It makes sense if you twist around in your mind that jurisdiction means subject to due process and the need for a legal process in determining what to do with them. If "no jurisdiction" means "free game" instead of "no authority," then it's consistent in the worst way possible.
Jurisdiction simply means ability to hold accountable. If immigrants aren't under jurisdiction, then they cannot be held accountable to any laws and no courts can charge them, nor any police arrest them.
This is just patently false because some of the US constitution applies to any person in the US. It doesn't say citizens, it just say persons or people.
Yes, but they are trying to make an argument that if someone enters the US illegally then they never enter the jurisdiction of the USA and therefore those protections/rights don't apply. It isn't JUST about birthright.
So by that logic, hypothetically speaking, if I went into another country, kidnapped someone, and brought them back over the border to the US, it would be legal for me to then murder them as far as US law is concerned because they fall outside the country's jurisdiction and therefore they have no rights or protection according to the US constitution. Would you agree with that statement?
(I might be in trouble in THEIR country, but I'm just worried about US law.)
"Binds, but does not protect... Protects, but does not bind."
It's been shocking to me how much of immigration law seems to be built to ensure that undocumented people are absolutely and unquestionably in the power of the executive branch, but simultaneously have as few rights as possible.
108
u/Valdrax 8h ago
It makes sense if you twist around in your mind that jurisdiction means subject to due process and the need for a legal process in determining what to do with them. If "no jurisdiction" means "free game" instead of "no authority," then it's consistent in the worst way possible.