The nature of "jurisdiction"

My view is the illegals live in or are under the 'jurisdiction thereof' of the country they came from.
"Jus sanguinis" or "right of blood"

A child born of a foreign citizen is only a citizen of their parent's home country, not of any other country they happened to be in or came to through any other methods.

You are correct sir.
 
Last edited:
Jus soli applies. Next!
Jus Soli is archaic. I explained why in the OP. You can dispense with the facetiousness.

"One argument, "Jus Soli" rooted in English common law, is used to make the suggestion we should allow citizenship to anyone born here, regardless of legal status, simply for not wanting to create a class of "stateless individuals." Firstly, Jus Soli was more suited for monarchies, not modern forms of government. Secondly, you can address the issue of "stateless individuals" by not granting them citizenship upon birth, and simply deporting them and their parents back to their nation of origin."

Jus Soli may have worked for English common law, for England, for the monarchy, but we are not a monarchy. We should be governed by the writ of Jus Sanguinis only.
 
Last edited:
People with no legal education think they are suddenly Constitutional lawyers, with sufficient knowledge and expertise to overcome 125 year old stare decisis. Priceless!
 
Jus Soli is archaic. I explained why in the OP. You can dispense with the facetiousness.

"One argument, "Jus Soli" rooted in English common law, is used to make the suggestion we should allow citizenship to anyone born here, regardless of legal status, simply for not wanting to create a class of "stateless individuals." Firstly, Jus Soli was more suited for monarchies, not modern forms of government. Secondly, you can address the issue of "stateless individuals" by not granting them citizenship upon birth, and simply deporting them and their parents back to their nation of origin."

Jus Soli may have worked for English common law, for England, for the monarchy, but we are not a monarchy. We should be governed by the writ of Jus Sanguinis only.
That's you opinion and as wrong as it may be, all of this jabbering means nothing until the courts settle the issue. My prediction is that it will stand as is.
 
People with no legal education think they are suddenly Constitutional lawyers, with sufficient knowledge and expertise to overcome 125 year old stare decisis. Priceless!
So, what makes you a legal expert?

This fallacious appeal to authority you just made? Great.

How many state bars are you qualified by to practice law here in the US?

None? Well then, that makes you just as uneducated in law and stare decisis as the rest of us. You have no true grasp of unbiased jurisprudence.
 
That's you opinion and as wrong as it may be, all of this jabbering means nothing until the courts settle the issue. My prediction is that it will stand as is.
Hmm, did I not make clear my OP was an opinion, not a factual assertion?

So why are you sitting their saying my opinion is wrong? Disprove the points I made, don't sit there like a narcissist prick and say "nuh-uh!"
 
For the record, stare decisis is flawed. It stands in the way of the legal system making true, just changes in the system of government.

If we stick solely to stare decisis, that means Dred Scott would still be the precedent that our legal system goes by. That should be the nail in that particular argument.
 
They decided Dred Scott and Korematsu too. Both of those were atrocious decisions.

Your argument of the SCOTUS's infallibility is terribly flawed. Their rulings are, in fact, not sacrosanct. They can be overturned, and are required to be if they are clearly wrong.
I didn't say they were infallible, did I? Is that how you influence people by putting words in their mouth?

Of course it can be overturned, but you best have a damned good reason. I don't see it and neither will the courts in all likelihood.
 
Well, the Conservative majority will crumble on this one. The Chief will definitely rule for birthright citizenship and Barrett is a toss-up.

The practical problem is that it would create chaos. How many "Americans" became citizens under this rule? If it is reversed, does that call into question EVEN THEIR kids? Maybe. Any ruling in Trump's favor would only apply prospectively, and not to anyone who is already a citizen under this prior rule.

One can only hope that the case makes it to the USSC, to settle the question.

Note one thing, however: There is no question that this rule works to HARM THE UNITED STATES, by granting citizenship to people who have absolutely no right to be here, who have not been interviewed or approved by any instrumentality of the United States, and yet EVERY DEMOCRAT READING THESE WORDS IS FULLY ON BOARD WITH BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, in spite of the fact that it harms the country. Because it helps them politically.

Let that sink in. That is the biggest single difference between Democrats and Republicans. We R's want what is best for the country; D's want what is best for their party.
 
My view is the illegals live in or are under the 'jurisdiction thereof' of the country they came from.
Can you sue an illegal alien who hits your car? you can pursue in court if the court has jurisdiction.
 
I didn't say they were infallible, did I? Is that how you influence people by putting words in their mouth?
I am going based on your inferences.

You suggested that since they ruled on this in 1898, no further questions to that ruling should be permitted, as the matter is settled. In other words:

"They ruled this, and it should not be questioned."

Sorry sir. That is a classic appeal to authority, and I cannot allow that to continue. I am not influencing anyone, only just calling you out for trying run from an argument you made.
 

Forum List

Back
Top