@pearsonm103 @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 because the answer completely and unequivocally disproves your argument, you dumb fuck.
English
Mark
37.9K posts
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 I already answered that.
Why ask again?
Are you missing a valid argument perhaps? 😂🤷♂️
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
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 Here…
Deny this law too…😂😂😂
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…
English
@pearsonm103 @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 whatever bar you are admitted to should be embarrassed to have you as a member….
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 Because we have LEGAL jurisdiction…
Here is the law…🤡🤡🤡
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 It proves we have legal jurisdiction over our subjects abroad.
Like I said.
Which you still deny. 😂😂😂
English
@pearsonm103 @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 let’s explain it another way to you, dopey.
the 14th amendment does not require citizenship or legal status. it requires jurisdiction over an individual.
as the Supreme Court explained here, an illegal immigrant physically in the US is subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Mark@JonesMarkLB
@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 That has nothing to do with legal jurisdiction over citizens and green card holders abroad.
This specific law does though. 🤡🤡🤡
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…
English
@pearsonm103 @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 that law is the legal justification for submitting an extradition request…,
English
English
@pearsonm103 @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 if they need to be extradited it literally means they are not within your jurisdiction…..
what do you continue to struggle with?
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 They are under legal jurisdiction.
Can you admit that absolute fact?
(I bet not)
English
@mirandamelendy @weiss1163770 @captive_dreamer Elk v Wilkins does not state anything of the sort.
I have already explained to you what you’ve misunderstood.
English
@JonesMarkLB @weiss1163770 @captive_dreamer I am talking about children of tribal members born in the US but OUTSIDE a tribal reservation. They were not citizens according to the plain wording of Elk v. Wilkins.
Are you dense?
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
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 Again…
Territorial jurisdiction is not the same as legal jurisdiction.
Can you admit that?
(I bet not)
English
Yes, it does. "Within the territorial limits of the United States" means anywhere in the United States.
From the Elk v. Wilkins opinion:
"Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations."
English
@pearsonm103 @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 if you need to extradite someone that means they’re not in you’re jurisdiction, dopey.
English
@JonesMarkLB @GilA29699944 @kevinbaum013 So you still don’t understand the word jurisdiction and how it applies to more than territory.
What a joke. 😂😂😂
English
English
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
@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
@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
@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