Alright /pol/ give me your most retarded arguments for why this clause should be ignored.I'll start:>IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MEAN ANYTHING!!! THE AUTHOR WROTE IT FOR NO REASON AT ALL!!!!!
Supreme Court Justice Sheeboona Jackson assplained it like if she stole a wallet in Japan that would make her under the jurisdiction of Japan an sheeit so its like totally the same thing or whatever
>>538131803>Alright /pol/ give me your most retarded arguments for why this clause should be ignored.Suicide
>>538131964Shanueequa lacks the IQ to know that if she never left her basement, and stole someone's crypto wallet in Japan through the magic of the internet, she could still be charged with a crime in Japan despite never setting foot in the country.This logic would therefore place the entire world "under the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
>>538132326why does someone in Australia care about the immigration policies of a foreign country?
If "subject to jurisdiction" meant the same thing as "citizen" then they wouldn't have printed it.
>>538131964She's right though. fr fr no cap.
>>538132375There is a glaring flaw in their argument and it astounds me that people at the highest level of law practice can get it so completely wrong.
>>538131803By subverting our jurisdiction and coming here illegally, they aren't subject to our jurisdiction.
>>538132382If "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant the same thing as "born within the U.S" they wouldn't have printed it, they would've just left it as "all persons born or naturalised in the U.S are citizens"
>>538132536Of course! If they were subject to U.S jurisdiction they would've attempted to enter through an approved port of entry!(and been denied)
So did anyone actually read what they said?>(1) Under the English common law, children “born within the [sovereign’s] dominions” owed a natural “allegiance” to the sovereign who protected them at birth, 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354, 356 (Blackstone), regardless of how “momentary and uncertain” their presence, Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1a, 6a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377, 384. Such children were therefore “natural-born subject[s].” Doe v. Jones, 4 T. R. 300, 308, 100 Eng. Rep. 1031, 1035. The same rule applied to children born of parents subject to expulsion. See, e.g., 4 Blackstone 166. The rule’s exceptions were narrow: children born in lands the sovereign did not control, children born in areas temporarily outside the sovereign’s control, and children of foreign ministers (by a fiction of extraterritoriality). Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep., at 18a–18b, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399.Trump's problem is he forgot to give all illegals and tourists immunity from US laws and/or collapse the federal government in its entirety such that there would be no government to hold authority over illegals and tourists.If only he'd made brown people above the law, he'd have won his case.
>>538133068Can all illegals and tourists be drafted?No?Then they're not under U.S jurisdiction.
>>538131803DESU, I thing birthright citizenship is absolutely a mistake and should be kicked to the curb.But the Constitution is pretty clear, and trying to change it via EO is not the way. Either suck it up, or change the constitution.
>>538133254Yeah the constitution is very clear, especially the part highlighted in my OP picture.What is your argument for ignoring it?
>>538133311There is no argument.
>>538133143>Then they're not under U.S jurisdiction.Can women be drafted? No? Then they're not under U.S jurisdiction.Wait? No. That's fucking stupid.
>>538133143Seniors confirmed for non-citizens! America is saved! Welcome to the blue century!
>>538133351So how come the male illegals can't be drafted?The male citizens can be. Perhaps it is because they are under the jurisdiction of some foreign power?Perhaps they could be drafted in Mexico?
>>538131803Does this even matter? You think the US was going to round them all up? I think as brilliant and insightful as /pol/ is it is disturbing how few here seem to realize you fight back against Invasions before they happen not after. Unless you are Spain and - no one is Castillan Spain not even Spain anymore.
>>538133441>double replyingControl yourself lad!
>>538133463Yes it matters if the highest legal scholars in the land make such an obvious, glaring and logically flawed interpretation of a clearly written law.
>>538133351Women can be drafted, they just aren't.
>>538133446>So how come the male illegals can't be drafted?Because selective service hasn't been expanded to them. There is nothing stopping that.>The male citizens can be.Because selective service has been expanded to them.By the way, the decision was about the "baby" being subject to the jurisdiction thereof at birth. The status of the parent has literally nothing to do with anything.>(1) Under the English common law, children “born within the [sovereign’s] dominions” owed a natural “allegiance” to the sovereign who protected them at birthAnd the children of illegals and tourists CAN be drafted if they're born here. You know, cause they're citizens.>>538133483I'd have edited my post, but you're not worth the effort. This board has ids anyway, so it's not like I'm stealth samefagging.
