6 ms·

Correct me if I'm wrong, but jurisdiction can be summarized as whoever is subject to the law and the rule of the courts.

by stvltvs 3mo ago

fmobus 3mo ago
Yes that's my position. A person who is not under jurisdiction (e.g., putatively, the illegal immigrants), cannot be prosecuted.
rayiner 3mo ago
Everyone on U.S. soil is subject to the law and rule of the courts to some extent, including diplomats. Diplomats are immune to prosecution for crimes, but that's different than being outside the jurisdiction of U.S. laws. For example, in 2013 several Russian diplomats were indicted for Medicaid fraud: https://abcnews.com/US/russian-diplomats-scammed-medicaid-15-million-indictment-claims/story?id=21110274 https://abcnews.com/US/russian-diplomats-scammed-medicaid-15.... They had diplomatic immunity, so the U.S. had to get the Russian government to waive the diplomatic immunity. But if Russia waived the immunity, the prosecution could proceed even though the diplomats had diplomatic immunity at the time the crime was committed. Moreover, diplomats are subject to civil liability for commercial activities beyond their office: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity. Diplomatic immunity doesn't protect them from suits in U.S. courts related to such activities. So reading "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean "subject to the law and the rule of the courts" proves too much. The U.S. and its courts have some level of jurisdiction over everyone and everything on U.S. soil. So that makes the phrase "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" redundant--the words "subject to the jurisdiction" aren't doing any work that the phrase "in the United States" isn't already doing.
- fmobus 3mo ago
  A child of recognized foreign diplomat, if born in US soil, however, is not a US citizen at birth. And if they try to claim that later in life, it will be denied. This has always been like that. All jus soli countries do it.
  - rayiner 3mo ago
    Correct. Children of diplomats born on U.S. soil aren’t covered by the 14th amendment, even though they are subject to U.S. law and can be sued in U.S. courts over many things notwithstanding diplomatic immunity.
    - IAmBroom 3mo ago
      Family of diplomats are accorded the same immunity as the diplomats themselves.
- IAmBroom 3mo ago
  > Everyone on U.S. soil is subject to the law and rule of the courts to some extent, including diplomats. > They had diplomatic immunity, so the U.S. had to get the Russian government to waive the diplomatic immunity. Your example literally spells out that THE ONLY WAY they would be subject to the law and rule of the courts is if their immunity was removed. Their immunity was total.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but jurisdiction can be summarized as whoever is subject to the law and the rule of the courts.

by stvltvs 3mo ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but jurisdiction can be summarized as whoever is subject to the law and the rule of the courts.

fmobus 3mo ago

Yes that's my position. A person who is not under jurisdiction (e.g., putatively, the illegal immigrants), cannot be prosecuted.

rayiner 3mo ago

Everyone on U.S. soil is subject to the law and rule of the courts to some extent, including diplomats. Diplomats are immune to prosecution for crimes, but that's different than being outside the jurisdiction of U.S. laws. For example, in 2013 several Russian diplomats were indicted for Medicaid fraud: https://abcnews.com/US/russian-diplomats-scammed-medicaid-15-million-indictment-claims/story?id=21110274 https://abcnews.com/US/russian-diplomats-scammed-medicaid-15.... They had diplomatic immunity, so the U.S. had to get the Russian government to waive the diplomatic immunity. But if Russia waived the immunity, the prosecution could proceed even though the diplomats had diplomatic immunity at the time the crime was committed. Moreover, diplomats are subject to civil liability for commercial activities beyond their office: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity. Diplomatic immunity doesn't protect them from suits in U.S. courts related to such activities. So reading "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean "subject to the law and the rule of the courts" proves too much. The U.S. and its courts have some level of jurisdiction over everyone and everything on U.S. soil. So that makes the phrase "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" redundant--the words "subject to the jurisdiction" aren't doing any work that the phrase "in the United States" isn't already doing.

fmobus 3mo ago
A child of recognized foreign diplomat, if born in US soil, however, is not a US citizen at birth. And if they try to claim that later in life, it will be denied. This has always been like that. All jus soli countries do it.
- rayiner 3mo ago
  Correct. Children of diplomats born on U.S. soil aren’t covered by the 14th amendment, even though they are subject to U.S. law and can be sued in U.S. courts over many things notwithstanding diplomatic immunity.
  - IAmBroom 3mo ago
    Family of diplomats are accorded the same immunity as the diplomats themselves.
IAmBroom 3mo ago
> Everyone on U.S. soil is subject to the law and rule of the courts to some extent, including diplomats. > They had diplomatic immunity, so the U.S. had to get the Russian government to waive the diplomatic immunity. Your example literally spells out that THE ONLY WAY they would be subject to the law and rule of the courts is if their immunity was removed. Their immunity was total.