Message from @DrWittMDPhD
Discord ID: 508815461597839380
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"
Green cards serve in the military all the time
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]"
😃
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
@DrYuriMom There are already some things that prove you wrong with "even illegal aliens". "wherein there reside". And "Citizens of the United States".
it never says anything about illegal aliens.
It's hard to disagree with the intent of the original framers of the 14th when they state pretty explicitly that there are lots of exceptions to who becomes a naturalized citizen
Saying that anchor babies are fine is blatantly ignoring their writing
But with birth they are explicitly clear.
And they explicitly said that there are exceptions