>>538133576Technically speaking, at least to my knowledge, there is no mechanism for drafting women like there is men (I.e. the Selective Service Act)But obviously, if the whatever situation gets bad enough that the US needs to start drafting women, there will be some system implemented.
Don't you idiots understand you need to have your own guy on the Supreme Court in order to get the law read the way you want?Dumbass
>>538133254paid actor faggot shill detected
>>538133513The law is just a courteous pretense at this point.
>>538133576Oh, hey, someone took the bait.Yes. And the same applies to illegals and tourists. Wouldn't necessarily be good policy unless shit has truly hit the fan, but there isn't some magic legal hurdle in the way.That said, see>>538133647>the decision was about the "baby" being subject to the jurisdiction thereof at birth. The status of the parent has literally nothing to do with anything.>>(1) Under the English common law, children “born within the [sovereign’s] dominions” owed a natural “allegiance” to the sovereign who protected them at birth>And the children of illegals and tourists CAN be drafted if they're born here. You know, cause they're citizens.The parents are a legal non-issue. Children of diplomats get excluded because diplomatic immunity extends to the children of diplomats. If it didn't, they wouldn't be excluded. The 14th says fuck all about and has fuck all to do with the parents of citizens.
>>538133734Damn, I wish I was getting paid. I do it for zero compensation.
>>538133647Are you SURE it has nothing to do with them not being subject to U.S jurisdiction and instead being subject to Mexican jurisdiction and the Mexican draft?I mean that DOES seem to be a common theme that the draft age males who can't be drafted just so happen to have entered the country without subjecting themselves to U.S jurisdiction while retaining their citizenship of a foreign country, surely that's not just a coincidence? You don't edit your posts here newfag, and if you're seething so hard that you keep thinking up extra stuff to say after you've hit reply you're expected to hold it in until the next round of replies, lest you fuck up the reply chain and cause the whole thread to look like cancer.
>>538133921>Are you SURE it has nothing to do with them not being subject to U.S jurisdiction and instead being subject to Mexican jurisdiction and the Mexican draft?Children of Mexicans born abroad don't get Mexican citizenship at birth and are not subject to the Mexican draft.So yeah, I'm pretty sure.Also, the US doesn't preclude dual citizenship.Also also, SCOTUS literally already ruled that the kids of legal immigrants get citizenship a century ago and plenty of them are subject to foreign call up. It's not like only the kids of illegal immigrants born abroad can be drafted for countries that do that shit.>you're expected to hold it in until the next round of repliesNo. And fuck you.
>>538134099So why aren't the illegals drafted?
>>538134172>So why aren't the illegals drafted?Nobody's drafted. We haven't had a draft in years.Also, again, the law is about the baby. The parent's status doesn't matter.Also, looking it up, male illegal immigrants do, in fact, have to sign up for selective service. So you've been talking out your ass.
>>538134378>Nobody's drafted. We haven't had a draft in years.Absolute cop out from the argument.Are you going to pretend that there were no illegals in America during the last draft?
>>538131803Are you illiterate? It means "where the laws of the US are enforced". Jurisdiction meaning just that.
>>538134457Finish reading the post and try again, dipshit.
>>538132375why does someone in America care what the Chinese are doing with their kids?
>>538134458"Within the U.S" was already covered in the previous line retard, so therefore you believe the author wrote that additional qualifier with an "AND" for absolutely no reason at all.
>>538134515So were the illegals drafted?
>>538134525The reason was that it's possible to be in the US and not subject to US jurisdiction.>>538134556>So were the illegals drafted?Yes.
>>538134759[citation needed]
>>538134793>https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1343&context=shlr>In closing, I would like to point out that there is ample precedent for this method of military recruitment. During times of war, particularly during World War II, substantial numbers of foreign nationals did obtain citizenship through military enlistment. In fact, more than 143,000 members of our U.S. Armed Forces, both enlistees and draftees, obtained citizenship under the World War II provisions alone.Are you done yet?
>>538134995You really thought I would be retarded enough to fall for that?
>>538135092M8, you strike me as someone that regularly gets in fights with your own reflection.
>>538135186Cool story, now where's that citation?
Because the framers of the 14th literally wrote in their notes what that specific clause means and ignoring that is another liberalism to ruin america, but it doesn't matter anymore because liberals have names and faces.
>>538132375My wife saw a baby (Asian) with a helmet and started obsessing about our newborn's head shape. I had to point out that she's only ever seen Asian kids wearing them and that she's not an Asian so to stop caring about this shit. Jesus fucking Christ, you don't see thousands of adults running around with flat spots on their heads, do you? And now I have to fucking argue about this every two hours.
