Originally posted by Whereweheaded
You certainly cant be that naive nor simple minded.
I’m sure you can share your opinion without ad hominems.
Now, if an illegal alien ( keyword illegal ), is not part of any jurisdiction
You have yet to demonstrate how an illegal alien is “not
part of any jurisdiction.”
The logic behind your own statements, in fact, contradicts this assertion, because, as you claimed, illegal aliens are illegal for being in violation
of a “law/statute or regulation.” How can a law apply to someone who is not subject to that jurisdiction?
Meaning, that any act in direct violation of said laws, is grounds for punishment.
No one said illegal aliens weren’t in “violation
of said laws,” nor that they shouldn’t be ‘punished.’ The point I and other members have been making is that everyone, including aliens, when
they enter the United States are within the jurisdiction of the United States.
ETA: allow me to further solidify my point with one extra piece of fact:
Your citation of Sen. Howard’s statements from the debate on
the 14th Amendment, not only tells me you have misinterpreted it, but that you continue to frame this whole discussion through the citizenship
condition. And the due process and equal protection clauses of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment apply to “any person,” not just citizens.
Here is what the Supreme Court, in
Plyler v. Doe (1982), unequivocally said—
The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides
that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration
laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term.
The Court added—
This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who
have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its
laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction"
confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a
State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.
But let’s take Sen. Howard’s frequently misinterpreted statement, namely that “
[the citizenship clause] will not, of course, include persons
born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of
the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
The qualifiers “foreigners, aliens” is to persons “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers,” and not to aliens in
general. Otherwise, the second part of that statement is completely unnecessary. Sen. Howard could have said “it will not ... include persons born
in the United States who are foreigners, aliens.”
He was simply stating the common law principle of birthright citizenship — which considered the exceptions of diplomats (“ambassadors or foreign
ministers”) and soldiers of invading armies — and the Civil Rights Act adopted one month earlier to that 14th Amendment debate.
In fact, Sen. Howard notes this by saying (and you cited) “
[t]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the
law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural
law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
During the
debates of the Civil Rights Act, we can read
the following exchange between Sen. Cowan and Sen. Trumbull, the author of the Act—
Mr. COWAN. I will ask whether [the Civil Rights Act] will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this
country?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Undoubtedly.
...
Mr. COWAN. ... The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians ... That is the fallacy of his
argument.
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of
Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is
just as much a citizen as the child of a European.
Sen. Cowan went on, during the
debates of the 14th
Amendment, to express his disagreement with the law and the language of the proposed 14th Amendment, again talking about Chinese and Gypsies—
Sen. COWAN. Sir, I trust I am as liberal as anybody toward the rights of all people, but I am unwilling, on the part of my State, to give up the
right that she claims, and that she may exercise, and exercise before very long, of expelling a certain number of people who invade her borders; who
owe her no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own
… ; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which
devolve upon him, but, on the other hand, have no homes, pretend to own no land, live nowhere, settle as trespassers where ever they go … I mean the
Gypsies.
That sounds analogous to the criticism of illegal immigrants.
Sen. Cowan voted against the 14th Amendment because it would make citizens children of certain classes of people, and that he objected to — Gypsies,
Chinese.
During the debate, Sen. Doolittle
expressed concern that
the amendment would perhaps make Indians US citizens. Sen. Trumbull, author of the Civil Rights Act and chairmain of the Committee on the Judiciary,
says the following regarding the meaning of
jurisdiction—
Mr. TRUMBULL. ... Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the
United States? What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. This is what it means.
Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make
treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. ... They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise
jurisdiction over them. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of
making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.
edit on 14-4-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)
