@AverageJoe1 saidYou have a problem with dual citizens or something?
Is a person who is a citizen of another country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Both countries?
To be subject to our jurisdiction, you can hardly be subject to the jurisdiction of another country.
Debate?
@AThousandYoung saidThis is a debate. Expound upon your ideas. You can do this.
You have a problem with dual citizens or something?
It is CERTAINLY not about duals.
@AverageJoe1 saidNo one wants to respond to this. I wonder why. Do I win another by default?
This is a debate. Expound upon your ideas. You can do this.
It is CERTAINLY not about duals.
@AverageJoe1 saidProbably because we had the exact same discussion months ago and I showed you that the SCOTUS had already decided the matter more than 125 years ago:
No one wants to respond to this. I wonder why. Do I win another by default?
"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. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." 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
Page 169 U. S. 694
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 693-94
The clause was directly discussed in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884:
"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared
Page 112 U. S. 102
to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/
@no1marauder saidI wonder if it could be argued that Mexicans are members of an Indian Tribe with allegiance to their tribe.
Probably because we had the exact same discussion months ago and I showed you that the SCOTUS had already decided the matter more than 125 years ago:
"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, [b]including all children here born of resident a ...[text shortened]... eaty by which foreign territory is acquired."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/
- Joined
- 09 Jan 22
- Moves
- 1139
4 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidNo matter what your citizenship, you are subject to the laws and jurisdiction of whatever country you are standing in.
Is a person who is a citizen of another country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
Debate?
(Waiting for some wannabe lawyer to come along and go Derrhhhh whut about diplomatic immunity derhhhh)
1 edit
@no1marauder said“Born or naturalized AND subject to the jurisdiction”.
Probably because we had the exact same discussion months ago and I showed you that the SCOTUS had already decided the matter more than 125 years ago:
"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, [b]including all children here born of resident a ...[text shortened]... eaty by which foreign territory is acquired."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/
Both born or naturalized AND subject to. …. AND? Both? Does Pablo have to be both?
Gotta be links on that
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidWho's "Pablo"?
“Born or naturalized AND subject to the jurisdiction”.
Both born or naturalized AND subject to. …. AND? Both? Does Pablo have to be both?
Gotta be links on that
Yes, "and" means both conditions have to be satisfied.
1 edit
@Cliff-Mashburn saidLess than average Joe CLAIMS he IS a lawyer, passed the bar and everything, but that does not explain why his only source of income is being a landlord.
No matter what your citizenship, you are subject to the laws and jurisdiction of whatever country you are standing in.
(Waiting for some wannabe lawyer to come along and go Derrhhhh whut about diplomatic immunity derhhhh)
So do you also agree with the constitution on birthright citizenship? Or does the fact Trump wants to kill THAT bit also means since you are a dude obsessed with supporting your Lord Trump, maybe that means you agree with your Lord even though it is in the constitution?
- Joined
- 09 Jan 22
- Moves
- 1139
@sonhouse saidNo.
So do you also agree with the constitution on birthright citizenship?
It was originally meant to confer citizenship on all the slaves born in the country, it became subverted so that foreigners started going on vacation to the US when their baby was due in order to grant it American citzenship.
That ain't right.
@Cliff-Mashburn saidThis is essentially correct. I don’t understand what there is to debate here.
No matter what your citizenship, you are subject to the laws and jurisdiction of whatever country you are standing in.
(Waiting for some wannabe lawyer to come along and go Derrhhhh whut about diplomatic immunity derhhhh)
1 edit
@no1marauder saidBiological children born to American parents living abroad also inherit their parents’ citizenship automatically. However, non/American children adopted by American parents abroad do not. I speak from experience.
Probably because we had the exact same discussion months ago and I showed you that the SCOTUS had already decided the matter more than 125 years ago:
"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, [b]including all children here born of resident a ...[text shortened]... eaty by which foreign territory is acquired."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/
@Cliff-Mashburn saidNonsense. America is and always has been a land of immigrants. It is not reasonable to expect that the children of immigrants from Poland or Italy would have Polish or Italian citizenship when they were born in America.
No.
It was originally meant to confer citizenship on all the slaves born in the country, it became subverted so that foreigners started going on vacation to the US when their baby was due in order to grant it American citzenship.
That ain't right.
@AverageJoe1 said"If that's the best you can do, I don't think you should be allowed to speak. I think you should just walk around with pictures of stuff you wanna say." -- Tom Segura
Is a person who is a citizen of another country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Both countries?
To be subject to our jurisdiction, you can hardly be subject to the jurisdiction of another country.
Debate?