>>538135206I... are you a bot? I gave you the citation before the quote.Look, here's a specific example of an illegal immigrant who was drafted in WWII and even won a Medal of Honor.>https://www.wearethemighty.com/popular/illegal-immigrant-medal-honor-herrera/>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvestre_S._Herrera>https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/silvestre-s-herrera>https://mohmuseum.org/recipient/herrera-silvestre-santanaDo you think this was a clerical error or something?
>>538135629Lmao another nice try faggot >That is when the man Herrera had believed to be his father gave him the stunning news of his Mexican birth, and said, "Son, you don't have to go, they can't draft you...you aren't an American citizen.
>>538135441>Because the framers of the 14th literally wrote in their notes what that specific clause meansCitations as to what it meant generally come from the Congressional record where what it meant was openly debated.Also, in that Congressional record, they openly explained it would apply even to the children of sojourners, making the domicile argument dumb and wrong.
>>538135720>(Despite these recollections, noncitizen Mexican nationals living in the United States were and are subject to US draft laws).Did you seriously just read the first sentence of that paragraph?Actual fucking clown
>>538135854He was literally only drafted because both he, and the government, thought he was a citizen, and he continued to pretend he was. The "citation" you have there in quotes, is uncited. Or if it is cited, use that as your citation.
>>538131803It shouldn't be ignored, the SC ruled that children born in the US to foreign parents ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the US
>>538135999>He was literally only drafted because both he, and the government, thought he was a citizen, and he continued to pretend he was.Why would the government think he was a US citizen? He didn't have US citizenship.>The "citation" you have there in quotes, is uncited.1. It's as cited as the rest of the paragraph.2. You didn't fucking give a citation for your quote from the same fucking paragraphAlso>https://www.history.com/articles/mexico-world-war-ii-surprising-involvement>Mexico also allowed the U.S. military to register and conscript Mexican nationals living in the United States during the war. According to one estimate, around 15,000 Mexican nationals served in the U.S. military during World War II, many of whom may have been motivated by the offer to apply for U.S. citizenship in return for their service. Of these, some 1,492 are believed to have been killed, imprisoned, injured or disappeared.>https://dokumen.pub/beyond-the-latino-world-war-ii-hero-the-social-and-political-legacy-of-a-generation-9780292793415.html>the United States, on the other hand, registered Mexican nationals and eventually called up 15,000 of them to serve in the military.
>>538135999Non citizens are subject to the draft anon, it's tied to residency not citizenship
>>538136667>Mexico also allowed>Mexico allowed >Mexico >allowed >"but this proves the U.S totally had jurisdiction over them!"LolRoflLmao
>>538131803lets ask the guy who wrote it.
>>538131803Because it is being abused to the point it will destroy the union, therefore rendering the rest of the document moot.
>>538131803Iraqis who had to go through checkpoints in Baghdad in 2006 were subject to American jurisdiction therefore their newborns became citizens when we occupied the city.
>>538136994>"but this proves the U.S totally had jurisdiction over them!"Literally yes, unless, you think Mexico refusing to allow it could somehow stop it.Is the US subject to Mexican law now in your delusions?
>>538137267>Because it is being abusedIt's being used as intended. The entire point was to settle the issue of citizenship. People arguing for it gleefully described how it would confer citizenship to even the children of the period equivalent of seasonal workers.
If you are a cop, or a federal agent, or military, you have to understand that you and your families are going to be killed. You aren't going to be kept around. You do your jobs, you fight crime and "the enemy" but you too will become the enemy as you are outnumbered by foreigners hell-bent on taking your shit, raping your women and daughters, and killing you. That's how these things work, you are not safe.Now, here's the thing. You guys have guns, infrastructure, and technologies you know how to use. You could easily arm up, get your brothers in arms together, and basically coup your mayors, city councils, administrators, directors, judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, congressmen, and anyone else that wants to sell your futures and families into slavery and death. You can arrest them, put them in jail/the brig, or just line them up on the wall.You have this power. You can use it, or you'll be killed. These people want you faggots dead too, you are NOT an elite. You are law enforcement and military, they won't need you soon if they get their way. Become the government, or die. Take control over the law, or die. Take control of the cities, take control of the borders and immigration, take control of everything in the US and get rid of the people trying to kill you, or you will be killed by those same people. You're the only class of people that can do it.
>>538137511So why did Mexico have to allow it then buddy?
>>538131803Did y’all fail basic English or something> 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.That literally just means “if you are born in the United States, you are under US jurisdiction and a US citizen
>>538138097What is the AND for then retard-kun?
