yes, read the OP, subject means “allegiance to”. Dictionary meaning. This is how the word was used when writing the Constitution. It is the only meaning that connects everything together consistently. Also read the oath of Citizenship. It explains why you can’t bring treason charges to an illegal immigrant.
same question… why can’t an illegal alien be charged with treason. If you can’t answer it, its because you know the truth.
No, my argument is not lacking in legality. But your argument certainly is. Can an illegal immigrant be prosecuted for murder? Can they be executed if convicted in a state that has the death penalty? Why yes, yes they can be, and have been. Because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States. And if they have a child while on US soil, per the 14th Amendment, that child is a citizen of the United States.
As @adroit has already explained, there are only three exceptions to this reality in the 14th…
- foreign diplomats
- Indians on Indian lands
- occupying forces
Seeing as how all others who are not under one of these exceptions, such as illegal immigrants, are under the jurisdiction of the United States, their children born on our soil are United States citizens. I am not fan of this reality, but I am a big fan of the Constitution, and the process needed to amend the Constitution. Rule by fiat, particularly with respect to such an absurd and legally specious claim as the one Trump makes, is not the way our system is designed. This is not some dictatorship or Banana Republic, no matter how desperate the sycophantic Trump cult wishes it to be.
Yes.
More letters.
An illegal alien could be charged with treason. Why do you believe they couldn’t be?
I never took an oath of citizenship. I don’t claim allegiance to the US, yet I’m still a citizen and subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Weird how that works.
“subject” is not a noun in the 14th amendment.
um…the same reason, for example, that a civilian can’t be charges with going AWOL. Or that I, as an unelected official, can’t be charged with campaign fraud.
But beyond that, your question is moot. The 14th amendment does not reference people as ‘subjects’. Your entire premise is bogus.
1 Like
Why can’t a US citizen be slapped with illegal presence? Why can’t they be slapped with overstaying a visa? Hahaha, they aren’t subject to those laws, guess they aren’t subject the the jurisdiction of the US! HAHAHHA, gotcha!!!
God, this is such an idiotic argument. “Subject” in “subject to the jurisdiction” has nothing to do with allegiance. It means they are under our jurisdiction. They are subject to our laws - meaning our laws apply to them? Now, within that context, why are these three exceptions:
- Foreign diplomats
- Indians on Indian lands
- occupying forces
Because they aren’t ■■■■■■■ under our laws. You have:
- diplomatic immunity
- quasi-nations under their own rule
- obviously forces from other nations aren’t under our laws
Every other person, as soon as they set foot on US soil, is under COMPLETE jurisdiction of the US. I can’t wait til Gorsuch goes full originalist/textualist in you peeps and smacks your ridiculous arguments down so hardcore. I’ll be throwing so much shade.
1 Like
Not really - Find one post where I have definitively said that my research is better and therefore my opinion is of more value. I know my limitations. I know I am not a constitutional scholar but I can admit it unlike so many on this forum who post time and time again saying the same old tired things.
No, wrong.
a illegal immigrant can not be prosecuted for murder under US law. It is State law, big difference. That which is not in the Constitution is left solely up to the State. As I pointed out Adroit had it wrong, they are not exceptions, they all have the same common reason … Non of the 3 items have an allegiance to this country. That is what they all have in common. Once again, Can a illegal immigrant be charged with Treason. You know the answer to this you just refuse to acknowledge this fact.
Oh. Well I missed the part where the other guy said that.
As far as I can tell, you and Dhoppe are on the same google grounds, and your complaint about him applies to you both equally.
What does "persons seeking asylum must do so with the country at the first border crossing contacted. (International Law). Or
Legal Emigration into the US must be done at a recognized Port of Entry.
Really, what does that mean?
you really have a mental block on this. The reason why a civilian can’t be charged with AWOL is because they to have not taken the oath of service. A Civilian is not subject to the jurisdiction of the military. However the military can arrest you when you are on their property and even charge you. As a Civilian you are still afforded the legal counsel as a Civilian.
Now change the words.
The reason why a illegal immigrant can’t be charged with treason is because they to have not taken the oath of service. A illegal immigrant is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. However the United States can arrest you when you are on their property and even charge you. As a illegal immigrant you are still afforded the legal counsel as a illegal immigrant. In the Case of a Mexican City that counsel would be the Mexican consulate.
Do you not see the fairness and consistency in its application? That notion that special rules have to be applied to the Constitution is legal BS. The document was written so that a lawyer was not needed for a specific reason, it was written for the People to understand. Which is why lawyers do not understand it.
You are completely wrong. Using your logic, you are suggesting that an illegal immigrant is not able to be prosecuted and/or convicted for ANY federal crime (only State crime, which shows you need a refresher in civics as well,) as they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government of the United States. Obviously illegal immigrants are charged, prosecuted, and convicted of breaking federal criminal statutes regularly.
Do you see the fault in your line of thought here yet? Or are you going to continue to double down and dig in even more?
2 Likes
to tell the truth, I really don’t understand what he was saying. I used generic term google to look up the meaning of a word. Didn’t realize that Merriam Webster was a crime to use . The word was “Subject” and I came up with " a person owing allegiance to and entitled to the protection of a sovereign state " So that was cut and paste. The other portion that was googled was the actual text of the 14th amendment. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and 2. subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I know to some that too is a sin.
To use actual meanings of words and actual text from the Constitution, it does explain why arguing with a Liberal is a waste of time. Other than those two items, the rest is mine, I made the same argument back in 2004 on Hannity’s site when I used to post.
The case in 1898 reached the same conclusion. US v.Wong
The conclusion reached is
- is born in the United States -------------- Check
- of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power --------------------Check
- whose parents have a legal permanent domicile and legal residence in the United States ------------------------------Failed, do not pass Go
- whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject ----------------- Check
Its really not difficult to follow the logic.
no, not quite. I am saying that they can’t be prosecuted or convicted without the legal opportunity to be represented by their Country they are citizens of. They of course can decline representation, or the country can refuse to represent, or the country can represent and still loose in our courts as in the case of Mexico vs Texas. Its just the Federal government would have granted a no death penalty trial, but it doesn’t have jurisdiction over murder.
My response was to the example given using murder case as proof they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Of course Federal Government prosecutes illegals according to Federal Law, however each illegal immigrant has a legal right to their embassy. Do you understand that? Do you also understand that you do not have a legal right to any embassy other than that of your Country?
So you now agree then that illegal immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America” since you agree that they are in fact charged, prosecuted, and convicted of breaking federal criminal statutes. Their legal representation notwithstanding, as that is irrelevant to the point of being subject to our jurisdiction while on our soil. That is a good sign, as it also means that you admit that the children of these people who are subject to our jurisdiction are also citizens at birth. So the premise of the OP is now what exactly?
-
No such “International law” exists.
-
Refugees and asylum seekers are not “immigrants”, and are governed by other laws.
If we actually were to enforce our immigration laws, there would be very few illegal aliens in our country and therefore very few children of illegal aliens. That is the way to go. Once we are a nation of citizens and legal residents, then the question of birthright citizenship becomes much less interesting.
Besides, if we can’t even find and remove illegals, what kind of luck are we going to have tracking the legality of people’s parentage and deporting them?
We don’t even seem to have the will to deport people who are admittedly here illegally if they were brought here as children.
