Great point about EO’s reversing constitutional rights, and what that might mean for 2a. I doubt MAGA types have thought that far (or at all).
What goes around comes around. Just as Mitch McConnell was prescient telling Harry Reid that he would “regret his choices and sooner than he thinks”, it’s not hard to imagine the same scenario with some future issuer of EO’s. And it again highlights the stupidity of governing by EO’s.
I see no logic in your argument that non-citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because illegals can be prosecuted. Foreigners who have never set foot in the USA can be prosecuted. That does not mean the entire planet is subject to this country's jurisdiction.
It is also illogical to believe the constitutional clause cited in the 1897 precedent was intended to grant birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegals and tourists. It was intended to apply to former slaves and their descendants.
I do agree that Trump cannot overturn a Supreme Court precedent by executive order. He should lose that case. I would like to see the clause in question reach the Supreme Court once again to be either reaffirmed or reversed (my preference).
That's the definition of "under the jurisdiction." The constitutional carveout was intended to deny citizenship to groups that were not under US jurisdiction such as children of diplomats (diplomatic immunity), children of an invading army that might usurp American governments, or Indian tribes that were granted autonomy on reservations (until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
If you are subject to US laws and justice system, you are under US jurisdiction by definition.
US law can be used to prosecute foreign citizens abroad in certain circumstances. This is known as extraterritorial jurisdiction, and it is a concept that the US government has increasingly invoked to prosecute foreign nationals with no connections to the US.
Examples of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
One example of extraterritorial jurisdiction is the RJR Nabisco case, where the US prosecuted RJR Nabisco, a tobacco company, for allegedly conducting a money-laundering scheme with international drug traffickers. The case discussed the applicability of the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) statute to foreign racketeering activity, and the Supreme Court held that RICO could be applied to foreign individuals or American citizens living abroad. Another example is the prosecution of FIFA officials for worldwide corruption in international soccer, which has withstood jurisdictional challenges despite most of the misconduct occurring outside the US.
Types of Crimes Prosecuted
The US government has brought criminal cases against foreign citizens for a range of offenses, including financial crimes, bribery, war crimes, and violations of banking and commerce laws. Other laws that provide federal courts with extraterritorial jurisdiction involve illicit sexual conduct involving minors and the sale of sexual materials involving minors. Additionally, conspiracy charges, where an individual living abroad conspired to commit a crime in the US, and attempt charges, where an individual overseas attempted to commit a crime in the US, may also fall under extraterritorial jurisdiction."
Prosecuting people in absentia is not the same thing, and you know it. Those people are still not actually within the US jurisdiction, and may never be apprehended and brought into it.
What it does do is allow for requesting extradition or apprehension when the opportunity arises.
Maybe, but it's still labeled jurisdiction which is a variable and can be determined by Congress. Hopefully, Congress will pass clarifying legislation to the effect that young children of illegals and tourists are not subject the jurisdiction of the USA.
There's no confusion there from any precedent or any argument that extraterritorial jurisdiction as it applies to in absentia prosecutions is anything but that - nor is anyone trying to do so.
Those may be acceptable changes to the majority - but it's also obvious that legal status is not the actual concern for the GOP at this time, what with the talk about rescinding citizenship ex post facto.
My opinion is that once a citizen always a citizen unless personally and formally renounced. Who, with any real influence, is talking about rescinding citizenships?
"It is also illogical to believe the constitutional clause cited in the 1897 precedent was intended to grant birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegals and tourists. It was intended to apply to former slaves and their descendants."
If we look one Amendment before and one after, we can see that the drafters of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments knew perfectly well how to draft language to single out slaves and their descendants. (15th Amendment: "... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude", 13rd Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...")
Given that language mentioning slavery is present in both the Amendments before and after the 14th Amendment, your belief that the intent of the 14th Amendment only applies to former slaves doesn't find a lot of support in the surrounding text of the Constitution.
David has already corrected my misunderstanding. The clause in question was also intended to apply to native Americans whose tribal nations had not signed treaties with the USA. I believe that is where the ambiguity originated.
Great point about EO’s reversing constitutional rights, and what that might mean for 2a. I doubt MAGA types have thought that far (or at all).