>>538138223>All people born in the United States, and as a consequence of such are under US jurisdiction, are US citizens That’s what the “thereof” means, “from that cause”. What do you think it means? Literally what other way can you interpret this? Are you implying that there are people born in the United States who aren’t under US jurisdiction, don’t have to follow US laws and thus aren’t considered citizens?
>>538137897>Mexico have to allow it[citation needed]
>>538138350You're an absolute retard.They don't just need to be BORN in the U.S, they need to be born in the U.S ~~AND~~ under the jurisdiction thereof.If the only qualifier was to be born in the U.S then they would add "AND" (a second qualifier).
>>538138350Not that anon, but yes, you can be born here and not subject to US jurisdiction.If you're born in occupied territory, if you're born with diplomatic immunity, or if you're born with legal shielding from a treaty, you can be in the USA but not subject to US jurisdiction.
>>538138577>Mexico allowed it for no reason at allOn your world view a lot of things have to be written for no reason at all.
>>538138625So then who is born in the United States and not under US jurisdiction then?
>>538138959Children of diplomats for one.
>explanation?
>>538139041Then why do you care, most people born in the US aren’t children of diplomats
>>538138720On your word, the US government is weak as shit.Also, given your refusal to put forward a citation, I accept your concession. You can shut the fuck up now.
>>538131803We automatically adopt children as if their parents died, apparently
>>538138959Indians, illegals, invading armies
>>538139148So why does it say "Mexico allowed" buddy?
>>538131803https://youtu.be/e1V2xWSQ8Sk?si=Juiv1wiEK-jbgjrI
>>538133832"children “born within the [sovereign’s] dominions” owed a natural “allegiance” to the sovereign who protected them at birth"crappy argument. the state doesnt get to decide who is a citizen. the citizen has to exert their right as a citizen.thats why the state roflstomps your rights all the time. you dont demand you rights as a citizen. you allow others to decide your citizenship for you.the state is an imaginary concept that only exists in peoples heads. there is no REAL, PHYSICAL state you can touch.And before you say something stupid like "i can touch the land"...natwerw34234234234
>>538139268So an illegal immigrant can’t be tried in US court if they break the law or are sued because they aren’t under US jurisdiction
>>538139504Retarded argument from an absolute brainlet.If I hack into some U.S server right now I can be extradited and tried in a U.S court, even though I've never sat foot in the country. You're charging south American leaders on drug charges in American courts as we speak.Surely you don't believe the entire world is under U.S jurisdiction for this to be possible?
>>538139623That’s because of a treaty or because the government agrees to do it because they feel like it, that has nothing to do with jurisdiction. There are people who break US laws in foreign countries who don’t get extradited anyways
>>538139808Yeah correct, it has nothing to do with jurisdiction.So now that we've both agreed that someone does not need to be under U.S jurisdiction to be tried in a U.S court, we can both agree that your argument is retarded and you should be ashamed for making it.
>>538133068>Under British Feudalism, which America rejected in a violent revolutionThe dissent was correct to throw out this retarded precedent. The dissent also correctly points out that the recent ruling overturns literally all precedent on this topic. This law has always been understood to exclude foreigners. That's why Dredd Scott was ruled the way it was. That's why no Native Americans were given birthright citizenship, even if born on land claimed by America or in American captivity. They had to naturalize.
>>538139882So then how is an illegal immigrant tried in court under your own logic They break the law, the US doesn’t care about jurisdiction, they just prosecute if they feel like it?
>>538133708>the Selective Service ActSSA registers you for the draft. Women can be drafted. This argument is like saying that over 30 can't be drafted. They're not on the draft list right now, but they absolutely will be the moment a draft is actually needed.
>>538140025The same way I am tried in U.S courts if I cause damage to U.S persons or property.
>>538135754>Also, in that Congressional record, they openly explained it would apply even to the children of sojournersThe opposite is true, as pointed out in 15 different citations by the Dissenting SCOTUS opinion. The law has always been understood to mean that no sojourners' child would be natural born. That's how it was enforced by the executive branch until very recently.
>>538140176That cannot be true, you are extradited based on a treaty, what happens with someone born in the US under an illegal immigrant? They cannot be extradited to the US they already are in the US. And for you specifically that is related to treaties, there are countries that don’t have extradition treaties with the US so by that logic certain children of illegal immigrants would not have to go to court
>>538131803It doesn't mean anything because jews said so. If that's not good enough for you, you can get out.Jews said it.I believe it.That settles it.
