Posted on 08/01/2015 12:29:36 AM PDT by KGeorge
I don't quite agree. Under the 'territorial principle', a state may claim jurisdiction over persons and events inside its own territory. Under the 'nationality principle'. the government of a citizen can obtain jurisdiction over its citizen even when that citizen is abroad. Both principles express a possibility rather than an absolute, and both are generally interpreted more narrowly than a state's full jurisdiction over its own citizens on its own territory. Illegal aliens are potentially subject to US jurisdiction, in the sense that they can be tried for crimes committed while illegally present, but that is far from being subject to the broad jurisdiction of the US government.
This is an interesting distinction you’re making (territorial vs nationality principle), Pollster, & I’m not familiar with it (yet). This is beyond- far more technical, than the simple definition of ‘’jurisdiction’’.
You’re an attorney? Or at least a student/ former of law? These are surely legal nuances unfamiliar to mere mortals. Help us out, please. The better people understand the hows & whys of these invaders & their enablers, the sooner we might figure out the most effective way to stop it.
Thank you for your post!
I'm not an attorney, although I have been an expert witness multiple times. I was until recently a professional, mostly political, pollster. Lawyers make a living on subtle nuance, and polling is sensitive to subtlety, so I read for it carefully. I think this particular nuance is important.
In terms of original intent, I do not think those who ratified the 14th Amendment would have considered illegals "subject to the jurisdiction" of our government for the purposes of that Amendment. When the words of the Constitution have a single natural meaning, that meaning should be followed. In this case, there are a large number of equally natural meanings for the literal words, more than just the ones I listed, so the original intent should be the meaning followed. I have seen no evidence that the original intent went beyond children born to legal residents (especially former slaves) of the states.
Close enough for me. Those who are in the habit of reading/ interpreting legal language have a clearer understanding & develop this as a habit. So I appreciate your input very much. Thank you.
I think that’s right. I didn’t get what Grace was saying at her first post, mentioned it to husband & he set me straight. It appears the attorney/ organization supporting these families are trying to push it in that direction (unnaturally). As Hugh the Scot said (& I agree), they’re trying to turn a lie/ misrepresentation into truth by insisting on it. It’s either that or they are incompetent.
It makes you wonder, though, how in the world our government has glossed this over for so many years? Makes me feel really taken advantage of by them.
We hired them to take care of these things. If one of us abdicate our jobs like that, we would (rightly) be fired on the spot- if not the first time, then certainly the second.
custody follows the parents. Custody does not follow the child.
Citizen or not, when the parents are deported the child goes with parents.
So these are children who are only CLAIMED in the usa.
This is the way it should be. It would be interesting to know the thought process for this amendment or this section of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.