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

[Conservative from Georgia]

Nope. Which words did you not understand? "The US has legal jurisdiction over both?

Nope. Again, which words did you not understand? "Diplomatic immunity is a defense to a criminal prosecution. If the home country waives the immunity, the US is free to prosecute the diplomat for any crime she commits here."

Immunity is waived, not jurisdiction. It's like if you waive your 5th amendment right, you can be called to testify against yourself.

Nope. Diplomatic immunity is certainly broad, but it is not absolute.

Yes. Diplomatic immunity applies to murder. Then United States would have to ask the country of the murderer to waive their jurisdiction because we don’t have it. Stop making things up.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

hahaha…poor purple hair people don’t know that legal jurisdiction and jurisdiction as it relates to nation of origin and political allegiance are two totally different things…

Look at this dance arguing that there is a special jurisdiction reserved specifically for citizenship. Go ahead and tell us what specific immigration related jurisdiction the 14th amendment crafters were talking about. Yeah, stop making shit up.

 

[Rawley]

Yes. Diplomatic immunity applies to murder. Then United States would have to ask the country of the murderer to waive their jurisdiction because we don’t have it. Stop making things up.

SIgh. I won't bother correcting your for a third time. If you insist on broadcasting your rank ignorance, your choice.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

So every POW we take is suddenly a US citizen?

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

So every POW we take is suddenly a US citizen?

POWs are subjects to the law of the detaining power. For any crime they commit after being detained by USA of course. If he committed a “war crime” before being detained, he can also be prosecuted here.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

POWs are subjects to the law of the detaining power. For any crime they commit after being detained by USA of course. If he committed a “war crime” before being detained, he can also be prosecuted here.

None of which makes you a citizen. Just like the illegals.

 

[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.

Do people that visit other countries find themselves subject to their laws? Does that make them a citizen? If I go to France for a visit, I have to follow their laws. Does that make me a citizen of France?

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Once again demonstrating that you are pitiably ignorant.

Your always shallow understandings get in the way. For example, you have confused what “jurisdiction” means since you weren’t even alive in the days in which that Amendment was approved by Congress. And in your always feeble mind, you imagine (wrongly) that a state having a claim over you for its own criminal jurisdiction concerns isn’t even remotely what the framers of the Amendment understood it to mean in its own context.

It dealt with another concept about which you are ignorant. “Allegiance.”

What makes a simpleton shitlib like you imagine that a baby born here — to a couple who have entered this country illegally — would consider himself as owing allegiance to this country?

You’re a goober, Lib.

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.​

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

 

[Concerned American]

By the way, the children of foreign diplomats were not USA citizens at birth back then

Still aren't.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Still aren't.

Exactly. That’s an exception in the law.
It’s always been. But you cannot point to an exception regarding people who are not children of diplomats. You just can’t win this one.

 

[Concerned American]

Exactly. That’s an exception in the law.
It’s always been. But you cannot point to an exception regarding people who are not children of diplomats. You just can’t win this one.

When you get your kindergarten law degree, please post it. I'll take the SCOTUS decision.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

I'll take the SCOTUS decision.

Damn right you’ll take it. You have no choice message board lawyer.

 

[Concerned American]

Damn right you’ll take it. You have no choice message board lawyer.

Talking to yourself? I'm not convinced you've come around. I'm sure we'll all be entertained by you and your ilk protesting their decision. Typical democrat.

 

[80zephyr]

Thomas Jefferson wrote that proper interpretation requires “carry[ing] ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect[ing] the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Using this as a guide, it is apparent that the birthright law has been misinterpreted.

 

[otto105]

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.

Does “all persons” read hard for you?