As far as women and the selective service, I honestly believe we need to decide to either include women or ditch the law as it current stands. I have more thoughts on the development of "a well regulated militia" as described in the Second Amendment, but that would be a complicated debate and one I have not the time for right now.

If women want equality, they should want it in all things, that means being drafted to die in wars

We haven't drafted anyone since 1972

but they don't want that, they want men to continue to die for them

if i owe the feds 50k in back taxes and scupper off to thailand, they aren't going to say i'm no longer subject to US law because i am not physically present.

with respect to selective service, i expect that lots and lots of erstwhile feminists would suddenly feel a traditionalist twinge if they were handed draft cards

Atkins, you can be subject to the laws of multiple nations at the same time

the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was a reference to indian tribes that hadn't yet been subjugated at the time of ratification.

At least three nations easily. A Japanese born in Canada visiting the US would be under three different jurisdictions at the same time

of course they would, they aren't chanting for equality in selective service

i disagree that you can be subject to the laws of multiple nations

or many of the other things that favor them

i certainly disagree that you can be expected to pay income taxes to multiple nations

If I am the example you give, if i visit Thailand I am still under US law related to things like taxes and raping a minor but if i deal drugs Thailand will still execute me.

if i am a legal pakistani immigrant to the United States and say "fuck mohammed", i am not subject to execution for blasphemy

But people ARE expected to pay income taxes to multiple nations

If as a US expatriate I live in the EU and make enough money, I pay taxes to both the US *and* the country I work in

if i'm in thailand and the US wants back taxes they can suck a dick. they ain't getting them. they do not have jurisdiction.

Actually, they do

if you ever came back to US you'd prolly have to pay your taxes

in practical terms, no.

but if you stayed out the country you'd get away with it

I almost took a job internationally and the US absolutely does claim taxes on foreign income

if you ever came back. then you would be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. the jurisdiction of the US does not extend to thailand.

Yes, actually it does. The US could have you extradited to face US law.

only if the host country has an extradition treaty. i.e., in their jurisdiction.

That is true. But you are still subject to US law. The US has been *very* clear about that.

until these people have gone through the legal process of submitting to US jurisdiction through the visa process, i submit that they are still subject to the laws of their home country. we have no legal or material responsibility to them. simply eject them.

Again, you can commit crimes in a country that are not a crime there but you are still subject to US law and the US can prosecute you for it. the current archtypical example is child rape.

if the US can claim jurisdiction over someone in thailand, then honduras can claim jurisdiction over someone in el paso.

Atkins, so you claim if an illegal commits murder we have no ability to punish them, only to deport them?

give them the boot, let honduras deal with them.

That is not the current standard

the current standard is demonstrably shit

Nor does the Constitution prevent us from exacting justice ourselves

send them back to honduras. they have more appropriate jails for murderers.

As long as we can, the Constitution holds them under our laws

NOW, there would be an option outside the Amendment process

Treaties become constitutional level when ratified by the Senate

If we had a treaty with Honduras that essentially gave ALL their citizens immunity from our laws and not just diplomats, THEN you have a case

rofl

But is that *really* what you want

how about no. how about we just build a fucking wall and put illegals on the other side of it.

Now THAT is perfectly legal

so riddle me this... why do we have immigration laws if immigrants aren't subject to them

either enforce them, or open the borders...

I'm not going to try and defend that. I have always maintained we should go after employers who hire those not legally able to work. But employers don't get punished, only the worker. If we actually held employers accountable with large fines or even the dissolution of their business for repeat offenders, we'd solve the problem almost instantly.

