The nature of "jurisdiction"

I don't understand how so many sentient beings can not understand a simple point.

If the parent(s) are here illegally, birthright citizenship doesn't apply. All the precedents I'm reading relate to those here legally that bear a child on American soil. Admittedly, I stopped reading after encountering so much STOOPID it nauseated me

By the reasoning of the dimocrap scum in here, foreign terrorists could sneak into the country, murder ten million Americans but if they have a kid while here, that kid is a citizen.

Or a foreign Spy.

Birthright Citizenship is just stupid and needs to be done away with. And the citing of the 1898 case is by an idiot who didn't read the whole thing.

dimocraps lie. It's why i refuse to talk to them and just call them names instead. They're not just too stupid to worry about, they're too dishonest. Plus the fact -- They're scum.

Can't talk to them. They think lying is fine as long as they win. And all they care about is winning because it gives them power. Lie, cheat, steal. It's all they do.
 
Last edited:
Can you sue an illegal alien who hits your car? you can pursue in court if the court has jurisdiction.
No. They should be tried, convicted, and immediately deported. The government itself should be sued for failing to keep illegal immigrants out of the country in the first place. Any negative actions taken by an illegal immigrant should be laid at the feet of the government. Jurisdiction means only legal, naturalized citizens may sue and seek compensation from one another. In this scenario, where the government has no jurisdiction save for the enforcement of the penal code and immigration law, the government should be the only entity being sued.
 
Last edited:
I imagine a federal court will stay the EO pending adjudication of the multiple suits relatively quickly.
 
By that same token, stare decisis could have easily been used to keep Dred in place. Hence it's flaw.
No. The 14th was the intervening change. Constitution is superior to law is superior to stare decisis is superior to EO.

The courts will show you presently.
 
No. The 14th was the intervening change. Constitution is superior to law is superior to stare decisis is superior to EO.
Sorry, you over-relied on stare decisis.

Granted, the 14th Amendment was the intervening change, but had it not been, stare decisis dictates that we should accept past decisions of the courts barring that. That means in your argument, we should accept the 1898 decision as the prima facie ruling on the matter and should let the matter rest forever.

However, you didn't cite the intervening change initially until you were pressed to. Furthermore, stare decisis is not superior to EO, because stare decisis also establishes EOs as a legitimate exercise of the chief executive. Court decisions, past or present are what are superior to any EO, should that EO fall afoul of any Constitutional Amendment. As current stare decisis dictates, this EO does run contrary to it. But that doesn't make the 1898 SCOTUS ruling immune from scrutiny or contrary judgement.
 
but had it not been, stare decisis dictates that we should accept past decisions of the courts barring that.
And thats why the Fourteenth Amendment matters.

You are free to argue amongst yourselves why you think what you think. A court will block this soon enough.
 
Torts are not crimes, they are civil action. Penal code is criminal. You stated criminal.

Since the government cannot be sued for criminal actions, this is the best recourse. Criminal suits can only be tried by the state, and thus the state cannot be sued for criminal behavior.

Even still, government employees can be sued and tried for criminal negligence.

In the US's case, that means the heads of any branch of government complicit in fashioning laws, directives or executive orders which permitted the crime by the immigrant to take place. You can hold them (and by proxy, the government), criminally culpable for ignoring laws or fashioning directives that led to the harm of a citizen.
 
A court will block this soon enough.
That was the prevailing thought about Roe, and that was easily overturned. The case will zigzag its way through the courts until it reaches the Supreme Court, which will ultimately make the decision. If it is unafraid to touch the birthright citizenship issue, then it will make the necessary decision keeping children born of illegal immigrants from becoming citizens.
 
The 14th was the intervening change.
But barring any further "intervening change" stare decisis cannot be used as an argument to keep laws or court decisions from being overturned or amended. Meaning, that since there have been no other intervening changes in the law, the 14th, and thereby any other court decision, can be subject to scrutiny and subsequent action.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top