English
Mark
37.9K posts
Again: the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins ruling says that even if born in the US *outside* a reservation/Indian territory, a child of Indian parents who are tribal members, and thus subject to tribal authority and not subject to US jurisdiction, was NOT a US citizen.
Got it? No matter where in the US that child was born, the child did not have automatic birthright citizenship.
English
None of these people can ever explain to you why "Native American" tribes weren't given US citizenship for being born in the US until 1924. None.
Damon Linker@DamonLinker
To all on the right making "anchor baby" args against Birthright Citizenship: Go ahead, keep arguing. Persuade your fellow citizens. That's how democratic politics work. Here's how it doesn't work: The president signs an order reinterpreting the Constitution so it agrees w you.
English
@pearsonm103 @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 “Giving the evidence of the crime to the country harboring the criminal for them to prosecute”
…so you’re acknowledging that they are in that other country’s jurisdiction now?
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 The debate isn’t about enforcement, but here:
1) Extradition
2) Interpol
3) Extraordinary rendition
4) Drones (if you are Obama)
5) Giving the evidence of the crime to the country harboring the criminal for them to prosecute
Just off the top of my head. 😂🤷♂️
English
If those people aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they can't be sued, arrested, deported or subject to any other legal process. Diplomats get expelled pursuant to treaty instead of deportation proceedings. This argument below is the argument of a simpleton.
Angurī Wappā / アングリーワッパー 🇺🇸@furiouswhopper
@kevinbaum013 It's bizarre to claim that people who have blatantly refused to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the US are somehow subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
English
@Volck76 @adamscochran birthright citizenship was the norm under common law at the time of the establishment of the U.S.
English
@JonesMarkLB @adamscochran Does not mean any case unchecked migration or automatic citizenship
There are plenty of examples pointing to this as well
English
Because we hold ourselves to a higher standard than China.
It’s called the constitution.
Clay Travis@ClayTravis
An American citizen’s baby can’t become a Chinese citizen by being born on the soil of China. Can anyone explain why a Chinese citizen’s baby should be able to become an American citizen by being born on the soil here? It’s absolute insanity.
English
@pearsonm103 @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 extradite means to move someone from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction.
if it is required for you to enforce punishment, it means the individual wasn’t in your jurisdiction to begin with.
English
@megbasham @ReichlinMelnick @DavidAFrench …did you simply miss the 3rd word of the 14th amendment?
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”
English
@ReichlinMelnick @DavidAFrench That’s idiotic. That suggests that anybody who commits a crime on American soil and is arrested by American authorities is therefore a citizen because they’re subject to our jurisdiction? What?
English
Ridiculous! The very fact that they CAN be arrested, charged, and hopefully sentenced for this planned attack means that they ARE subject to U.S. jurisdiction! Otherwise they'd be able to get away with their crime free!
Mike Lee@SenMikeLee
Two birthright citizens, born to illegal immigrant parents from China, tried to bomb an Air Force base on American soil. Whoever they were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it wasn’t the United States of America.
English
@pearsonm103 @JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 The funniest part is it says the exact opposite of what he thinks it does.
English
@wchrismonty @adamscochran it’s not.
those are different terms with entirely different meanings.
English
@JonesMarkLB @adamscochran "Subject to" is also correct usage denoting allegiance to the jurisdiction.
The fact that you resort to insults in place of sound reasoning is a sign that you are losing. Such behavior is typical of those whose institutions taught them what to think rather than how to think.
English
@pearsonm103 @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 you do realize that the Supreme Court has already ruled against your confusion interpretation of what “subject to the jurisdiction” means, right?
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 Stop spamming me.
The US doesn’t have territorial jurisdiction in another nation to enact arrests without permission.
The person is still under US legal jurisdiction.
I just proved to you that jurisdiction doesn’t only apply to territory.
Do you accept the definition?
English
@wchrismonty @adamscochran once again, being a subject of a country and being subject to a jurisdiction are entirely different things.
your issue appears to be that you struggle with very basic English comprehension.
Mark@JonesMarkLB
@wchrismonty @adamscochran “A subject of” and “subject to” mean different things, you illiterate prick.
English
@JonesMarkLB @adamscochran Citizenship inherently requires allegiance. To be "subject" means to owe allegiance. The definition I gave you is the one that fits the context.
English
@JustMyOpinions4 @ericowensdc Literally in the Declaration…
“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither”
English
@ericowensdc If it was so clear why is there a debate?
You believe the founders, contrary to the debate language in 1866, meant that if you reach our shore and plop out a kid it’s “of the soil” a US citizen?
If so, why the qualifying language?
English
This is yet another example of a leftist opining on birthright citizenship yet I don’t understand their staunch support.
Is it because they are suddenly strict originalists?
Do they truly believe 1898 was right?
Are they perfectly fine with illegals plopping out kids?
Eric Owens@ericowensdc
The birthright citizenship case is really helpful. It is helping Trumpists realize: 1. They don't support the U.S. Constitution. (They're not remotely "constitutionalists.) 2. Their desired outcomes are not very popular and the Constitution won't be changed.
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 Lols…
You are the one denying legal authority over citizens abroad.
Also known as…wait for it…legal jurisdiction…
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 I never said that.
Again, you are ignoring everything I am saying to scream “territorial” and that has zero bearing on the jurisdiction of the government to charge crimes committed by a citizen or green card holder abroad.
Don’t make the argument again. It’s been debunked. 😂🤷♂️
English
@pearsonm103 @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 how do you think the U.S. government would enforce a punishment on someone who is not in the country?
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 Wrong…
Jurisdiction in this context is of the legal kind.
You seem to think only territory defines jurisdiction despite many examples.
Feel free to argue the definition with the dictionary. 😂🤷♂️
English
@wchrismonty @adamscochran jurisdiction does not have a requirement of political allegiance.
English
@JonesMarkLB @adamscochran Tourists do not owe allegiance to the United States while they are in the United States.
English
@pearsonm103 @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 once again since apparently you no read too good…..
If they are not within the jurisdiction of the US government does not have any power to punish them.
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 You are wrong.
I already gave you the list of the majority of crimes you can commit abroad and be charged with by the US government because they have legal jurisdiction over you anywhere on the planet. 😂😂😂
English
@pearsonm103 @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 If they are outside of the physical United States, they are not within the jurisdiction of the United States.
If a US citizen breaks a US law overseas and does not reenter the United States, the US government does not have any power to punish them.
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 Outside TERRITORIAL jurisdiction (land).
That is different than GOVERNMENTAL jurisdiction (legal authority due to citizenship or green card status).
Just repeatedly yelling about territorial jurisdiction won’t win the argument here. 😂😂😂
English
@pearsonm103 @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 so by your logic then the United States government can go to arrest them directly.
Why bother with an extradition request?
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 This is the last time I will explain it.
They are under US government jurisdiction despite being in a territorial jurisdiction outside of the US.
Our laws apply to our citizens and green card holders regardless of their territorial location.
This is an undeniable fact. 🤷♂️
English
@Volck76 @adamscochran “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”
English
@JonesMarkLB @adamscochran What did I say that was anti-American retard?
I said “founding fathers” instead of I guess a better word would be early constitutional leaders?
And you freaked out like a friken psychopath get a freaking life loser.
Probably some 40 year old virgin in a dead end job
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 Do you have a relevant point to make?
I am not going to answer every 3rd grade level questions you present because you can’t form a coherent argument. 😂🤷♂️
English