Message from @DrYuriMom
Discord ID: 508814802311708682
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.
Congress can certainly adjudicate citizenship in a place not a state
All this is at around 17:00
18:00 it's up to the US to say we can't conscript tourists. We could if we wanted to. I'm sure it wouldn't be popular internationally and would reek of impressment.
We could conscript illegals if we wanted to. We just don't want to. They are subject to our laws because they are here.
So up to 19:30 he hasn't convinced me at all
What makes you think we can conscript illegals? Pretty sure we can't do that to legal residents that aren't citizens.
They're in our borders and subject to our laws
We can conscript legal residents absolutely
Being subject to our laws and being able to be drafted isn't the same thing
If you have a green card you can be conscripted
The selective service doesn't include them but there's nothing stopping us from passing such a law
"Nothing stopping us from passing such a law"
You also said legal residents. That by definition does not include illegals
So through 23:00 I'm not convinced of anything other than what I was saying before. Everything he has said, to me, supports what I'd been saying. Born in a state and subject to our laws - citizen.
But again, nothing stops us constitutionally from illegals serving in our military. And they are clearly subject to our laws by the fact that we prosecute them for crimes.
Only if we grant them immunity to our laws are they no longer under our jurisdiction.
Wtf "In addition, non-US citizen men between the ages of 18 and 25 (inclusive) living in the United States must register. This includes permanent residents, refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented immigrants.[2]"
Off Wikipedia
😃
Like I said, they are subject to our laws.
They are in our jurisdiction.
Which amendment is currently being argued about with this birthright citizenship?
The 15th?
The 14th
The first sentence thereof
Okay, that's an after the fact justification though. The original arguments from the 14th exclude illegals
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.
So the laws that come after that say that illegals are subject to stuff are unconstitutional
Actually, I disagree with the original intent.
Lol Wapo
The most conservative editorialist on their staff