As long as there is a demand, they *will* be a supply

And as with the drug war, all trying to stem supply when there is a big demand will do is waste billions for little to show for it

I agree with that

the war on drugs is as useless as prohibition was

and statistics confirm it

Because trying to control supply when there is a big demand is nonsense

How about do like we have done with corporate fraud. Make every corporation identify a Chief Human Resource Officer and that person is responsible under criminal law for immigration law compliance. In other words, in addition to fines for the corporation, that person could go to jail for it.

and the hypocrisy of denigrating certain drugs, whilst protecting and elevating the pharmaceutical drug empire... most notably the slacklers and Purdue pharmaceuticals

I have an idea on how to get corporations to pay taxes, by executive order, corporations found stashing funds offshore, have 72 hours to bring it home and pay taxes on it, otherwise, all of their intellectual property becomes public domain and are no longer subject to enforcement and protection from the United States

That would require a law

how fast would apple pay their taxes?

The executive can't just do something without legal basis

The President is subject to the law

To permit otherwise would be tyranny

doesn't congress have to pass a new law to override an executive order?

And anyway, "stashing funds" isn't illegal, at least not always

No, the Executive needs to provide evidence any order has legal basis. That's why the White House has lawyers.

Just as the Congress needs to provide evidence in every law regarding the Constitutional basis for it. Because even the Congress is subject to the Constitution.

hiding your profits offshore to evade paying your proper share of taxes erodes our economy, especially when they enjoy so many benefits of doing business in the USA

The patriot act slipped through the cracks on that...

Obama couldn't. Only the Congress can repeal laws.

its renewed through 2019

While Obama could not repeal laws, unfortunately he was head of the branch of government which enforces them.

So he could have simply selectively enforce the laws he wants.

@DrYuriMom the US is one of a very few number of countries that requires taxation of income, not earned/generated in its jurisdiction. This is the reason that the US noes not participate in the multitude of double taxation treaties. US is one of a few countries trying to exert its law outside its jurisdiction. Right now the EU is trying to fo the same thing.

A classic example is the global reach of the US law Sarbanes-Oxley

Federal Tax Brackets < Consumption Tax

@Walsp @RyeNorth @Rabbi Shekels @DrYuriMom Anyone wanna talk about the co-opting of words by the humanities, The development of Far-left liberal ideals in academia, and the influence of Russia in Black lives matter. Come join me in chatroom 2 I will moderator it a bit.

Is the use of medical tools to enhance human beings morally troubling?
how the hell can you say anything other than no

like i have no clue how to make tis in to many pages

@DrYuriMom There are already rulings about the 14th, wich was only done to allow Slaves to become US Citizens. That was the thought behind it. Now the Left Extremist and corporatists misuse and abuse it to get citizen rights to illegal Aliens. Tje Justicar did an interestint take.

so in short: How its done today is bullshit and was never intended to be that way

The Supreme Court rules in 1898 that the equivalent of today's illegal aliens, the Chinese, we're guaranteed birthright citizenship by the 14th. It goes back a LOT further than the current debate.

Again, anyone here is subject to US law except diplomats with immunity. That's the whole point of diplomatic immunity- to remove people from jurisdiction of the host country's laws.

Wrong

the Chinese was a Resident

Wong was a legal Resident of the United States, not an illegal alien

If you want to remove people from the 14th without another amendment you need to remove those people from our laws. Ie a treaty granting everyone from a country immunity from our laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHNp8MAaNBM

they're illegal. pretty sure they're already removed from our laws because they have not complied with them.

A lot of people don't comply with our laws. That doesn't mean they aren't subject to them.

The thing is "subject to the juristiction of the United States" is the Important part. Because they are subject to their Country primarily.

if these people had visas their children would be citizens. no questions asked.

But they are subject to ours while they are here unless they have diplomatic immunity

Read what the Lawmakers who made that Law at the time wrote about the 14th Amendment. And there are other Rulings, for exmaple a native American born on American soil - he did not get Citizenship.

Let's just grant all of the Americas immunity to our laws. Then we can honestly say they are not in our jurisdiction

they have rejected our laws. their first act upon entering the country was to break the law.

that's insanity.

how about we just throw them and their spawn the fuck out.

So anyone who breaks a law is not under our juristiction anymore? So we can't prosecute anyone?

they aren't citizens, they aren't residents, they aren't visitors. they're criminals. eject them.

they have no legal status.

