Immigration Ban

RedDenver said:
Doesn't really matter who wanted what in which Amendment because only what's in the actual Amendment got ratified by the States.
Click to expand...




The author argued for including the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which is in the amendment, precisely for the purpose of making a distinction towards people not here legally. The argument being that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

Right? Or am I reading/understanding this wrong? 

 
Landlord said:
The author argued for including the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which is in the amendment, precisely for the purpose of making a distinction towards people not here legally. The argument being that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

Right? Or am I reading/understanding this wrong? 
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying now. That seems like a very weak argument. If they want to make the argument that illegals aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, doesn't that also mean they can't be detained, prosecuted, or jailed?

 
Landlord said:
The author argued for including the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which is in the amendment, precisely for the purpose of making a distinction towards people not here legally. The argument being that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

Right? Or am I reading/understanding this wrong? 
Click to expand...
have you ever heard of diplomatic imunity?   that is what i take that phrase to exclude from being citizens....the kids of diplomats here in the country while serving their own countries interest.

 
2 years into the trump administration and now we have a border invasion.   2 years of trump, 2 years of republican controlled congress and senate, and republican dominated judicial system....and it's the dems fault.    i wonder when donnie and the republicans will take the blame for their screw ups?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
QMany said:
US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Click to expand...




This sounds far more like the modern equivalent of a green card holder than someone who just wandered across the border illegally and popped out a kid.

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

 
maybe a bit off topic......but isn't the correct term concertina wire instead of barbed wire?  or is concertina a type of barbed wire?

 
Back
Top