Ah, okay, sorry. I thought you were implying that a person is immune to laws unless they’re a citizen, like those sovereign citizen types, I failed to realize you were quoting a passage from the order lol.
I thought it was more about if a foreign nation say, invaded and controlled a state, then we wouldn’t be granting citizenship while it was under a foreign power.
Either way, no reading of that would apply to what the administration wants to see. I believe the argument I saw them attempting was to imagine another word was intended, “exclusively subject to the jurisdiction”, meaning an otherwise stateless child becomes a citizen, but if they have birthright citizenship claim anywhere else, that is what the administration would want to use as an excuse to deny citizenship.
You don’t need to be a citizen to be subject to law enforcement, the only exceptions are people with diplomatic immunity.
I think there should be bare minimum human rights for all, not just citizens, but that’s not the case currently.
That’s basically the point. If you are subject to law enforcement and you have a kid here, the kid is a citizen.
“Subject to the jurisdiction” was essentially to keep diplomats kids from becoming citizens.
Ah, okay, sorry. I thought you were implying that a person is immune to laws unless they’re a citizen, like those sovereign citizen types, I failed to realize you were quoting a passage from the order lol.
I thought it was more about if a foreign nation say, invaded and controlled a state, then we wouldn’t be granting citizenship while it was under a foreign power.
Either way, no reading of that would apply to what the administration wants to see. I believe the argument I saw them attempting was to imagine another word was intended, “exclusively subject to the jurisdiction”, meaning an otherwise stateless child becomes a citizen, but if they have birthright citizenship claim anywhere else, that is what the administration would want to use as an excuse to deny citizenship.