They are under our law unless we grant them immunity

no, they are under honduran law as they are honduran citizens, and have no legal status whatsoever here. eject them.

boot them across the border. they aren't our responsibility. we have no obligation to pay for them.

Then you're agreeing with me. We cannot legally prosecute a Honduran for murder?

Just send them home with our thanks?

i don't care to prosecute them. violent invaders should be shot.

So we should declare war on Honduras?

if you come here illegaly you arnt deserving of the same protections

you're taking a legalistic stance. i don't really give a fuck about that. i just want them out.

i don't really care how illegals are removed.

so long as they are removed.

```Then you're agreeing with me. We cannot legally prosecute a Honduran for murder?
Just send them home with our thanks?```
No, they don't have constitutional rights because they don't apply to the laws of the US of A!

they are illegal. not citizens, not residents, not visitors. no legal status whatsoever. they should not be here. that they are here is due to litigious shit like what you're spouting right now. i do not care that honduras is shit. i do not care that they're coming to seek a better life. none of this matters. what matters is that they GTFO.

The law exists to protect us all. We must always be vigilant when we decide to disregard safeguards to abuse. The 14th was necessary specifically because of prior abuse.

yes and it would be wrong to take it from citizens

these people are not american citizens. they are not legal residents or visitors with valid visas. they shouldn't get any constitutional rights.

illegals arnt citizans

Okay. If laws are created to clearly state the illegals are outside our laws and the only recourse for any crime they commit is to deport them, then I will agree that is sound reasoning to say the 14th does not apply.

otherwise you end up in this retarded scenario where the ENTIRE PLANET has US constitutional rights because they might one day cross the border illegally. people in the fucking caravans in mexico are claiming that their constitutional rights are being violated.

@DrYuriMom i would appreciate if you would join us in voice chat, apparently dante recommends your intelectual value.

i will agree to your compromise on the condition that violent offenders can be shot on sight.

I'm not in a position to voice chat right now. At work waiting for someone else to get something done. Sorry.

Not a problem.

But Atkins, that would place them under our jurisdiction unless we were at war with their nation and we determined them to be spies.

Okay, work calls. Ttfn

Are bears or mountain lions under American jurisdiction? Or unconquered tribes?

They can still be shot.

if you use subjet to the laws of a nation does that mean any one born at a us embassy deserves citizenship, or since international corporations are subject to us jurisdiction and those employees are subject to the company does that by extension grant them rights.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. -14th Amendement
Clearly this does not mean subject to laws or paying taxes alone. If that were the case every foreign resident and visitor would be a citizen.
When the 14th was written it was clarified shortly after by a senator who said "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. This 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Bears and mountain lions are not human and therefore not relevant. The 14th Amendment clear relates to persons and therefore the company comment is not relevant.

During the debates the topic of a "Chinaman" was discussed and it was stated that YES, children born to such people would be citizens

That was later part of the 1898 Supreme Court case

In 1884 the supreme court ruled that newly born indians were not covered under the 14th amendment because their parents were not American citizens. This caused congress to pass the Citizen Act in 1924 (amazing speed i know) and formally provide all tribal members/descendants.

Again, someone who was as foreign and unwanted as you get at the time was considered covered by the 14th

The Indian case was based on an argument that by treaty the Indian nations were sovereign

Because they really had no ability to operate as real nations that was a ridiculous argument and was resolved in 1924 as you say

The government granted foreigners the same equality protection that the 14th provides. However it does not consider them citizens in the common use of the word.

The children born under the 14th are considered citizens by the 14th as validated by the Supreme Court in 1898 and then supported by precedent ever since.

And, honestly, by the debate in the Congress at the time when some tried to use prejudice against Chinese laborers against the amendment, especially in California

Right and his parents had legally entered the country

If they want to grant it to the children of legal residents and entrants that will be ok

Visa overstays and vacation births are another issue to be addressed and it is far easier to argue that they should have citizen children than those who enter illegally

The ruling of 1898 doesnt apply when discussing illegal immigrants. The citizenship of their children has been granted following a broad interpretation of the 14th amendment.

Cat, I think we talked about this before. It turns out, the 14th amendment did not give the children of Native Americans citizenship.