>>538138350>Are you implying that there are people born in the United States who aren’t under US jurisdictionChinese billionaires have pregnant chinese women flown here (not just their wives, they have many surrogates) to offshore oil rigs in US territory where they give birth. The child then flies back to China with Chinese citizenship and is also a natural born American citizen. Despite, obviously, having no ties to the US. When 14A was first passed, the executive branch consistently denied such citizenship claims on the grounds that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" obviously did not apply to them and was never meant to. This was upheld in prior SCOTUS rulings and was understood this way in all legal literature. As is pointed out by the Dissenting opinion.
>>538140276What you are explaining is why my government would hand me over, you are not explaining is what gives your court the authority to charge me.The same way that even a person from a country which does not have a treaty with the U.S could still be arrested and charged if they travelled to the U.S or even possibly a U.S friendly country, even if they committed the crime while in a non-extradition country and committed no crime while on U.S soil.Once again, do you believe everyone in the world is legally under U.S jurisdiction?
>>538140195>The opposite is true, as pointed out in 15 different citations by the Dissenting SCOTUS opinionConsider the following: The dissenting opinion is shit and missing context that torpedoes their entire fucking argument.
>>538140577Alito and Thomas are just in it for the keks and expensive billionaire gift packages now.
>>538139457>crappy argument. the state doesnt get to decide who is a citizen. the citizen has to exert their right as a citizen.I mean they literally do what with the guns and all>And before you say something stupid like "i can touch the land"...natwerw34234234234Guns aren't imaginary.
>>538139293Who cares? What relevance does that have to anything? Why haven't you shut the fuck up now? Why are you incapable of answering a direct question or much more importantly providing a citation for anything you claim?
>>538140779>they just said that for no reason at allWould it not indicate that your own source believes Mexico had the jurisdiction over those people?
>>538137021Idk anon that's not very clear, we better let anybody who sets foot on our soil by any means get magic citizenship for their kids so they can change our demographics and vote in our elections just in case.
>>538139623>If I hack into some U.S server right now I can be extradited and tried in a U.S court, even though I've never sat foot in the country.Which is necessary because you can't be tried abroad.Also>U.S server>U.SOh, hey, jurisdiction.
>>538140874>Would it not indicate that your own source believes Mexico had the jurisdiction over those people?Where does my source claim that? Mexico not claiming jurisdiction would if anything point to the opposite.
>>538140423Like I said, that is an agreement between two countries through a treaty, to extradite you and subject you to US jurisdiction. However there is no equivalent for this for someone born under illegal immigrants in the US. You can’t make an agreement with another country, over whether or not they will allow whoever was born in your country to be tried in your court for breaking your laws. Even if you somehow could, that would mean there are people born on US soil who can break laws, but not actually be prosecuted because the US government has no agreement with whatever country (or countries) their parents were from.
>>538141014>>538140874Also you still haven't come up with a citation for an ounce of your bullshit.
>>538140975You're starting to get it little buddy!The serve is under U.S jurisdiction, even though I am not.Thus I can be tried in a U.S court even though I am quite obviously not under U.S jurisdiction, and your argument that illegals can't be charged if they're not under jurisdiction is retarded and poorly thought through.
>>538141014Why did your source say Mexico allowed it buddy?
>>538137021a politician saying one thing, knowing it won't be.weird, didn't the guys that did Hart-Cellar say the same thing. It's almost like it's intended.>Words are wind
>>538141044Once again, foreign nationals from countries without treaties are also frequently tried in U.S courts.The extradition treaty is about, you guessed it, the extradition. It has nothing to do with the court's authority to charge you.
>>538141070>Thus I can be tried in a U.S court even though I am quite obviously not under U.S jurisdictionIf you're in US court, you're under US jurisdiction. US courts don't operate outside of US jurisdiction.Stop spouting nonsense.>>538141086Let me know if you find out why with a citation to back it up.
>>538141191So you believe everyone in the world is under U.S jurisdiction?
>>538141219>So you believe everyone in the world is under U.S jurisdiction?When they're in US courts? Yes. Just like everyone in the world is under U.S jurisdiction on US soil unless they've got some sort of protection against being hauled into US courts.Just ask Maduro. If you're here, you're the bitch of the American legal system.
>>538141292Are they under U.S jurisdiction when they commit the crime?Or only when they're in the U.S court?
