I have made my ruling.
You are not allowed to
post common sense here.
Posted on 08/19/2015 5:37:41 PM PDT by EXCH54FE
Uh, you may want to check that. I'd post a link but I'm on my phone right now and it's pretty awkward.
I don't think it's quite that simple. I don't mean the Constitution is difficult to read and understand, obviously, but I would argue that context and the drafters' choice of language as understood at that time is relevant to interpretation.
Foreigners visiting in our country are not subject to the draft, they are not subject to our taxes except perhaps for some earnings while in the US (they still may owe income tax on that same money earned in the US to their own country, depending on the laws of that country.) They can own property here, and must pay taxes, they must pay sales taxes on products purchased in the US, depending on the state laws, etc., and so forth. But otherwise they have no tax liability to the United States.
As well they do not have voting rights, they do not have rights to social service benefits, education, or any other such rights that exclusively belong the US citizen. They do not have the protection of the American consulate when they are not in the US, they do not have the right to a US Passport.
The same goes for us when we are in another country; if we break their laws we can find ourselves in a lot of trouble, but by breaking the law, we do not become citizens of that country, with the rights of citizenship, we are still US citizens with US rights, under US jurisdiction.
For example, a US citizen in a foreign country or a foreigner in our country, legal or illegal, can appeal to their country's consulate or embassy for help if needed, because they are subject to the jurisdiction of their own country.
Please try to understand this and don't let the flim-flam of the power structure confuse you into thinking that because a foreigner breaks the laws of this country while he is here illegally, because he has broken the laws, the US therefore has jurisdiction and that gives him or his children a right to citizenship. Again, if the US had jurisdiction over these individuals, their own consulates would not or could not intervene on their behalf.
Secondly, diplomatic immunity is reciprocal, there is an understanding, a treaty, between nations that diplomats are generally exempt from the laws of the host country. However, if a diplomat commits a criminal act, diplomatic immunity is usually lifted, and the host country may then prosecute and convict that individual. In other instances, the diplomat is simply deported and never allowed to return, and may likely face prosecution in his home country.
“Federal and State laws that are not being enforced?”
Failure to exercise jurisdiction in no way changes the fact that the jurisdiction exists and can be exercised. President Eisenhower exercised the jurisdiction with great success.
“Yes. We can’t convict illegals of treason.”
That is a misconception. All foreign citizens present in the jurisdiction of the United States with the exception of those having diplomatic immunity are obligated to maintain a temporary allegiance to the United States and its laws. The waging of war against the United States by a legal or illegal foreign resident is treason.
Not at time of birth. In fact I believe both men were adults before their parents became citizens.
I know Rubio was in his 20's when his parents became citizens. I've never seen any dates for Jindal's parents.
But isn't that the point of this whole article? If, as the author says, non-citizen residents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. then their children are not born citizens. So by the author's definition neither man is a citizen, much less a natural born citizen.
I reached that conclusion about you long ago.
According to the author even foreign citizens here legally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. so their children can't be citizens. His words and not mine.
According to the author that makes no difference. In neither case was the man's parents citizens when he was born, and in Rubio's case his parents did not naturalize until after he was in his 20's. The author said, "Illegal aliens, by virtue of not being citizens, or even being in the country legally, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They're foreigners. Therefore, illegal children born here are not subject to citizenship under the 14th Amendment." According to him children of foreigners cannot obtain citizenship by birth. Legal, illegal, doesn't matter. If they are foreign citizens then his position is they do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction.
That is one Outstanding Post!!! I agree 100% with all of your points.
Thanks, missed that.
Actually, illegal alien residents are fully subject to our draft laws and have to pay the same taxes as any other resident or income earner. What taxes aren't they liable for?
You go on to describe rights that non-citizens don't have, but that doesn't diminish the government's jurisdiction over them.
I doubt anything will change but the next obvious question is how retroactive can this go?
The problem is that “subject to the jurisdiction of” has a very specific meaning in terms of the 14th as shown in the Congressional Record. It means more than “subject to the laws of.” It’s a quirk of how our language has evolve. Kind of like how “well regulated” actually means well trained and armed in the context of the 2nd Amendment, not burdened with a lot of regulations.
No One?
I predict that if Trump is elected you will see Congress rise up to take back the power they have so lamely ceded to the president.
I have said for month that it will take a tyrant to undo what the tyrant has put in place and we may get one.
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.