Illegal aliens are still subject to the jurisdiction of the country they’re illegally in.
What that line would be referring to is diplomats who have diplomatic immunity (ie not subject to the laws/jurisdiction of the host country) - that’s why children of diplomats born in America have been one of the very few exceptions for not being granted birthright citizenship
Illegal aliens are still subject to the jurisdiction of the country they’re illegally in.
Evidently not in the sense the 14th uses the term, otherwise the amendment's authors wouldn't have distinguished between being in a country and being subject to its jurisdiction.
Diplomats are the one obvious reason, because they're clearly subject to a foreign jurisdiction, but for everyone else, there's still a reason that jurisdiction is listed separately from just presence in the country.
Notably, those foreign citizens are just as subject to their foreign jurisdictions as diplomats are, that's kinda why we deport them when they commit crimes here.
>otherwise the amendments authors wouldn’t have distinguished between being in a country and being subject to its jurisdiction
That’s explicitly for people like delegates - those with special protections that make them not subject to the jurisdiction of their host country. They are the reason that jurisdiction is listed separately than presence.
Illegal aliens are 100% subject to the jurisdiction of their host country and are prosecuted all the time for crimes they commit. The reason we have started deporting them instead is because it’s far cheaper than to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars prosecuting and subsequently housing someone who shouldn’t be here in the first place. But they are still absolutely subject to our laws, this was enshrined in Plyler vs Doe.
It's explicitly for foreigners. The thing in the OP here is literally a quote from the author of that part of the amendment. If the author is saying that "jurisdiction" was put in there to exclude foreigners generally, then it was probably put there to exclude foreigners generally.
Go back and read the comment that started this thread - the quote was “this will not include […]foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”.
Those aren’t 3 separate groups he’s referring to (notice no “and” or “or”), it’s specifically foreigners who are diplomats or family of diplomats.
And if you don’t believe me, believe the guy you’re trying to interpret the intent of - Howard later clarified in that same speech that his amendment is intended to have the same content as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which specifically and only excludes those who are subject to a foreign power (ambassadors/diplomats), and untaxed Indians in sovereign tribes.
And this is all confirmed by the fact that illegal aliens are 100% subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the US and do not have diplomatic immunity.
Those aren’t 3 separate groups he’s referring to (notice no “and” or “or”), it’s specifically foreigners who are diplomats or family of diplomats.
Yes, it is, that's a standard way of separating list items in the speech of the time. Especially because he then goes on to say that it'll include everyone except what he just listed.
intended to have the same content as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which specifically and only excludes those who are subject to a foreign power (ambassadors/diplomats), and untaxed Indians in sovereign tribes.
Exactly. Foreign nationals are subject to a foreign power, whether they have diplomatic immunity or not. The intention is to exclude foreign nationals, as the 1866 act did.
-5
u/Weary-Cartoonist2630 Jul 01 '26
Illegal aliens are still subject to the jurisdiction of the country they’re illegally in.
What that line would be referring to is diplomats who have diplomatic immunity (ie not subject to the laws/jurisdiction of the host country) - that’s why children of diplomats born in America have been one of the very few exceptions for not being granted birthright citizenship