Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship

[_Kevin Graham]

I suppose you could argue that, but you would lose. You might as well say foreign combatants or a foreign government can set a base up on our soil, using your example above, but we have no right to deport them.

That's just silly season reasoning.

- Doc

Foreign combatants aren't diplomats. That's just a silly comparison.

[_Kevin Graham]

Except we hold foreign visitors (that aren't diplomats) as subject to our jurisdiction... this allows us to ask them to leave.

That's crap reasoning, Xeno. We also expel diplomats from the US.

Expulsion is a term mostly used in international law. So diplomats are expelled according to international law, they are not deported because that is according to national law. In fact, diplomats are immune to national laws. They can shoot a US citizen on the streets and all we can do is expel them, not convict or punish them.

[_Jersey Girl]

Soooo... Illegals who haven't taken an oath of citizenship or have allegiance to a foreign government are different how?

- Doc

Because they are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. I thought this was obvious.

Nothing is obvious. Let me explain. The folks who wrote these crap rules lacked foresight. Why? Because they're male who couldn't examine their own thinking, make predictions and sort through the details before putting pen to paper.

Example.

Male vs. female approaches to lunch time

Dad asks who wants a peanut butter sandwich? Everyone says "Me!!" so he slaps some peanut butter between two slices of bread, throws it on a plate and calls it done.


Mom asks who wants a peanut butter sandwich? Everyone says, "Me!!" Mom then begins to ask follow on questions.

"Who wants creamy?"
"Who wants crunchy?"
"Who wants jelly?"
"Who doesn't want jelly?"
"Who wants their crusts cut off?"
"Who wants triangles?"
"Who wants rectangles?"
"Who doesn't want their bread cut?"

Because...Mom has the foresight and is able to predict that if she doesn't sort through all the issues and identify all the possibilities and alternative perspectives, preferences, and positions in advance, she's going to have whining kids in tears throwing their crap at each other out of frustration just like we're throwing crap at each other and our two party system of gov't is throwing crap at each other and mobilizing armies for god sakes to fight illegal aliens and their children, because men didn't bother to think things through in advance before they had a total mess on their hands which is where we are right now.

And this my friends is why we need more women in politics.

You're welcome.

[_subgenius]

Wait. Are the children of diplomats and foreign ministers granted citizenship on the basis of being born here?

- Doc

No, because they are not subject to US jurisdiction.

They sure are "subject to", just in varying extents...for example. diplomats and consulars can receive traffic tickets (like for speeding and drunk driving)...things aren't quite so black/white as you would hope here....similar to some of the clauses in the 14th amendment whereas they are subject to interpretation.

[_Res Ipsa]

Soooo... Illegals who haven't taken an oath of citizenship or have allegiance to a foreign government are different how?

- Doc

Yep, I'd like to see someone attempt to explain this as well. It came up on a talk show I was watching and they left the issue hanging without asking the obvious question that you just posed.

The only thing I can possibly think of is that illegal aliens who arrive in this country seeking amnesty, are then subject to US jurisdiction by virtue of that very appeal so their children born on US soil are then granted birthright citizenship.

Don't ask me what I just stated. It made sense while it was coming out of my head and through the keyboard.

Subject to US Jurisdiction means that our government can prosecute and punish them though our courts. An alien is the US, regardless of how he entered, can be prosecuted and punished under US law, expect for diplomats, etc. An alien who did not legally enter is still subject to US jurisdiction, whether or not he seeks amnesty.

[_EAllusion]

Wait. Are the children of diplomats and foreign ministers granted citizenship on the basis of being born here?

- Doc

That’s the sole exception in the 14th amendment. They are not under the jurisdiction of the US. They cannot be prosecuted by our domestic legal system as immigrants can be.

[_Res Ipsa]

They sure are "subject to", just in varying extents...for example. diplomats and consulars can receive traffic tickets (like for speeding and drunk driving)...things aren't quite so black/white as you would hope here....similar to some of the clauses in the 14th amendment whereas they are subject to interpretation.

Actually, it is that black and white. Yes, you can put the piece of paper under the windshield of the ambassador’s car. But the government can’t take him to court to make him pay. Because the ambassador is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

[_Res Ipsa]

Wait. Are the children of diplomats and foreign ministers granted citizenship on the basis of being born here?

- Doc

That’s the sole exception in the 14th amendment. They are not under the jurisdiction of the US. They cannot be prosecuted by our domestic legal system as immigrants can be.

There were two more. Native Americans were originally considered not subject to US jurisdiction. Today we no longer consider native tribes as sovereign. Also, were Russia to invade and militarily occupy Alaska, children born to the occupiers would not be considered subject to US law. The special treatment of ambassadors and military occupations comes from international law, through the content of treaties.

[_Chap]

... for example. diplomats and consulars can receive traffic tickets (like for speeding and drunk driving) ...

Oh yes, they can receive them all right. But, quite rightly, they ignore them, because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Your attempts to suggest that there is any lack of clarity about the meaning of the 14th Amendment are really not proving to be much of a success, are they? And that is because there is no lack of clarity about the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

[_Jersey Girl]

Subject to US Jurisdiction means that our government can prosecute and punish them though our courts. An alien is the US, regardless of how he entered, can be prosecuted and punished under US law, expect for diplomats, etc. An alien who did not legally enter is still subject to US jurisdiction, whether or not he seeks amnesty.

Okay stop right there.

The aliens in question are presumably asylum seekers and presumably planning to enter at border checkpoints in order to seek asylum just like the last group, are they not?

If they attempt to seek asylum by arriving at border checkpoints then how in the hell can they fall under the category or status of "illegal alien" and how is this withdrawal of birthright citizenship for their children even applicable to start with?

Why are we sending 15K troops to the border to meet asylum seekers who likely are arriving at border checkpoints to seek said asylum?

Because the US is unprepared for this level of influx (est. 3-5K) at border checkpoints? Is that it? Because what it looks like to me is that the terminology is being thrown around twisting something up into a smoke screen pretzel so nobody notices that none of the so-called reasoning and/or justification makes any sense to a sane person.