Trump Executive Order ends birthright citizenship
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (62)
sorted by:
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
How exactly are they subject to our laws if they're criminal aliens unknown to the government? The only way to read that as supporting birthright citizenship is if jurisdiction is entirely geographical.
In the past they might have said it's lines on a map, but with today's court and environment I bet they find that illegals are not under our jurisdiction, but they'll split the baby and say any child of parents that filed for asylum or had a court date has birthright citizenship (so all the CBP One aliens and ones that pretended to need asylum).
>how are they subject to our laws if they're criminal
Criminals are not subject to our laws. We have right to free movement, free speech, and free assembly. They have right to a cell, quiet hours, and not grouping up too densely in the yard.
The laws don't grant us rights, we have natural rights that are defended by laws.
You seem to be unclear on what "subject to" means in this case. When someone is "subject to" a law that means they will suffer the consequences if they violate the law. By calling someone a criminal, you are implicitly declaring that they are subject to the law. If you say "I am not subject to your laws" you are declaring that the law does not apply to you and you can go about your business.
You're conflating crime and jurisdiction.
A Thai citizen can have sex with a minor and he's neither a criminal nor under our jurisdiction. An American can go to Thailand and do the same and he's a criminal, but not under our jurisdiction (he'd have to voluntarily return or be extradited). A foreign diplomat can be under our jurisdiction but not a criminal for doing the same as an American.
So an alien having committed a crime doesn't mean they are under our jurisdiction ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof").
For example, what's the difference between a criminal alien unknown to the government who is still in the country vs one who has since returned home? From the government's perspective nothing is different - until the former is discovered and so becomes under our jurisdiction - which is effective just like if the one who returned was extradited back to face prosecution here.
Also, in America only "certain unalienable Rights" come from God/nature, not all rights. Citizenship is not inalienable; in fact naturalization is delegated to Congress by the Constitution.
"Jurisdiction" means "what nationality are you i.e. who do I have to holler at to come get their boy?". A Brazilian illegally in the US is subject to the Laws of the US because of location but subject to the Jurisdiction of Brazil by home origin. A German illegally living in the US isn't an American because he is contributing to the economy even if he has a whole established life.
That sounds like a really interesting legal theory you could argue before the supreme court and lose.
Pro tip: if your legal theory supports the conclusion "the freed slaves are not citizens and neither are their children", it ain't gonna fly. It would have been nice if they were more specific on the amendment or had a time limit, but they didn't do that so here we are.
the people in question were under the jurisdiction of the US, dummy. Plenty of freed slaves chose to leave as was a popular sentiment at the time, they founded Liberia and that whole situation happened...
keep flyin' bucko