Question about “under the jurisdiction thereof” in the birthright citizenship debate

[Conservative from Georgia]

The question is about U.S. jurisdiction over two types of individuals before the ratification of the 14th Amendment: 1) a Mexican national present in the U.S. illegally, and 2) a foreign diplomat.

First, if a Mexican citizen, lets call him Jose Perez, had committed a violent murder in USA soil in say, 1853, would the United States have had the legal jurisdiction to prosecute and imprison him?

Second, if Perez had been a foreign diplomat of any foreign country at the time, would diplomatic immunity have shielded him from U.S. prosecution?

These two answers will tell us what kind of persons were under US jurisdiction at the time the 14th amendment was passed.
Now, please answer and thank you.

 

[Oddball]

Completely bogus premise.

There were no "U.S. citizens" prior to the 14th Amendment.

Go float your lame shitlib bait somewhere else.

 

[80zephyr]

The question is about U.S. jurisdiction over two types of individuals before the ratification of the 14th Amendment: 1) a Mexican national present in the U.S. illegally, and 2) a foreign diplomat.

First, if a Mexican citizen, lets call him Jose Perez, had committed a violent murder in USA soil in say, 1853, would the United States have had the legal jurisdiction to prosecute and imprison him?

Second, if Perez had been a foreign diplomat of any foreign country at the time, would diplomatic immunity have shielded him from U.S. prosecution?

These two answers will tell us what kind of persons were under US jurisdiction at the time the 14th amendment was passed.
Now, please answer and thank you.

Are you really trying to make the case that a visitor does not have to follow the laws of the country they visit? Does the rest of the world know that?

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Completely bogus premise.

There were no "U.S. citizens" prior to the 14th Amendment.

Go float your lame shitlib bait somewhere else.

Yes, there were absolutely U.S. citizens before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. In fact, the Constitution mentioned "citizens" several times before the amendment was ever written (for example, stating that the President must be a "natural born Citizen"

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Are you really trying to make the case that an immigrant does not have to follow the laws of the country they visit? Does the rest of the world know that?

If the immigrant has to follow USA laws, then it means this immigrant is under USA jurisdiction. Correct?
You can’t prosecute a person without jurisdiction over him.

 

[Oddball]

Yes, there were absolutely U.S. citizens before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. In fact, the Constitution mentioned "citizens" several times before the amendment was ever written (for example, stating that the President must be a "natural born Citizen"

Citizenship was a State thing...You're completely over your head, poseur form Perry.

 

[80zephyr]

If the immigrant has to follow USA laws, then it means this immigrant is under USA jurisdiction. Correct?
You can’t prosecute a person without jurisdiction over him.

Wow.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Citizenship was a State thing...You're completely over your head, poseur form that?

The constitution said that a person could only be president if he was a USA citizen. Are you stupid? This wasn’t just a state thing. You continue to state false and dumb things.

By the way, you have not answered the question about the diplomat.

 

[Oddball]

The constitution said that a person could only be president if he was a USA citizen. Are you stupid? This wasn’t just a state thing. You continue to state false and dumb things.

By the way, you have not answered the question about the diplomat.

It doesn't say "USA citizen", ******* nincompoop.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, you were a citizen of the State wherein you resided...There was no such thing as a federal "US citizen".

l didn't answer your loaded question because the entire premise is just shitlib bait.

 

[Concerned American]

The question is about U.S. jurisdiction over two types of individuals before the ratification of the 14th Amendment: 1) a Mexican national present in the U.S. illegally, and 2) a foreign diplomat.

First, if a Mexican citizen, lets call him Jose Perez, had committed a violent murder in USA soil in say, 1853, would the United States have had the legal jurisdiction to prosecute and imprison him?

Second, if Perez had been a foreign diplomat of any foreign country at the time, would diplomatic immunity have shielded him from U.S. prosecution?

These two answers will tell us what kind of persons were under US jurisdiction at the time the 14th amendment was passed.
Now, please answer and thank you.