>>538141178Here’s another problem with your entire argument, by definition being on US soil, aside from something like diplomatic immunity means you are under US jurisdiction. If you travel to another country, break a law, and don’t escape, you get tried under US court, it doesn’t matter what treaties the US has with other countries Your entire point only matters because you literally aren’t on US soil. Children born to illegal immigrants, living on US soil are by definition under US jurisdiction. Otherwise what is the logic for why illegal immigrants would ever be tried in court.
>>538141435Your entire argument is that you can't be tried by U.S courts if you're not under U.S jurisdiction and it falls apart if YOU CAN.
>>538131803it pertained to "...featherniggers, not taxed"
>>538141507You are under US jurisdiction, the extradition is a treaty between countries agreeing to send you there and subject you to US jurisdiction There is no equivalent to that for someone born on US soil, it doesn’t matter if you are a citizen or not, if you’re on US soil by definition you are under US jurisdiction and subject to US laws
>>538141687Once again, people from countries without treaties are still tried.
>>538141390>Are they under U.S jurisdiction when they commit the crime?Depends on where they commit the crime.>Or only when they're in the U.S court?When they're in US custody and/or on US soil and lacking legal shielding.Like Americans abroad are at all times still subject to US laws, but that doesn't mean Americans abroad can immediately be hauled into US courts without the "abroad" part changing.The 14th Amendment itself acknowledges the difference between being in a country's reach and being in a country with its exclusion of citizenship for people born in occupied US territory.
>>538141896You're pretending to not understand the clear scenario laid out from the start:>foreign national>never set foot in the U.S>commits crime against U.S persons or properties>is charged by U.S courtIs he under U.S jurisdiction?
>>538141752>people from countries without treaties are still tried.If they come here anyway. Else the fuck they aren't.>>538141963>Is he under U.S jurisdiction?Not until and unless they enter the US. Their victim/target being subject to US jurisdiction is what justifies the charges, not them. And they can't be tried until and unless they enter US jurisdiction.
>>538131803>states issue birth certificate for anyone born here >birth certificate automatically makes you a subject of their jurisdiction Miggers are fucking retarded. The end.
>>538142099So when foreign nationals who AREN'T in the U.S are indicted on charges they're not under U.S jurisdiction?
>>538131803If you're on US soil you're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. To say that someone is not subject to that jurisdiction is to say that US laws cannot legally apply to them, they cannot be summoned to court, no US court has the authority to bind them in any way. It's possible to be on US soil and not be subject to US jurisdiction if you are on an indian reservation.
>>538142143>So when foreign nationals who AREN'T in the U.S are indicted on charges they're not under U.S jurisdiction?Yes. Duh? Indictments mean jack shit. Pretty sure Putin's indicted in at least one country.
>>538142139So all you'd have to do to end birthright citizenship is stop giving birth certificates to illegals children?Damn that's easy.
>>538131803>originalism is based unless it contradicts Trump’s political opinions This shit is why the court hit back hard against Trump’s retarded EO. It’s not his place to simply abrogate the constitution
>>538142212Some states probably will try it.
>>538142204So then a person DOESN'T have to be under U.S jurisdiction to be indicted on charges by a U.S court and the argument made is retarded.
>>538142199Hello retard >>538141963Happens all the time, is the whole world under U.S jurisdiction?
>>538142272>So then a person DOESN'T have to be under U.S jurisdiction to be indicted on charges by a U.S court and the argument made is retarded.You were the first person to bring up indictments. Yes, whatever argument you imagined in your drug-addled brain is dumb. Seek help.
>>538142386I was responding to a retard who made the claim that if illegals weren't under U.S jurisdiction they couldn't be charged by U.S courts, we can both now see how that is obviously wrong.Also I do somewhat recall a similar argument made by yourself in your very first reply.But I'm glad we all agree how retarded that argument is now.
>>538142353Being indicted doesn't mean the country indicting you's laws apply to you, nor does it mean you are currently or have ever been in that country's jurisdiction.You are literally the only person to bring up charging or indicting someone in this thread. You are having an imagined argument. Please wake up.
>>538142477But it does mean that country believes it has the authority to charge you, even though you are not under their jurisdiction.
>>538142453>I was responding to a retard who made the claim that if illegals weren't under U.S jurisdiction they couldn't be charged by U.S courts,[citation needed]Nobody said charged or indicted but you, or me responding to you after you already brought it up to call you a delusional fuckwit. CTRL+F is a thing, m8.
