Trump threatens to Nullify the 14th Amendment

[Seangoli]

Jurisdiction just means ‘having legal power’. An ambassador can still bring a case before a US civil court against a US citizen. However, that citizen cannot press any counter-claims, since a US court cannot order a diplomat to do anything.

Regarding charges: criminal charges are never brought by an individual, but always by the government. So, the immunity of the diplomat is not in question, as they are merely the victim of an attack.

Diplomatic immunity does not mean the ambassador becomes entirely lawless. They can still engage in contracts under US law, they can buy train tickets, they can get parking permits, the whole shebang. However, no organ of the US (judiciary, executive, legisltive) can force an ambassador to do anything.

Then the question is whether or not illegal immigrants would have diplomatic immunity?

Also, is the US government unable to force a diplomat to leave its borders?

We can *dispel* diplomats from the country for certain things, which is essentially telling other countries "Take you ambassador up on out of here, or else". We typically cannot charge them with anything, unless their immunity is revoked by their home country.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Jurisdiction just means ‘having legal power’. An ambassador can still bring a case before a US civil court against a US citizen. However, that citizen cannot press any counter-claims, since a US court cannot order a diplomat to do anything.

Regarding charges: criminal charges are never brought by an individual, but always by the government. So, the immunity of the diplomat is not in question, as they are merely the victim of an attack.

Diplomatic immunity does not mean the ambassador becomes entirely lawless. They can still engage in contracts under US law, they can buy train tickets, they can get parking permits, the whole shebang. However, no organ of the US (judiciary, executive, legisltive) can force an ambassador to do anything.

Then the question is whether or not illegal immigrants would have diplomatic immunity?

Also, is the US government unable to force a diplomat to leave its borders?

Oh no, that is not a question. Diplomatic immunity is granted by customary international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, specifically to diplomats. If immigrants had diplomatic immunity, they could not be convicted for crimes, which they clearly can.

The US indeed has no power to make diplomats leave the country.

[Jazz Commies and Sexy Astrophysicists]

To be clear to something I read earlier, the US government does have jurisdiction over even nonlegal residents in the US through alienage jurisdiction. Very much a thing.

In addition, I find this development troubling. The fact is, the anchor baby myth is one with little real world reality (two parents having an infant child that's a US citizen couldn't take any advantage of that until they're 21 and can help them apply for citizenship themselves). Trump doing this is obviously just pandering to his base of racist voters, who'd prefer to blame their problems on immigrants than the criminals in the statehouse and DC.

[San Lumen]

Then the question is whether or not illegal immigrants would have diplomatic immunity?

Also, is the US government unable to force a diplomat to leave its borders?

Oh no, that is not a question. Diplomatic immunity is granted by customary international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, specifically to diplomats. If immigrants had diplomatic immunity, they could not be convicted for crimes, which they clearly can.

The US indeed has no power to make diplomats leave the country.

That is no true. any diplomat can be asked to leave the country at any time

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Oh no, that is not a question. Diplomatic immunity is granted by customary international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, specifically to diplomats. If immigrants had diplomatic immunity, they could not be convicted for crimes, which they clearly can.

The US indeed has no power to make diplomats leave the country.

That is no true. any diplomat can be asked to leave the country at any time

They can be asked. But the US can’t make them leave. The sending State can be asked to withdraw a diplomat, and States often do that to avoid a diplomatic crisis, but the US cannot unilaterally send away a diplomatc without the consent of the sending nation.

Edit: a diplomat may be deemed a persona non grata, but the sending nation will still have to recall that diplomat. It isn’t exactly a unilateral power to send diplomats away, although it is the closest thing.

[Ors Might]

Then the question is whether or not illegal immigrants would have diplomatic immunity?

Also, is the US government unable to force a diplomat to leave its borders?

Oh no, that is not a question. Diplomatic immunity is granted by customary international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, specifically to diplomats. If immigrants had diplomatic immunity, they could not be convicted for crimes, which they clearly can.

The US indeed has no power to make diplomats leave the country.

Are diplomatic immunity and simply not being under US jursidiction the same or similar? I appreciate being indulged this much over a hypothetical scenario, truly.

[Seangoli]

Oh no, that is not a question. Diplomatic immunity is granted by customary international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, specifically to diplomats. If immigrants had diplomatic immunity, they could not be convicted for crimes, which they clearly can.

The US indeed has no power to make diplomats leave the country.

Are diplomatic immunity and simply not being under US jursidiction the same or similar? I appreciate being indulged this much over a hypothetical scenario, truly.

Diplomatic Immunity is encoded and legal immunity from laws.

Not being under US jurisdiction would enter someone into a legal limbo that would, in theory, be de facto immunity from the law as the US would have no legal authority on someone they do not claim to be within their jurisdiction at all. For instance, a police officer from North Dakota can't go and arrest someone in Minneapolis, as Minnesota has jurisdictional authority in Minnesota. A Minnesotan has defacto immunity from North Dakota laws and law enforcement in Minnesota, as North Dakota jurisdiction does not apply.

