Oklahoma Senator submits bill that violates the 14th Amendment
cynical:
Heironymous, if illegals weren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, they would be immune from arrest and prosecution, just as diplomats are. Your statement that "illegals are pretty much not subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is completely false in the real world. Illegal immigrants are arrested and prosecuted for crimes under state and federal law every day. Some are deported, some are incarcerated. How does that happen? It happens because state and federal courts have personal jurisdiction over them. With the singular exception of citizens of Indian tribes before the 1920s, the courts have been completely consistent in reading the 14th Amendment exactly as it is written. The phrase is not ambigious. Why is this so difficult to understand, and why must we have the same arguments every time a new non-white population moves to the U.S?
If enough people don't like the 14th Amendment, the remedy is to repeal or amend it, not to redefine "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 28, 2011, 12:04:38 am
I am sure that is absolutely NOT what the intent was. But that is the way things have been interpreted and applied. And knowing it is still futile and worthless, I agree with the statements related to "subject to the jurisdiction of". Illegals are pretty much not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, so how can their kids be?? Makes no sense in a real world, but then most courts don't agree with me anyway. (Like the court of Kurt Glassco here in town.)
guido911:
Quote from: cynical on February 28, 2011, 08:40:52 am
Heironymous, if illegals weren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, they would be immune from arrest and prosecution, just as diplomats are. Your statement that "illegals are pretty much not subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is completely false in the real world. Illegal immigrants are arrested and prosecuted for crimes under state and federal law every day. Some are deported, some are incarcerated. How does that happen? It happens because state and federal courts have personal jurisdiction over them. With the singular exception of citizens of Indian tribes before the 1920s, the courts have been completely consistent in reading the 14th Amendment exactly as it is written. The phrase is not ambigious. Why is this so difficult to understand, and why must we have the same arguments every time a new non-white population moves to the U.S?
If enough people don't like the 14th Amendment, the remedy is to repeal or amend it, not to redefine "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
I even tried to "read in" an intent or alternative meaning of that guy's post and failed.
heironymouspasparagus:
Yeah, I know they are subject to prosecution for illegal acts (except the one that got them here!).
It just always seemed to me that phrase was more related to the idea that they are subjects/citizens of the government where they are legal citizens (as in owing allegiance to). (And no, I haven't read much on the case law.) Kind of like if we go to another country, bribe an official for business, we are still subject to US law, even though no act was committed here. And yeah, I know our law says that if the act is committed elsewhere it is illegal here, so the concept has been formalized. And still liable in the other country. Unless it is Equatorial Guinea - then bribery is mandatory, and their law says the government official MUST participate in the bribe.
Here is a big, honking diatribe about it;
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
Still seems kind of squirmy.
heironymouspasparagus:
Are we mixing messages here?
The pregnant woman thing is one that I think the authors of the amendment didn't consider and I don't think there intent was for the US to become an illegal immigrant's baby magnet.
But the amendment has been interpreted as to mean if born here, citizen. Period.
Subject to jurisdiction is still a phrase that seems like it has been redefined somewhat over the years. Kind of like "a well regulated militia" has been massively redefined over the years.
Squirmy.
shadows:
Quote from: shadows on February 28, 2011, 06:27:41 pm
When one reads through these post with an open mind, as was the intent of the writers of the constitution, one can readily see in all recorded history not one operating constitutional government has not failed within 200 years. Laymen writers are made of experts and they cannot set down one line that ten persons are not standing by to challenge the written interpretation. There is no part of the constitution that can be applied nor can the condition that existed in the 1865.
We as a conquering nation, well divided, wrote the constitution for the days at hand
One could spend their life in the Law Library checking case law and come up empty handed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page