FACT FOCUS: Trump claims the US is the only country with birthright citizenship. It’s not

Jarod said:
What does “under the jurisdiction thereof” mean to you.
Click to expand...
The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:

"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."
 
FastLane said:
Pay attention! We just explained several of our laws that don't apply to them.


If they owe their primary allegiance to another country. Two illegal alien El Salvadorans are just temporary residents the don't have permanent domicile in the US Identical to Elk's parents. Elk's parents could not have an American citizen therefore Elk wasn't an American because he owed his allegiance to another political community that he was a member of.

One of the associate justices that helped decide Elk V Wilkins was Samuel Blatchford he entered Columbia University at age 13 and graduated at the top of his class. Are you suggesting you are smarter than he was?
Click to expand...
Which laws apply to them and which laws don’t are a jurisdictional matter. They are never outside federal and state jurisdiction when within our borders.
 
FastLane said:
And how about treason? And can you draft them? Can they vote?
Click to expand...
T. A. Gardner said:
They are also ineligible for legal employment.
Click to expand...

Stop being stupid.

Being "subject too" DOES NOT mean you have gained all rights. What it means is you are NOT exempt for the jurisdiction (ie laws) of the land you are in, in the way a Diplomat and certain Embassy staff and a few other offices are and whose kids DO NOT get birth right citizenship even if born in the US.
 
martin said:
Which laws apply to them and which laws don’t are a jurisdictional matter. They are never outside federal and state jurisdiction when within our borders.
Click to expand...
According to the SCOTUS this is what subject to the jurisdiction there of means

The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:

"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."
 
QP! said:
Stop being stupid.

Being "subject too" DOES NOT mean you have gained all rights. What it means is you are NOT exempt for the jurisdiction (ie laws) of the land you are in, in the way a Diplomat and certain Embassy staff and a few other offices are and whose kids DO NOT get birth right citizenship even if born in the US.
Click to expand...
I'd tell you to stop being stupid but you can't do it. So just stop giving your personal stupid interpretation. I thrust what the SCOTUS has said:

The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:

"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."
 
FastLane said:
The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:

"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."
Click to expand...
Yes, th
FastLane said:
Jarod , one of the justices enrolled in Colombia at age 13 and graduated top of his class at Colombia. What were you doing at age 13 sweating getting out of the 17th grade?
Click to expand...
that makes him correct? You are an elitest!
 
QP! said:
Stop being stupid.

Being "subject too" DOES NOT mean you have gained all rights. What it means is you are NOT exempt for the jurisdiction (ie laws) of the land you are in, in the way a Diplomat and certain Embassy staff and a few other offices are and whose kids DO NOT get birth right citizenship even if born in the US.
Click to expand...
Not a lawyer, but it amazes me not only how many JPP MAGAts believe they are lawyers, but are attempting to rewrite the US Constitution in the vision of Project 2025 AKA White Nationalism.

9ufg0c.jpg
 
FastLane said:
And if you passed a law granting them citizenship through naturalization you could absolutely do it. And if wishes were horses we would all ride too.

Green card holders are a different class that have been granted jurisdiction like Ark was.

Fortunately the SCOTUS has already define what the term "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in Elk V Wilkins

The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:

"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."

The SCOTUS
1884
Click to expand...
You're citing the case of an American Indian who left his tribe and attempted to register to vote in an Oregon election. The court ruled he wasn't an American citizen and therefore lacked voting rights. This has nothing to do with civil and criminal jurisdiction. If he broke an Oregon criminal law, entered into a business contract in Oregon, he was subject to the state's jurisdiction just like anyone else.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
biden was a thousand times worse and even a loon like you knows it.
Click to expand...
No, even Kevin McCarthy stated when he was being honest, that Biden was a tough negotiator. Numerous psychologist say Biden showed signs of aging, but not dementia, while claiming Felonious is showing signs of sundowning.

www.newsweek.com

Donald Trump's mind "faltering," top psychologist warns

Cornell lecturer said Trump was showing signs of the early stages of dementia and "shouldn't be anywhere near the White House."
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

Speaking on the David Pakman Show on Monday, Harry Segal, a senior lecturer in psychology at Cornell University who has been critical of the former president's mental health since he was first elected, said Trump was showing signs of onset dementia.

"I think of this cognitive decline as being another layer of danger on top of an already erratic, mentally challenged person who shouldn't be anywhere near the White House," Segal said.

His comments come after a number of mental health professionals, who have also been critical of Trump, wrote statements claiming he was suffering from symptoms of dementia, while President Joe Biden—who has faced intense scrutiny about his age and mental acuity—was showing normal signs of aging.”
 
FastLane said:
The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said:

"Being born a member of 'an independent political community' -- the Chinook -- he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- not born in its allegiance."
Click to expand...
Citizens of China, Venezuela and Mexico are not members of an independent political community of Native Americans so the ruling in Elk doesn't apply to them.

Then you seem to want to ignore all other court rulings.

In just the last couple of days the USSC issued a ruling stating that they have jurisdiction over any action by the government involving non citizens. That means that aliens are subject to their jurisdiction.
www.law.cornell.edu

A. A. R. P. v. TRUMP

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
The court also rule that the meaning of "persons" in the fifth amendment applies to aliens as well as citizens. The court has no reason to change the meaning of persons for the 14th amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top