>>538131803>Alright /pol/ give me your most retarded arguments for why this clause should be ignored.It shouldn't, as it's the reason illegal alien spawn aren't citizens. The utility of jurisdiction in this context implies they are subject to a foreign country's laws. Which they automatically are the moment their foreign parents have them. They become a citizen of their parent's country automatically. This utility of the term was all over documents of the time. There's no mystery that's the utility that was being used here, especially since the designers wrote that in plain language elsewhere. Open and such.
>>538142562>babies first day on /pol/Follow the links little buddy, it will take you all the way up the reply chain.(As long as no newfag retards have fucked the reply chain up by double replying in seething fits of rage)
>>538142507>But it does mean that country believes it has the authority to charge youThe authority to charge someone has literally fuck all to do with anything.All you need to have the authority to charge someone is a robe and hammer. It has literally nothing to do with jurisdiction or citizenship or anything else. You're arguing with ghosts.
>>538142577>They become a citizen of their parent's country automaticallyThat's unrestricted jus sanguinis and not every country does that shit.Examples of countries that don't include such familiar faces as...Mexico and...the fucking United States of America.
>>538142653I'm arguing with the anon who claimed illegals couldn't be charged with crimes if they aren't under U.S jurisdiction, and once again you also made a similar retarded argument yourself.
>>538142631>Follow the links little buddy, it will take you all the way up the reply chain.1. CTRL+F is faster2. I can't find a post that doesn't exist3. Seriously, why are you incapable of giving a citation on the simplest shit?
>>538142719>I'm arguing with the anon who claimed illegals couldn't be charged with crimes if they aren't under U.S jurisdictionThat anon doesn't exist. You're seeing ghosts
>>538142712>That's unrestricted jus sanguinis and not every country does that shit.It's the assumption of the language in the utility of the term. And there is no country that would reject citizenship of that child, so it is the respected default. They are not considered stateless, thus do not fall under the jurisdiction of the US. This was commonly understood and replete in US document ion for the time. Again, this is no mystery. Just subversion and treason as usual.
>>538142738You joined the reply chain, you can follow it back up. It's all still there little buddy, we can all still see it, pretending it doesn't exist is a pathetic way to back out of a losing argument.
>>538142797>And there is no country that would reject citizenship of that childYou are literally trying to reject the citizenship of that child.Also, LMAO.
>>538142762You'd almost convince someone if reply chains didn't exist, but unfortunately for you they do.
>>538142835>You joined the reply chain, you can follow it back upI accept your concession.Hey, question did you read and interpret "be tried" as "be charged" like a delusional fuckwit currently having a giant crash out over their inability to read?
>>538142876See>>538142910
>>538142837>You are literally trying to reject the citizenship of that child.You are bad at reading.The child is not considered stateless, thus doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the US per the common utility of the term at that time. Anyone who doesn't understand this counter argument still and asks retarded questions like "why should we ignore this term" is purposefully ignorant. You don't have to agree with the counter argument, but ignoring it, is different. You are a mouth breather.
>>538142910Alright then, at what point does the man who goes from indicted to tried fall under U.S jurisdiction?
It does not include foreigners.
>>538132474>There is a glaring flaw in their argument and it astounds me that people at the highest level of law practice can get it so completely wrong.American Attorneys and Judges are non-literates. They are the leftovers after all the intelligent people have taken jobs in science or math, and they have effectively zero literacy and no competency in matters of logic or fact.See these draft ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENTat https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md "In the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against John Glover Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, and four concurring Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, in maintenance and support of their impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, specifically the bad behavior of fabricating jurisprudential facts, usurping the foreign affairs powers of the President, and striking a course for nuclear war.">>538132544Correct. This phrase gives the United States the power to waive its Jurisdiction over any aliens born to Foreign Tourists or visitors, to prevent such children from being Taxed or Extradited or drafted into Military service of the United States. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538133068>Trump's problem is he forgot to give all [about-to-be-born] illegals and tourists immunity from US laws". And, so we propose a New Executive Order that EXPLICITLY WAIVE Jus Soli/Territorial Jurisdiction over the un/born alien child at the MOMENT OF ITS BIRTH, which prevents attachment of the obligations of US Citizenship (income tax liability, extradition, compulsory service in the US Military) and prevents international-conflicts with other nations. see ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT and Draft EOs at https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md"In the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against John Glover Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, and four concurring Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, in maintenance and support of their impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, specifically the bad behavior of fabricating jurisprudential facts, usurping the foreign affairs powers of the President, and striking a course for nuclear war."
