Posted on 01/10/2018 7:24:33 AM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Hmmmmm... if you say so.
I have not heard a single Mexican sperm donor or recipient, who when about to be deported with the litter, argue that the "family" must stay together, as the are bussed off to Meh-ji-co.
That's not a rewarding way to game our pathetic immigration system (according our incompetent judiciary.)
So no, blood is not thicker etc....
Exactly the same.
Speaking for myself, DACAs are not citizens; they are not even legal residents. They have broken immigration laws which are STILL VALID
The moron Dimcrats won't even accept the notion that our immigration laws still exist.
I am still puzzling over our federal judges, who believe that theirs is a private playground that they can enforce, ignore or redefine at will.
When were they granted that power? How?
Their latest power grab is declaring that if an existing law has been ignored too long, the can ignore it, and, further, it should be ignored by citizens generally, and by elected criminals, particularly, at all levels of government.
THAT HAS GOT TO STOP!
Being born here and...
So illegals on US soil are "subject to the jurisdiction"? I don't believe they are, or entitled to Constitutional rights for that matter. They should be treated more as un-uniformed invaders.
Liberal courts may have extended those protections, hell, they also gave us Wickard and Roe. That really doesn't ake it right or even Constitutional unless one concedes that the Court is the final word on the matter. I don't believe that was the founders intent if we are to have three co-equal branches.
In any case, subject to... can be defined to exclude those not here with our permission and those born here to such can retain their fathers or mothers citizenship.
Appreciate the exchange.
End it now!
Ditto all that!
Wonder if there is any Virginity Hotels?
So you believe the child of an illegal alien has immunity from the law? They can commit crimes and not be punished? Really? Because that's what not being "under the jurisdiction" means. It means not subject to the law.
"Liberal courts may have extended those protections..."
This has nothing to do with liberal courts. It's a misunderstanding of the words, "under the jurisdiction". But they mean exactly what they sound like they mean.
Saying one is subject to the jurisdiction doesn't convey rights. Just the opposite. It says one is subject to the power of the law. One must obey the law, or suffer the consequences. That's why the inverse, someone not subject to the jurisdiction, is someone with legal immunity. Like a diplomat. Including the condition of "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 14th simply excludes people with diplomatic immunity, invading soldiers, and Indians on their own territories. If you're one of those and give birth on the soil your child is not a citizen. But if you aren't, it is. There is no legal dispute about what that term means.
No, not really. That isn't what I said. I didn't even say "child". I asked if a Mexican who just drug himself out of the Rio Grande on the north side is "subject to the jurisdiction of".
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.