US Presidential Election - Monitoring Swing States

[Final-Fan]

StarDoor said:

Yes, neither of us are lawyers. I'm not making a foolproof legal argument here. At this point, we should agree to disagree.

1.  The definition of jurisdiction is "the official power to make legal decisions and judgments" or "the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments." It doesn't really say anything about the ability to act upon any legal judgments, so Mexico would still technically have jurisdiction over Mexican nationals in the United States. A case can be made for either side.

2.  I guess in the technical sense, no federal law restricted immigration, but naturalization law limited citizenship to "free white persons of good moral character".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1795

After 1870, Africans could also become naturalized citizens, but the logistics of native Africans crossing the ocean prevented any surge of immigration. In 1882, Chinese immigrants were banned, and the national quota system was implemented in 1924, which heavily favored those from the British Isles and Germany. US immigration was explicitly white from 1790 to 1965.

3.  And, yeah, in this case I would be on the side of judicial activism. It's equally available to both sides of the political spectrum, after all.

1.  So you are saying that Mexico and not the United States has power to make legal judgments regarding illegal immigrants from Mexico and their children? 

2a.  OK, but that has nothing to do with my point, which was that the amendment could not have been intended to exclude the children of illegal immigrants if there was no such thing as illegal immigration. 

2b.  As for racial restrictions on immigration and naturalization, notice how blacks were for a time able to be born into citizenship but not able to naturalize?  Naturalization citizenship and birthright citizenship are two different issues.  And immigration is yet another topic.  These are related to one another, of course, but on the other hand they should not be conflated. 

3.  So you have no problem with judicial activism, just with results of it that you happen to dislike?  I just want to clarify because there are a lot of people who claim to hate judicial activism on principle.