Here’s a blog post which argues that “subject to the jurisdiction” in that clause means and has meant “owing allegance to; not a subject of a foreign power”
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
That’s the one- the Mexico City Policy (or Doctrine).
It’s no longer in effect thanks to Obama, incidentally.
Sorry, I had read, but forgot, your post.
So that would mean that no, other than diplomats there are no human beings in America with that status at present.
Though I bet you could get a lot of buy-in (among the same group that would support this bill) to the concept that Mexicans are an invading army.
We had a similar situation in Ireland (if you were born in the country, you became a citizen).
We had a referendum to change it which passed by 80%.
Indian tribes were the other group that wasn’t “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States back when the Amendment was crafted. However the Indian Wars put an end to that and all Indians/Native Americans are today American citizens.
I think it’s a bad idea, but many countries have similar laws. Japan is one.
Err isn’t there a bit of a gotcha here. OK so this passes and is found to be constitutional. A big swathe of society are no longer citizens, but they are also NO LONGER UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE US. Doesn’t that mean, almost by definition, they cannot be tried for any crimes they commit ?
No. Do you imagine a German tourist, a non-US citizen, here visiting New York, cannot be tried for a crime he commits while here?
It won’t remove citizenship from people who are already citizens, FTR.
I assume he would be tried under a German court.
:smack:
Isn’t any foreign visitor, while visiting the US, under or within the jurisdiction of the United States? Or have we been abusing the term?
Such a tourist would be subject to the juristiction of the United States.
I think you are misunderstanding the post you are replying to.
No – he would be tried in a court having jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crime took place. For example, a German citizen committing a crime with the death penalty in the US would be liable for the death penalty, even though there’s no death penalty in Germany.
Unless he wasn’t apprehended until he was back in Germany. Germany would not extradite him without assurance that he would not get the death penalty.
I would have assumed so - but wouldn’t this law change that? I mean, it says quite explicitly that these people aren’t under our jurisdiction…
No, but he IS under the jurisdiction of the US as the law stands at the moment. If (assuming it was actually a she not a he :)) they have a baby while they are in the US that baby has rights to full US citizenship. This bill would change that.
I think we realize this obviously should not be true, but what is the effect of a person not being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States?
No, it says babies born here to a foreign mother aren’t under US jurisdiction. So a foreigner who simply hops over for a visit IS under our jurisdiction (I think) and subject to our laws.
However, we have yet to get any definitive (ie lawyerly) opinion on just what it means to be here and NOT under the jurisdiction of US law. Maybe he would still be under jurisdiction of state laws, and so only could slaughter with impunity in the District of Columbia?