There was even a court ruling that the child of Native Americans had allegiance to their tribe, not the USA.

It does seem that, given the intent of the 14th amendment and those who penned it, giving the children of illegal immigrants citizenship is an abuse of the law.

My understanding is that indians were denied citizenship under the 14th because they were born on sovereign soil and therefore not within the US. I could be wrong but that is what I took from those late 1800 decisions.

The treaties said the reservations we're sovereign. That was never given much more than lip service since they couldn't form militaries or have foreign policy.

By the early 20th century the idea of sovereign native tribes was fully ditched and they became taxable and fully subject to US law

In the 1800s the native tribes were *in theory* not subject to US jurisdiction. It was a farce that was finally ended in the early 1900s.

And we have the direct word from the orchestrator and writer of the amendment that it was not meant to apply to foreign nationals.

I can try and find a direct quote, if you'd like.

I've read quotes and it tells me the opposite

Are there any potential solutions to the reservation-system out there. I mean if the majority of the tribes in the US live in extreme poverty maybe the system isn't working.

Hence why we have 150 years of case law all the way to the Supreme Court

Giving them shitty land and throwing money at them doesn't fix their situation.

Part of the problem is that the Federal government supposedly makes resource decisions in thier interest but plenty of evidence proves thier resources are granted to corporations for next to nothing

There are plenty of lawsuits about that

There's also tons of cronyism and mismanagement within the tribes

My gut solution would be to turn the reservations into states with their own constitutions but function in a way at least similar to a regular state.

That is how they are already handled, @Dvir

Reservations are ruled by tribes and they have greater autonomy in many regards than a state.

Tribes are under the authority of the Federal govt but not any state. They have constitutions.

The issue is that most tribes signed away thier resource rights to the Federal govt in thier treaties with the understanding that the Feds would manage them "in the tribe's interests"

What could possibly go wrong with that? /s

Ah, here we are.

I think I am starting to understand. In such a scenario the best case the resources are managed by the feds and the wealth given to the tribe, but even in such a case you are creating a dependency on the federal government and you keep the tribe trapped in such a state.

Yup

Senator Jacob Howard, a drafter of the 14th amendment: "This 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 relationship between the Federal govt and the tribe's has always been extremely paternalistic. The "great white father".

In the records of Senate discussions on the 14th amendment, recorded in The Congressional Globe, May 30th, 1866.

I've been told that the quote has had commas attached

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11.

I'm not at my PC or I'd try to pull up an actual quote

The Lawmakers said that it was never intended to be used with foreign people, the 14th is for Slaves, not for Illegal Aliens

The original source, in its entirety, you may peruse the entire context at your leisure, when you're able to.

Again, I dispute the comma after "aliens"

Unfortunately, voice recording technology was limited in the 1860's.

Its a misuse and abuse of the Original Intend that we have here. And the Supreme Court ruled at least twice. You really should watch the Justicar Video I've posted!
At one point he said "we lower court judges", so he might be a judge and know it better than we do.

Print is all we have.

So if our interpretation is so wrong how has it lasted for 150 years with a trail of precedent all through that time? This is not a new issue.

because it wasn't really an issue until recently, because the immigration act of ~1964 or so....

And again, if you were willing to remove illegals from US jurisdiction, I think it'd pass muster.

I...I'm not sure what you mean.

Its the fucking job of the Gouvernment to remove illegal aliens.

But as long as they are subject to US law, I really think we're stuck

as its the job of Security hired by a company to remove illegal entrys.

Illegals don't need to be removed from US jurisdiction. They are not under US jurisdiction in the first place.

As long as we can try an illegal for murder, they are in our jurisdiction

If we grant illegals diplomatic immunity like we do embassy staff then problem solved

That could be done by treaty

I don't understand. Do we not prosecute foreign nationals for crimes done to American people or property?

And a treaty, as ratified by the Senate, becomes part of the constitution

there is no problem. you are creating the problem through needless legalese.

@DrYuriMom What do you say about the Children born by Diplomats in the US?
If we follow your logic, they should be US Citizens, right?

they are not citizens. they are not residents. they are not tourists. they are not natives. they have no legal status, except as fucking invaders.

would you think it rational to either a) put a viking raider on trial or b) give them immunity? no. you'd just kill them or drive them off and have done with it.

No, Stefan. Diplomat children are specifically the *only* children not covered by the 14th

