coolbeans said:
Final-Fan said:
So, illegal aliens are basically similar to accredited diplomats and ambassadors? In what way? Would you say that a pregnant illegal alien is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.? Can illegal aliens accused of other crimes claim diplomatic immunity?
|
What you're doing here is tantamount to Gish Galloping. The Howard quote I brought up is pretty clear in delineating this:
-they're different in respect to situation and standing
-they're similar in that they don't fall under the "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." clause of the 14th (as Congress originally framed)
Obviously, the next logical question would bring up the implications with crime. But the emphasis on "jurisdiction" isn't limiting itself to geographical location, but rather total jurisdiction in respect to location, total allegiance (as some Congressmen framed it), and being wholly subject to the nation's laws. Initially, many Native American tribes (some referenced during the ratifying of this amendment) didn't fall under the 14th either, though this changed in the early 1900's via Congress + Presidential signing. Actually, the procedure in which Natives Americans went from outside the citizenship clause to inside via simple legislative majority + executive authorization destroys OP's assessment that a new amendment is needed.
Anyways...you see how this comes back around, right? Illegals wouldn't fall under the "[total] jurisdiction" of US based on conflicted political allegiances (as how those framers assessed it). And if they sincerely wanted to legally pledge US allegiance and go the whole nine yards, well...we have a naturalization process and there's millions of said people in line who didn't decide to violate federal laws of their new-host country.
|
1. The Gish Gallop accusation is inane at best. I asked four total questions, which on even cursory examination are two pairs of questions (the pairs being related questions illustrating my thoughts on the same subject). (One: Similar to diplomats? If so, how? ... Two: illegals "subject..."? If not, diplomatic immunity?)
2. "This will not, of course, include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the gov't of US, but will include every other class of persons." (Sen. Jacob Howard)
I don't see your clear delineation of situation and standing as pertains to illegal immigrants. "foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors etc." is, upon careful reading, clearly not a list of three things, but instead is revealed to be a single thing with what is called a parenthetical comma, as demostrated here, situated inside of it. If it was a list, there would be an "and" somewhere, but there is no "and" in the entire Howard quote that you gave. Additionally, "who belong to" would be a nonsensical fragment if it was a list, but it makes perfect sense when read as referring to "foreigners, [in other words] aliens, who belong to..."
So I read the Howard quote as saying, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the US who are foreigners (aliens) who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the gov't of US, but will include every other class of persons." Please let me know if you disagree with the validity and substantial accuracy of this reading.
Given that you accept the above interpretation, the question becomes, "Is there any sensible definition of "foreigners who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the gov't of US" that would include illegal immigrants in general?" I put it to you that there is not. Do you say that there is? If so, what is your argument?
(The two immediately preceding questions are to be read as a single two-part question and do not constitute a Gish Gallop in any sensible definition of the term. As for the one inside quotation marks, I am not asking you that question. I am saying that it could be said that the discussion we are having can now be encapsulated in that question. Let me know if you disagree with that assessment even after granting, for the sake of argument, the condition that you accept the aforementioned interpretation of the Howard quote.)
3. I don't see American Indians as being closely analogous enough to illegal immigrants to make your comparison valid. I haven't done lots of research on the topic with this specific subject in mind but I have a fair amount of lay knowledge here and Indians have a long legal history of being held separate from the general population in a way that is simply not true of immigrants. The reservation system may have been rife with abuses but the concept is still that of a people and land held apart from the regular United States. For example, Wikipedia sez "Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States. The U.S. federal government recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations" and has established a number of laws attempting to clarify the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments." I think you'd agree that illegal immigrants have no legal authority to "govern themselves" and are not considered part of "domestic dependent nations".
Again I disclaim professional expertise, but I would surmise that the situation with American Indians is similar to that of unincorporated territories of the United States, which I do not believe the 14th amendment applies to. Puerto Rico is arguably still unincorporated, but Puerto Ricans were given citizenship by act of Congress (and presumably not the 14th amendment). The bottom line is that the comparison is not close enough to say the same logic can be applied (that as citizenship was granted to one, it can be taken away from the other). Illegal immigrants are, generally speaking, not giving birth in unincorporated territories.