What goes around comes around. Just as Mitch McConnell was prescient telling Harry Reid that he would “regret his choices and sooner than he thinks”, it’s not hard to imagine the same scenario with some future issuer of EO’s. And it again highlights the stupidity of governing by EO’s.
I see no logic in your argument that non-citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because illegals can be prosecuted. Foreigners who have never set foot in the USA can be prosecuted. That does not mean the entire planet is subject to this country's jurisdiction.
It is also illogical to believe the constitutional clause cited in the 1897 precedent was intended to grant birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegals and tourists. It was intended to apply to former slaves and their descendants.
I do agree that Trump cannot overturn a Supreme Court precedent by executive order. He should lose that case. I would like to see the clause in question reach the Supreme Court once again to be either reaffirmed or reversed (my preference).
That's the definition of "under the jurisdiction." The constitutional carveout was intended to deny citizenship to groups that were not under US jurisdiction such as children of diplomats (diplomatic immunity), children of an invading army that might usurp American governments, or Indian tribes that were granted autonomy on reservations (until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
If you are subject to US laws and justice system, you are under US jurisdiction by definition.
https://lawshun.com/article/can-our-law-be-used-to-prosecute-foreigners
"US law: prosecuting foreign citizens abroad
US law can be used to prosecute foreign citizens abroad in certain circumstances. This is known as extraterritorial jurisdiction, and it is a concept that the US government has increasingly invoked to prosecute foreign nationals with no connections to the US.
Examples of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
One example of extraterritorial jurisdiction is the RJR Nabisco case, where the US prosecuted RJR Nabisco, a tobacco company, for allegedly conducting a money-laundering scheme with international drug traffickers. The case discussed the applicability of the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) statute to foreign racketeering activity, and the Supreme Court held that RICO could be applied to foreign individuals or American citizens living abroad. Another example is the prosecution of FIFA officials for worldwide corruption in international soccer, which has withstood jurisdictional challenges despite most of the misconduct occurring outside the US.
Types of Crimes Prosecuted
The US government has brought criminal cases against foreign citizens for a range of offenses, including financial crimes, bribery, war crimes, and violations of banking and commerce laws. Other laws that provide federal courts with extraterritorial jurisdiction involve illicit sexual conduct involving minors and the sale of sexual materials involving minors. Additionally, conspiracy charges, where an individual living abroad conspired to commit a crime in the US, and attempt charges, where an individual overseas attempted to commit a crime in the US, may also fall under extraterritorial jurisdiction."
Prosecuting people in absentia is not the same thing, and you know it. Those people are still not actually within the US jurisdiction, and may never be apprehended and brought into it.
What it does do is allow for requesting extradition or apprehension when the opportunity arises.
Maybe, but it's still labeled jurisdiction which is a variable and can be determined by Congress. Hopefully, Congress will pass clarifying legislation to the effect that young children of illegals and tourists are not subject the jurisdiction of the USA.
There's no confusion there from any precedent or any argument that extraterritorial jurisdiction as it applies to in absentia prosecutions is anything but that - nor is anyone trying to do so.
Those may be acceptable changes to the majority - but it's also obvious that legal status is not the actual concern for the GOP at this time, what with the talk about rescinding citizenship ex post facto.
My opinion is that once a citizen always a citizen unless personally and formally renounced. Who, with any real influence, is talking about rescinding citizenships?
"It is also illogical to believe the constitutional clause cited in the 1897 precedent was intended to grant birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegals and tourists. It was intended to apply to former slaves and their descendants."
If we look one Amendment before and one after, we can see that the drafters of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments knew perfectly well how to draft language to single out slaves and their descendants. (15th Amendment: "... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude", 13rd Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...")
Given that language mentioning slavery is present in both the Amendments before and after the 14th Amendment, your belief that the intent of the 14th Amendment only applies to former slaves doesn't find a lot of support in the surrounding text of the Constitution.
David has already corrected my misunderstanding. The clause in question was also intended to apply to native Americans whose tribal nations had not signed treaties with the USA. I believe that is where the ambiguity originated.