So, I feel compelled to point out that the last ‘big project’ he worked on and everyone here hoped for and talked about was his great blog, which was an embarrassing failure and he quietly shut it down less than a month later.
I’m sorry: I don’t know if you are lying or clueless, but I can see no third option.
Let’s make it very simple, shall we?
Please provide evidence that people in the US on work visas are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That is the heart of your claim, after all. So please, show us some evidence for that claim.
No, you didn’t.
You cited several regulations, and then wildly misinterpreted them.
I know exactly what jurisdiction of the law means. So does every law book ever written, which entirely agree with me. YOU do not.
Let’s start with a simple one: please support your claim that persons in the US on work visas are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, and not the US. Because your provided link says nothing of the kind. Please provide snd evidence this claim is true, as without it you have nothing.
Wrong.
Anyone in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the US. that’s basic law 101. Even tourists here are sibjec5 to the jurisdiction of US law. Everyone, even people on student visas.
If some tourist commits a crime, can they claim they are not subject to US law? Of course not, because universally, in every country on earth, people in a country are subject to the jurisdiction of that country.
So why include the clause at all? Because (and every country has some version of this) it excludes those few individuals who are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the country they are in: Diplomats and posted serving military.
And that the way it works. Children of diplomats born in the US are NOT granted citizenship.
That’s what the ‘jurisdiction’ issue refers to. I’m a touch surprised you didn’t know this, as even 10 seconds on Google would show you the universal legal interpretation as I have said, and how it has been applied throughout history. Your claims are simply a deliberate attempt to ignore reality.
Except that your view does not stem from the constitution. By all means, please prove me wrong: just show me in the constitution where it says anything even remotely like your claims about one or two parents having been born in the US, or be themselves citizens, to be a citizen. In fact the actual constitution, in the 14th amendment, says something quite different.
No court or authority has ever even tried to interpret natural born as you are choosing to do.
There is no need to interpret anything, or change our modern language in any regard, you simply need to look at the 14th amendment, which shows clearly that Harris is a citizen. The standard interpretation of natural born citizen for the past 200 years, has been born in the United States. Parentage has always been, and will always remain, irrelevant.
That is the way things are.you may wish for things to be different of course, which is fine, but your wishes do not affect the way things are.
Firstly, that’s moving the goalposts. nowhere in any document or ruling does it say what you are claiming about one or both parents required to be citizens. You are in no way talking about law, but talking about what you wish was law.
Secondly, it is entirely your prerogative to ignore the last hundred years of caselaw, but that’s not the way the country works, or was supposed to work.
To be entirely honest, I find your disregard of the US Constitution and the supreme court to be quite… Liberal
She was born in the United States of America, and is as such a US citizen according to the 14th amendment. Of course she doesn’t have naturalization papers, she doesn’t need them, having been born in the United States.
The constitution is quite explicit on this matter, perhaps you should give it a look.
I know exactly what I am talking about. While natural born was never formally defined in the constitution, every single legal president up to and including the Supreme Court has affirmed that it means born in the US, and has nothing to do with the citizenship of parents.
Your baseless interpretation would also mean that at least nine former US presidents were ineligible.
That may be your view, but it is not backed by any kind of precedent or caselaw. Your interpretation would also mean that at least nine of our past US presidents were ‘ineligible’ for having foreign-born, foreign citizen parents.
Whoever told you that was mistaken. Natural born citizen means you must be a citizen of the United States at and by birth. Your parents and their nationality are irrelevant.
This is sadly irrelevant for a few reasons.
The fact that an obscure Jamaican law confers citizenship has no bearing on US law nor the US determination of natural born citizen. If Germany changes their laws to make citizenship automatically pass through three generations, that doesn’t suddenly make Trump ineligible. US law determines eligibility, not foreign law.
No, this comment above is literally hatemongering anti-semitism.