SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 46K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
I think I have a good enough idea of what "jurisdiction thereof" means to form my opinion, even if I'm expanding the application more than others might.

I wasn't saying that both parents need to be citizens. I was saying that someone here illegally, and their children, should be treated like an diplomat, which is to say that they should still be viewed as not under the jurisdiction of the US, but under the jurisdiction of their home country for citizenship purposes.
Click to expand...
That would create another SC case would it not?
 
This case gets to the root of what is rotten with Trump's Presidency. When he wants something he goes after it with brute force, attempting to intimidate his way into the outcome he wants, rules be damned. A decent President would attempt to govern, he simply does not know how. The absolute worst President in the history of this nation.
 
Callatoroy said:
That would create another SC case would it not?
Click to expand...
Probably. I'm just looking at what makes sense overall, not necessarily as it relates to this specific case.

People who are vacationing, visiting, acting as diplomats or existing illegally are still under the jurisdiction of their home country, not the US, at least not to any more degree than I'm under the jurisdiction of Mexico when I vacation there.
 
Callatoroy said:
Zen's argument addresses that. But outside of that, in order to address the birthright tourism issue the US would have to require a visa from every country.
Click to expand...
Would you or would you just put the onus on the parent(s) to prove they were legally living in the US for X amount of time?
 
ZenMode said:
Birthright tourism is an obvious issue. IMO, it should be excluded just as children of foreign ambassadors/diplomats are excluded under the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I would say that children born in the US,when one parent is here illegally, should also be excluded under the "jurisdiction thereof" just as it is for diplomats.
Click to expand...
How do we know both of your parents were here legally? There is no proof of that. And even assuming you had proof about your parents, how do we know their parents were here legally?

You absolutely cannot superimpose some stupid rule retroactively on people born in America, when there is no administrative system to handle it. You would have to massively overhaul how we track citizenship in this country, which could only be effectuated through a constitutional amendment and a massive reworking of the birth certificate process in this country.
 
Geisterfahrer said:
Yes, that child is a US citizen, absent some rare exceptions.
Click to expand...
14th Effing Amendment. The Constitution and Amendments were written for The People. Not in legalese. The purpose, intent, and actionable items are clear. If you were born in the US, you are a citizen. Period. And the states can't take away your rights. It's not complicated.

I understand the current SCrOTUS is not a fan of the 14th. Too f*cking bad. Maybe resign your bench seat and move to Russia?
 
ZenMode said:
Probably. I'm just looking at what makes sense overall, not necessarily as it relates to this specific case.

People who are vacationing, visiting, acting as diplomats or existing illegally are still under the jurisdiction of their home country, not the US, at least not to any more degree than I'm under the jurisdiction of Mexico when I vacation there.
Click to expand...
You think tourists can’t be arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced for crimes? The carve out for ambassadors and diplomats is related to diplomatic immunity. Their presence in the US is in the service of a foreign government and they act as an extension of that government. If they commit criminal acts, they get sent home rather than charged because they are not under the jurisdiction of the US.
 
CHAMTRAIN said:
This case gets to the root of what is rotten with Trump's Presidency. When he wants something he goes after it with brute force, attempting to intimidate his way into the outcome he wants, rules be damned. A decent President would attempt to govern, he simply does not know how. The absolute worst President in the history of this nation.
Click to expand...
I think trump sees birthright citizenship as a growing problem. I agree with him on that. There is an entire industry using our constitution against us. Going through congress to address anything takes years, decades, or never gets resolved. He see's using the SC as an expedited solution to get some of his agenda passed. Issue an EO, let it get challenged and roll with the ruling. Much more efficient. He wins some and loses some. It's a strategy that future presidents will likely use more and more. Not saying its right or wrong but it is efficient if you win.
 
dukeman92 said:
Cool story. Now do the second amendment.

Click to expand...


The pretzel logic for fake conservatives in SCrOTUS who now have gone to Reletavism (old far left trick) on the US Constitution. Why not go back farther? Thomas Jefferson? James Madison? John Jay? What the hell did they know about freedom and liberty?? JFC.

Embarrassing.

 
BlooVooDoo said:
You think tourists can’t be arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced for crimes? The carve out for ambassadors and diplomats is related to diplomatic immunity. Their presence in the US is in the service of a foreign government and they act as an extension of that government. If they commit criminal acts, they get sent home rather than charged because they are not under the jurisdiction of the US.
Click to expand...
Of course they can. I mentioned that when I referenced me vacationing in mexico. That (being arrested, charged, convicted and jailed in Mexico) doesn't mean I'm not, ultimately, under the jurisdiction of the US, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top