@no1marauder saidAdmittedly, this is something that I have never been aware of. It’s hard to know everything like some folks. So if I can get this right… The people you referred to as undocumented males are in fact here IlLEGALLY, applying of course, the present day usage of the word illegal. That, you are saying that they are put in military uniforms for this country, and they are yet illegal aliens who came into this country illegally. That is about as simple as I can ask this question, no telling what you are about to come back with. I got my fingers crossed.
Undocumented males between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register for the draft.https://www.sss.gov/faq/
So the answers to your questions are "yes".
@AverageJoe1 saidYou guys throw around the word "illegal" pretty easily; many, if not most, of the People you call "illegals" are applying for asylum or under some sort of protected status under the law.
Admittedly, this is something that I have never been aware of. It’s hard to know everything like some folks. So if I can get this right… The people you referred to as undocumented males are in fact here IlLEGALLY, applying of course, the present day usage of the word illegal. That, you are saying that they are put in military uniforms for this country, and they are yet i ...[text shortened]... I can ask this question, no telling what you are about to come back with. I got my fingers crossed.
But undocumented immigrants can be subject to the draft even if they don't fit into those categories. So a person can be drafted, sent to fight and possibly die but, according to Mott, not be subject to US jurisdiction.
Make sense? I think not.
2 edits
@Mott-The-Hoople saidThat case, like the birthright citizen case, makes no distinction between being a "resident" and being "domiciled".
refers to “domiciled” residents
" The claimants were residents in the United States prior to the commencement of the rebellion. They so allege in their petition; they were therefore bound to obey all the laws of the country not immediately relating to citizenship during their sojourn in it, and they were equally amenable with citizens for any infraction of those laws. "The rights of sovereignty," says Wildman in his Institutes on International Law, [Footnote 7]
"extend to all persons and things not privileged that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers therein, not only to those who are naturalized and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territories, and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/147/ at p. 154
Compare that with the language in United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
""The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. "
@no1marauder saidI googled that for a non-citizen to get a green card (making him qualified to join the service) is very difficult....so we have yet to consider his breaking the law to get here, he is an illegal....yes, we know you hate that word..Do you hate the word murderer, too?
You guys throw around the word "illegal" pretty easily; many, if not most, of the People you call "illegals" are applying for asylum or under some sort of protected status under the law.
But undocumented immigrants can be subject to the draft even if they don't fit into those categories. So a person can be drafted, sent to fight and possibly die but, according to Mott, not be subject to US jurisdiction.
Make sense? I think not.
I don't have the stuff to argue these details, but the limitations are great, and you write like they can just go down to the Marine corps and just sign up? The illegals, that is? What if the non-ciizen is labeled a gottaway or has no eveidence of crossing the river legally? Which makes him an illegal? Lotta questions.
@no1marauder saidNo wonder you shy away from the word illegal......the word is never used in these paragrpahs. Empty suit!!!!
That case, like the birthright citizen case, makes no distinction between being a "resident" and being "domiciled".
" The claimants were residents in the United States prior to the commencement of the rebellion. They so allege in their petition; they were therefore bound to obey all the laws of the country not immediately relating to citizenship during their soj ...[text shortened]... ption of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. "
@AverageJoe1 saidMaybe you should get a reading tutor as your level of understanding is that of a not particularly bright third grader.
I googled that for a non-citizen to get a green card (making him qualified to join the service) is very difficult....so we have yet to consider his breaking the law to get here, he is an illegal....yes, we know you hate that word..Do you hate the word murderer, too?
I don't have the stuff to argue these details, but the limitations are great, and you write like they c ...[text shortened]... way or has no eveidence of crossing the river legally? Which makes him an illegal? Lotta questions.
Nowhere was it discussed what the present requirements were for enlistment only the question as to whether an undocumented immigrant could be drafted (see SG's post on the last page). As I showed from the Selective Service's website, since they must register for the draft they obviously can be drafted should it ever be reinstated.
@AverageJoe1 saidYou know what word was used? ALL.
No wonder you shy away from the word illegal......the word is never used in these paragrpahs. Empty suit!!!!
As in: "All strangers" and "All children".
1 edit
@no1marauder saidthere is not any draft, it ended 50 years ago. The sss simply wants a head count of every male 18-26, I, nor you know why.
Maybe you should get a reading tutor as your level of understanding is that of a not particularly bright third grader.
Nowhere was it discussed what the present requirements were for enlistment only the question as to whether an undocumented immigrant could be drafted (see SG's post on the last page). As I showed from the Selective Service's website, since they must register for the draft they obviously can be drafted should it ever be reinstated.
@no1marauder said“owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. ”
That case, like the birthright citizen case, makes no distinction between being a "resident" and being "domiciled".
" The claimants were residents in the United States prior to the commencement of the rebellion. They so allege in their petition; they were therefore bound to obey all the laws of the country not immediately relating to citizenship during their soj ...[text shortened]... ption of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. "
Key in here with this statement.
Do you suggest the illegal aliens did not owe allegience to their respective countries? Did they renounce said allegience?
Have they taken the oath of allegiance of the US?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidAgain, the pesky SCOTUS:
“owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. ”
Key in here with this statement.
Do you suggest the illegal aliens did not owe allegience to their respective countries? Did they renounce said allegience?
Have they taken the oath of allegiance of the US?
"It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
"independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/ at pp. 693-94
@Mott-The-Hoople saidAnd again the SCOTUS:
“owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. ”
Key in here with this statement.
Do you suggest the illegal aliens did not owe allegience to their respective countries? Did they renounce said allegience?
Have they taken the oath of allegiance of the US?
"By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.
This obligation of temporary allegiance by an alien resident in a friendly country is everywhere recognized by publicists and statesmen."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/147/
@Mott-The-Hoople saidHe won’t
A little kicker here…
A trans man doesnt have to register
A trans woman does
let that sink in
@no1marauder saidThe alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.
And again the SCOTUS:
"By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance ...[text shortened]... recognized[/b] by publicists and statesmen."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/147/
You keep overlooking domiciled
“The concept of domicile has different meanings in different context. For purposes of jurisdiction, “domicile” means a legal residence which is the place where a person has fixed dwelling with an intention of making it his/her permanent home[i].
https://domicile.uslegal.com/distinctions-between-domicile-and-residence/
Soon, you will be on here complaining SCOTUS got it wrong when the rule against anchor babies.