```there is no problem. you are creating the problem through needless legalese.```
There is a Problem. When you take the "are Indians White" Case, it would mean that the Citzienship of all illegaly born here could be revoked, wich means that tens of millions of people could be deportet and loose their Citizenship. that IS a Problem.

And foreigners, even with your current comma quibble.

that's not a problem to me

```No, Stefan. Diplomat children are specifically the only children not covered by the 14th```
And why is there a difference in your argument between Diplomats and Illegal Aliens?
Both are not considered to be residents of the US.

Unless *all* the commas are wrong.

if your parents stole something and gave it to you, you don't get to keep it.

Atkins, my ancestors came to Virginia in the 1640s. They didn't have a visa. So I'm an illegal?

right of conquest

Uh huh

Speaking of stealing

and unless you want to grant right of conquest to the entire god damned planet maybe we shouldn't lose like the natives did

Then perhaps we need to pass another amendment

Cat, it's highly disingenuous to compare the incredibly decentralized and in feuding Native American tribes to the United States government.

I didn't

Then I don't understand. Why do you contest the legality of your citizenship?

Stefan, diplomats are not subject to US laws. That are not in our jurisdiction.

I don't contest the legality of my citizenship. Under the 14th I was born here. I'm a citizen.

Were your parents United States citizens?

Yes. And going back to the 1640's I can trace my ancestry in Virgina.

Watch the god damn video, Cat!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHNp8MAaNBM

Okay. So then it doesn't even involve the 14th amendment, Cat.

He did an analysis and cites everything you need to know.

I'd have to look up the specific law, but it's much older.

But if you take the 14th away, how far back do you go?

The...first generation back?

you don't go back, you go forward

Your parents.

@DrYuriMom where exactly in 14th admentment it says that illegal aliens kids should get citizenship?

anyone being born from now on, must be a us citizen first

But what if my parents' parents were illegal?

Jasse, anyone under US jurisdiction and born here is a citizen

It's black and white to me and to 150 years of jurisprudence

I wasnt asking that.
I was asking where in 14th it says it?

the part where it says us jurisdiction

The first few sentences

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

@DrYuriMom Justicar disagrees with you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHNp8MAaNBM

@Jasse literally in the first 20 words of the amendment

It is meant that they have a legal right to be in the US, not all on US Soil.

The Justicar talks about that in lenth in that Video

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/10/30/no-the-president-cannot-end-birthright-citizenship/?utm_term=.9e74d3b0564b

35 minute video. Oh boy

150 years of jurisprudence, Cat? How far back do you have judicial rulings on the citizenship status of illegal foreigners?

He's already losing me with his assumption that natives do not give first allegiance to the US

But I'll keep going

Native American tribes certainly did not give first allegiance to the US prior to their integration, no.

I'm going back to the debate over the amendment itself

Like I said, I'll keep going even if I don't agree with that. It's a quibble.

If we're at war with a nation then anyone from that country is an enemy agent not subject to US law but rather the laws of war. Spies of countries we are at war with especially can be summarily shot.

So we can declare war on Honduras and Guatemala and everything changes. I said that waaayyy back.

Congress can declare war. Congress can ratify a treaty. These would be perfectly legal since it would change "jurisdiction".

The EEZ is not jurisdiction. It's international waters according to the law of the sea. We push that all the time when we do freedom of navigation exercises.

All the fun in the South China Seas is due to freedom of navigation exercises

In the Marianas they are not a state. It's up to congress to determine what constitutes American citizenship there.