Posted on 10/30/2018 5:15:59 PM PDT by detective
Whether you want to or not, you submit yourself to a country’s jurisdiction when you enter that country without diplomatic immunity.
Try commiting a crime in China and when they come to arrest you telling them that you’ve chosen not to submit to their jurisdiction.
“I think it’s very unlikely the Court will uphold Trumps argument”
#MeToo. And it shouldn’t go to the courts.
Why is the clause there? Read the Amendment without the clause, as that would be our current practice. Based on our current practice, the clause is unnecessary. The clause is there for a reason. So you have to ask what that reason is, and it doesn’t mean “subject to our laws.”
Rephrase the clause “and subject to our laws” and see if that makes any sense at all within the 14th Amendment. Why would that need to be said in the first place? Wouldn’t that simply be a given? Why would we only think to add a clause saying people who are born here, and who are subject to our laws, are citizens nearly 80 years after the Constitution was written?
Off to read this. My brain is getting full.
Oh, yeah—as if if Ryan has ever wanted to do a thing about illegal immigration!
The little twerp’s nose is growing again...
I recently read that more anchor babies are born in the US, than citizen babies. :(
It’s the LAW..
Possibly it may have to be considered in a different way but if you came here illegally and then had a kid and stayed you are still illegal and subject to it or the whole thing falls down.
DACA is an attempt to mitigate the problem you posit but there has to be a line in the sand and the time for action is now. They are also enemy combatants, armed or not who seek to breach our borders and impose their will in complete defiance of our laws.
Senator Howard explains it pretty well.
. . [T]he word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department: that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction. . . The United States courts have no power to punish an Indian who is connected with a tribe for a crime committed by him upon another member of the same tribe.
Senator Jacob Howard was the leading author/proponent of the 14th amendment in the US senate.
” Is a non-citizen on US soil not subject to our laws, or am I missing something? (No great legal mind, I.)”
Ryan is a totally unethical individual who is in the pocket of the Chamber of Commerce and others who want cheap labor to flood the USA. I think less of him than I do Democrats. He is two faced and not at all a Republican. He has done almost nothing to help Republican house members get reelected. I can’t wait for him to be gone for good and we don’t have to hear his liberal pronouncements.
Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
So in order for them to rule for it, they have to admit anyone from another country is automatically a US Citizen. No other place in the world is that stupid!
Bkmk
And that is why elected officials should be required to take a couple years of Constitutional studies before being allowed to run....
If a person can seek refuge here in the USA in another country's embassy or consulate where they are not subject to our jurisdiction, then they are not fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Now suppose this French couple had a baby inside the United States. Is this baby entitled to the protection of the French embassy, just like its parents?
Is there any place inside the United States where you or I can avoid the jurisdiction of the United States? Why should other "citizens" (like this French baby) be afforded this right? Why should "birthright" citizens have more protections against United States jurisdiction than natural born citizens?
-PJ
Ryan’s response sounded reflexive and rehearsed without being particularly insightful. I’ll wait.
Levin: ‘Completely False’ That Children Born to Illegals Have Constitutional Right to Citizenship
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/paul-ryan-is-utterly-wrong-/10155515846070946/
Mark Levin·Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Paul Ryan has no idea what he’s talking about. Today he said: “We, House Republicans and this President, are in total agreement on the need to stop illegal immigration. To secure our border and fix our laws,” Ryan said. “I think the smarter, faster solution here is to crack down on illegal immigration and we obviously support doing that. But, I’m a believer in the Constitution, I believe in interpreting the Constitution as it’s written, and that means you can’t do something like this via executive order.”
Not until the 1960’s has the Constitution been interpreted to convey birthright citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. And not due to any congressional statute or court ruling, but decisions by various departments and agencies of the federal bureaucracy. So, to be clear, the president would not be altering the 14th amendment or the intent of the 14th amendment or the original interpretation of the 14th amendment. On the contrary, the president would be taking charge of the executive branch and upholding the 14th amendment. And I challenge Paul Ryan to demonstrate otherwise. That’s not to say that activist judges and courts might not embrace Ryan’s knee-jerk position, but the president is right.
Very clear definition of the difference between jurisdiction and “subject to the laws”. Well done!
Banning birthright citizenship might be OK prospectively, but if you did it retroactively by reinterpreting the Constitution, you’d open Pandora’s box. To illustrate my point, let me ask you if you’d be a citizen under that interpretation?
If so, then how do you know? Because you were born here? That would not be enough.
Because your parents were citizens? But how do you know that? Certainly not because they were born here. What you’d have to do is trace your ancestry back to someone who took the oath as a naturalized citizen or who was made a citizen by act of Congress. Maybe you could do that, or maybe not.
If you’re black or native American, then I think you would have no problem proving citizenship. We might end up with a country where the majority of citizens are black.
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.