaining in a particular country is prohibited by that country's government. Being so named is the most serious form of censure which a country can apply to foreign diplomats, who are otherwise protected by diplomatic immunity from arrest and other normal kinds of prosecution.

Under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a receiving state may "at any time and without having to explain its decision" declare any member of a diplomatic staff persona non grata. A person so declared is considered unacceptable and is usually recalled to his or her home nation. If not recalled, the receiving state "may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission".[SUP][1][/SUP]
With the protection of mission staff from prosecution for violating civil and criminal laws, depending on rank, under Articles 41 and 42 of the Vienna Convention, they are bound to respect national laws and regulations. Breaches of these articles can lead to a persona non grata declaration being used to punish erring staff. It is also used to expel diplomats suspected of espionage (described as "activities incompatible with diplomatic status")[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] or any overt criminal act such as drug trafficking. The declaration may also be a symbolic indication of displeasure.
So-called "tit for tat" exchanges have occurred (whereby ambassadors of countries involved in a dispute each expel the ambassador of the other country), notably during the Cold War. A notable occurrence outside of the Cold War was an exchange between the United States and Ecuador in 2011: the Ecuadorian government expelled the United States ambassador, as a result of diplomatic cables leaking (WikiLeaks), the United States responded by expelling the Ecuadorian ambassador.[SUP][2][/SUP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata

They can be expelled.

They can be sent home. They can be prosecuted for crimes, war or otherwise. There is no law which gives soldiers immunity from prosecution.

And yet they were not subject to our jurisdiction until we caught them..........................JUST LIKE ILLEGALS.

Side note: Have you suddenly developed a devotion to international law? Do you believe that the United States is actually bound by any of the conventions related to the law of war?

Did we sign and ratify the treaties involved?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Dude, I quoted the source document for that wiki article. You even replied to that post, but obviously you couldn't didn't read it. It's the Vienna Convention. The part I quoted was even about the exact thing you're trying to talk about. Here it is again:




The sending state recalls them. They are not expelled.



1) Declare PNG
2) Grant grace period for person to leave
3) They don't leave
4) They are now subject to your laws (no longer a diplomat)
5) Now you can expel them

Again, the exact and polar opposite of what you claim.

Declaring them PNG is the expulsion order and it takes place while they have diplomatic immunity.

 

[acptulsa]

I'm just glad we have a autistic screeching retard on board, it makes it so much livelier.

That's so unfair!

Autistic people are actually smart.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Grammatical and legal realities are, apparently, irrelevant. All that seems to matter is enabling Trump to embrace and expand the imperial presidential powers set in precident by the Bush and Obama administrations so he can tickle Swordy's feelz on this issue, lawful proceedure be damned.

I'm just glad we have a autistic screeching retard on board, it makes it so much livelier.

That's so unfair!

Autistic people are actually smart.

Try learning:

Originally Posted by angelatc

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..._jurisdiction/

Idiots.

 

[TheCount]

Declaring them PNG is the expulsion order and it takes place while they have diplomatic immunity.

What you're claiming is invalidated by the text that you quoted.

 

[CCTelander]

LOL

Grammatical and legal realities are on my side.

You are factually in error. This is, really, a minor point. Just admit your error and save yourself further humiliation.

 

[Swordsmyth]

What you're claiming is invalidated by the text that you quoted.

No it isn't, if the embassy fails to comply then the diplomat will be forcibly expelled if he steps off its grounds.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You are factually in error. This is, really, a minor point. Just admit your error and save yourself further humiliation.

That is your position.
Take your own advice.