>>538133068>there would be no government to hold authorityThe "United States" and its Jurisdiction existed prior to the adoption of the US Constitution. Jurisdiction is derived from Military Conquest of land and people, and not only paper.Moreover, the President can Waive Jurisdiction over any Aliens for purposes of Comity or otherwise, in the absence of a statute to the contrary. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538143170He should’ve put that in the amendment then
>>538133143>Can all illegals and tourists be drafted?Can the child of an Aussie tourist, who broke water a month early in the Grand Canyon Hotel later be extradited from Australia to Pay Income Tax on money he earned selling lemonade in Brisbane? and later drafted into the US Military? See https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538133143>and trying to change [Jus Soli Subject/Citizenship] via EO is a legitimate act of the President. The Judges completely ignored the statutory precedent of the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) (22 U.S.C. § 288 et seq.), which proves that the political branches have the power to use an "Executive Order" to create statuses of non-jurisdiction for foreign nationals.https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.mdAnd, these Judges must be Impeached:ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT"In the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against John Glover Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, and four concurring Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, in maintenance and support of their impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, specifically the bad behavior of fabricating jurisprudential facts, usurping the foreign affairs powers of the President, and striking a course for nuclear war."https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538133311>What is your argumentThe President has the Power to WAIVE Jus Soli Territorial JURISDICTION over the un/born children of Aliens and he must now do so Explicitly. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538133647>Under the English common law,The English Crowne had ABSOLUTE POWER TO WAIVE ITS Jus Soli/Jurisdiction over any alien child whatsoever. The US President now has that Power to Explicitly Waive Jurisidiction. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538133832>And the same applies to illegals and touristsThe idea that the US can poach the children of a foreign power because they were a tourist that broke water in the USA is insane. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538133921>being subject to Mexican jurisdictionthis is addressed in the ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT at https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538134099>Children of Mexicans born abroad don't get Mexican citizenship at birthWRONG! The Mexican Constitution is explicit and is quoted here https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538134759>it's possible to be in the US and not subject to US jurisdictionYes. The President can by Executive Order immune from the Jurisdiction. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538135206>ignoring that isTREASONSee the points and evidence in these draftARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT"In the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against John Glover Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, and four concurring Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, in maintenance and support of their impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, specifically the bad behavior of fabricating jurisprudential facts, usurping the foreign affairs powers of the President, and striking a course for nuclear war."https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538144300In hindsight yeah but you can never expect such retardation from the supreme court, where they just completely ignore the actual historical debate around the amendment that clearly states who is and who isn't a citizen.
So weird seeing people say if being born in the country isn't enough for citizenship then what is?The vast majority of countries in the world doesn't grant unconditional birthright citizenship like the US does.
>>538135754>in that Congressional record, they openly explained"Senator Trumbull stated that the Citizenship Clause, likethe Civil Rights Act, would still exclude all persons subject to a foreign power: “What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” Id., at 2893. Senator Howard agreed that the Citizenship Clause “w[ould] not, ofcourse, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” Id., at 2890. And, shortly before theCitizenship Clause was introduced, Senator William Fessenden, a supporter of the Amendment, explained that“persons may be born in the United States and not be citizens of the United States,” then gave the example of “a person [who] is born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country.” Id.,..."Congress understood the Citizenship Clause to exclude the children of temporary visitors. Just two years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Enforcement Act of 1870. The Act implemented the Citizenship Clause with the same language that the CivilRights Act had used, limiting the right to citizenship to persons born here and “not subject to any foreign power.” Enforcement Act of 1870, §18, 16 Stat. 144 (reenacting Act ofApr. 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27). The 1870 Act thus incorporated language that expressly excluded the children of temporaryforeign visitors, who were subject to the power of the foreign countries in which they were domiciled."https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdfhttps://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538137382>Iraqis who had to go through checkpoints in Baghdad in 2006 were subject to American jurisdiction therefore their newborns became citizens when we occupied the city.No. Born un Iraq, not born "within the United States"
>>538138097>“if you are born in the United States, you are under US jurisdictionNO. Not at all. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538138350>“thereof” means, “from that cause”.NO. "there of" means "of .. that thing previously mentioned" https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538138350>there are people born in the United States who aren’t under US jurisdictionTHAT IS THE FACT. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538138959>who is born in the United States and not under US jurisdiction then?NATO personel. Olympic Games employees, and any alien child that the US President gives an Express Waiver to. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
>>538131803Have you tried looking the word up in a law dictionary?
>>538140577In the 1868, any Chinese in California had been abandoned by the Emperor of China and he was not making any claims to the offspring of such chinese at that time. Nor were the resident chinese exempt from any US laws or jurisdiction by that time.https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
