Into the Night
Verified User
Go learn English, Pretender.Citation?
does it have a different meaning in the 14th than in the rest of the English language?
Go learn English, Pretender.Citation?
does it have a different meaning in the 14th than in the rest of the English language?
There is no 'legal definition', Poorboy. Go learn English.Jurisdiction in the 14th amendment uses the legal definition.
So you want to separate parents from their children. Gotit. DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE!There is no other definition that can be used when referring to the jurisdiction of a country. The attempt to claim that jurisdiction can be defined other ways is nothing but a red herring. As has been pointed out more than once in this thread, the idea of birthright citizenship comes from English common law. Everyone born in a country is a citizen of that country under English common law. The 14th amendment merely takes that from common law and makes it part of the Constitution.
Except that is completely false."And subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That's the key. Illegals are citizens of other countries, and subject to their jurisdiction.
Other countries also don't grant their citizens the right to keep and bear arms.But there are many nations that don't have birthright citizenship.
Go learn English, Poorboy. That is not the meaning of 'jurisdiction'.Except that is completely false.
How many foreigners are currently in US jails? If there is more than zero then clearly they are subject to US jurisdiction.
If it said that then the families of foreign diplomats that give birth in the US would have their children become US citizens. By requiring the person be under US jurisdiction it exempts foreign diplomats since they are about the only class of persons not subject to US jurisdiction when in the US. Why do you think foreign embassies are considered foreign soil and US law enforcement is not allowed to get a warrant to enter those facilities?Again, that isn't the question. Context is the point. Why is it in there? Why not just say "all persons born in the USA are citizens". Period.
Rights don't come from a government or piece of paper, Poorboy. The right to self defense is inherent. Yes...that means the right to bear arms is as well. No government can stop it.Other countries also don't grant their citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
They can, Poorboy. US law enforcement can enforce the law in an embassy just as well as anywhere else.If it said that then the families of foreign diplomats that give birth in the US would have their children become US citizens. By requiring the person be under US jurisdiction it exempts foreign diplomats since they are about the only class of persons not subject to US jurisdiction when in the US. Why do you think foreign embassies are considered foreign soil and US law enforcement is not allowed to get a warrant to enter those facilities?
That's the problem though, leftist dipshits think rights do come from the govt. They are so screwed up it's not funny.Rights don't come from a government or piece of paper, Poorboy. The right to self defense is inherent. Yes...that means the right to bear arms is as well. No government can stop it.
There is no 'legal definition', Poorboy. Go learn English.
Because at the time there were some Indian Reservations where people were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.Again, that isn't the question. Context is the point. Why is it in there? Why not just say "all persons born in the USA are citizens". Period.
But also subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States, its not one or the other. If they were not subject to our jurisdiction we would not be allowed to arrest them or even deport them."And subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That's the key. Illegals are citizens of other countries, and subject to their jurisdiction.
It also exempts families of foreign diplomats.Because at the time there were some Indian Reservations where people were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
SO you cant do it. Comprendo!Go learn English, Pretender.
Yup, diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States!It also exempts families of foreign diplomats.
Because they did not want certain Indians or diplomats to be considered Citizens.Again, that isn't the question. Context is the point. Why is it in there? Why not just say "all persons born in the USA are citizens". Period.
I guess you should learn about international treaties.They can, Poorboy. US law enforcement can enforce the law in an embassy just as well as anywhere else.
Go learn what 'jurisdiction' means. Go learn English.
I tire of Democrat word games.
Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. It seems you don't understand what a guarantee is vs what a right is.That's the problem though, leftist dipshits think rights do come from the govt. They are so screwed up it's not funny.
WRONGThey can, Poorboy. US law enforcement can enforce the law in an embassy just as well as anywhere else.
Go learn what 'jurisdiction' means. Go learn English.
I tire of Democrat word games.
Have you never heard of people hiding out in an Embassy? Julian Assange for example? Read up!They can, Poorboy. US law enforcement can enforce the law in an embassy just as well as anywhere else.
Go learn what 'jurisdiction' means. Go learn English.
I tire of Democrat word games.