It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There are several mechanisms in public international law whereby the courts of one country (the domestic court) can exercise jurisdiction over a citizen, corporation, or organization of another country (the foreign defendant) to try crimes or civil matters that have affected citizens or businesses within the domestic jurisdiction. Many of these jurisdictional "hooks" can even reach conduct that affected the domestic citizen when the citizen was beyond his or her domestic borders. There are five such doctrines:
The territorial principle is the most important and widely used.
It is the idea that a state may claim jurisdiction over persons and events inside its own territory. So, foreign nationals committing crimes in the U.S. are subject to U.S. courts and U.S. laws.
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
So... much... twisting... of the... language.
'Breaking the law and facing the consequences' is not the same as 'placing yourself at the allegiance of the governing authority.'
Why did they break the law? Why are they illegal or undocumented? Why are they being affected by the jurisdiction's laws against illegals? Because they have no allegiance to the territory they have trespassed upon.
Actually the parents are not the ones who this is about. The child born on US soil has no allegiance with anyone. According to the law they are citizens of the US.
originally posted by: Night Star
It is ridiculous for a child to be an American citizen without either parent being an American citizen plain and simple. Things have to change and people are trying to do something about it for a change.
originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: daskakik
No offense intended, but if we can't agree that words have defined, objective meanings then I see no point in attempting debate with you.