Diplomats have a special status. Next.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Diplomats have a special status. Next.

exactly the point. Their special status is that they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Because of this same special status, a baby born in the United States who is the child of a foreign diplomat is not a USA citizenship.

Illegal immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the United States.
That’s why if the child of a foreign diplomat killed somebody in the United States they cannot be prosecuted here but an illegal immigrant can.
The challenge to birthright citizenship is in trouble.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Sponsors of the 14th amendment made it clear the juisdiction applies to Americans blacks who were just freed from slavery but were still non citizens which is the main reason why this amenment was created.

They also stated it wasn't for illegal aliens as their jurisdiction is in another country thus doesn't qualify.

This is 101 stuff that removes the absurd birthright citizenship bullshit for babies of ILLEGAL alien parents.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

It doesn't say "USA citizen", ******* nincompoop.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, you were a citizen of the State wherein you resided...There was no such thing as a federal "US citizen".

l didn't answer your loaded question because the entire premise is just shitlib bait.

Wait. So did any of those states have jurisdiction over an illegal immigrant who committed a crime? You thought you hit a home run buddy. It was a strike out.

 

[Oddball]

Wait. So did any of those states have jurisdiction over an illegal immigrant who committed a crime? You thought you hit a home run buddy. It was a strike out.

Was there such a thing as "illegal immigrant" back then, Mr. ******* Knowitall?

 

[Concerned American]

exactly the point. There’s special status is that they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Illegal immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the United States.
The challenge to birthright citizenship is in trouble

Illegal immigrants are under the jurisdiction of their country of citizenship, the same as you if you were in Mexico and broke the law, they would jail you. Criminal actions don't have anything to do with citizenship. Find another straw to grasp. SMFH.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Before the Civil War, there were no restrictions on who could enter the country (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore, when a citizen of another country did enter, they voluntarily placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States and the state in which they entered.

Now that we have restrictions on who can enter, and how they are allowed to do it, a foreigner who enters illegally is specifically dodging United States jurisdiction. They remains a foreigner unlawfully present. Not at all who the framers of the 14th Amendment envisioned protecting.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

The Sponsors of the 14th amendment made it clear the juisdiction applies to Americans blacks who were just freed from slavery but were still non citizens which is the main reason why this amenment was created.

They also stated it wasn't for illegal aliens as their jurisdiction is in another country thus doesn't qualify.

This is 101 stuff that removes the absurd birthright citizenship bullshit for babies of ILLEGAL alien parents.

Stop lying. They did not state anything about “illegal immigrants.”
And you have not answer whether the foreign diplomat or his children born here would’ve been in USA jurisdiction back then.

 

[Concerned American]

Wait. So did any of those states have jurisdiction over an illegal immigrant who committed a crime? You thought you hit a home run buddy. It was a strike out.

The premise of your click bait OP is ignorant. LOL, and like a typical democrat, you keep doubling down on your ignorance.

 

[Meathead]

The question is about U.S. jurisdiction over two types of individuals before the ratification of the 14th Amendment: 1) a Mexican national present in the U.S. illegally, and 2) a foreign diplomat.

First, if a Mexican citizen, lets call him Jose Perez, had committed a violent murder in USA soil in say, 1853, would the United States have had the legal jurisdiction to prosecute and imprison him?

If he were 173 years old, yes.

 

[Oddball]

Before the Civil War, there were no restrictions on who could enter the country (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore, when a citizen of another country did enter, they voluntarily placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States and the state in which they entered.

There weren't any....Therefore there was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant"....You committed a crime and they prosecuted you regardless.

Now that we have restrictions on who can enter, and how they are allowed to do it, a foreigner who enters illegally is specifically dodging United States jurisdiction and remains a foreigner unlawfully present. Not at all who the framers of the 14th Amendment envisioned protecting.

Demonstrating that the OP is completely out of his league.