While very different in how it would come about, the end result would at least on paper be the same. Now, granted, there wouldn't be anyway to truly enforce the latter while the former has home countries who threaten international incidents.

[Ifreann]

I would think that they would. My reasoning is that foreign diplomats in the US enjoy diplomatic immunity, and therefore are not under US jurisdiction, but if the Mexican ambassador to the US was strolling down the street and got jumped by Joe Arpaio, he would surely be able to take Joe to court.

But in those situations, foreign diplomats are more than just individuals not under US jurisdiction. They’re under the jurisdiction of the nations that they’re representing and thus have a certain political status that illegal immigrants don’t.

Not one that matters when it comes to pressing charges.

There’s a reason why corporations get away with hiring illegals and that’s even with them being under jurisdiction.

It's not because it's impossible to take corporations to court, I'll tell you that.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Oh no, that is not a question. Diplomatic immunity is granted by customary international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, specifically to diplomats. If immigrants had diplomatic immunity, they could not be convicted for crimes, which they clearly can.

The US indeed has no power to make diplomats leave the country.

Are diplomatic immunity and simply not being under US jursidiction the same or similar? I appreciate being indulged this much over a hypothetical scenario, truly.

Ohh yeah, I am glad to indulge. I am a student of international law, indulging in these hypotheticals is what we do. They are often not hypotheticals, either.

Diplomatic immunity is one way of not being under US jurisdiction, although there are other ways. The most obvious way is not being in US territory, and not being held in a US prison abroad. Such a prison would be extraterritorial jurisdiction. Similarly, being in one of the foreign embassies to the US means that you are in US territory while not being under US jurisdiction. Flying in a foreign plane flying over the US also means that you are in US territorial skies, while being in the jurisdiction of the country where the plane is registered. Meanwhile, if you are in the American parts of the ISS, you are not on US territory, but you are under US jurisdiction. Diplomatic immunity is just one way not to fall under US jurisdiction.

However, principally, if you are in the territory of a state, you fall under their jurisdiction automatically, unless they have lost control. For instance, if you are in Northern Cyprus, you will be in Cypriot territory, while being under Turkish jurisdiction. Same goes for Cuba and Guantanamo Bay. However, in the rule, if you are in a nation’s territory, you fall under their jurisdiction, which gives them legal power over you.

[Ors Might]

Are diplomatic immunity and simply not being under US jursidiction the same or similar? I appreciate being indulged this much over a hypothetical scenario, truly.

Diplomatic Immunity is encoded and legal immunity from laws.

Not being under US jurisdiction would enter someone into a legal limbo that would, in theory, be de facto immunity from the law as the US would have no legal authority on someone they do not claim to be within their jurisdiction at all.

While very different in how it would come about, the end result would at least on paper be the same. Now, granted, there wouldn't be anyway to truly enforce the latter while the former has home countries who threaten international incidents.

I think I get it now. Appreciated.

[Ors Might]

Are diplomatic immunity and simply not being under US jursidiction the same or similar? I appreciate being indulged this much over a hypothetical scenario, truly.

Ohh yeah, I am glad to indulge. I am a student of international law, indulging in these hypotheticals is what we do. They are often not hypotheticals, either.

Diplomatic immunity is one way of not being under US jurisdiction, although there are other ways. The most obvious way is not being in US territory, and not being held in a US prison abroad. Such a prison would be extraterritorial jurisdiction. Similarly, being in one of the foreign embassies to the US means that you are in US territory while not being under US jurisdiction. Flying in a foreign plane flying over the US also means that you are in US territorial skies, while being in the jurisdiction of the country where the plane is registered. Meanwhile, if you are in the American parts of the ISS, you are not on US territory, but you are under US jurisdiction. Diplomatic immunity is just one way not to fall under US jurisdiction.

However, principally, if you are in the territory of a state, you fall under their jurisdiction automatically, unless they have lost control. For instance, if you are in Northern Cyprus, you will be in Cypriot territory, while being under Turkish jurisdiction. Same goes for Cuba and Guantanamo Bay. However, in the rule, if you are in a nation’s territory, you fall under their jurisdiction, which gives them legal power over you.

Would the scenario in which Trump manages to exclude illegal immigrants from US jurisdiction, knowingly or otherwise, be an exception to this? They’re being singled out after all, which I don’t think would have much precedent to fall back on.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Ohh yeah, I am glad to indulge. I am a student of international law, indulging in these hypotheticals is what we do. They are often not hypotheticals, either.

Diplomatic immunity is one way of not being under US jurisdiction, although there are other ways. The most obvious way is not being in US territory, and not being held in a US prison abroad. Such a prison would be extraterritorial jurisdiction. Similarly, being in one of the foreign embassies to the US means that you are in US territory while not being under US jurisdiction. Flying in a foreign plane flying over the US also means that you are in US territorial skies, while being in the jurisdiction of the country where the plane is registered. Meanwhile, if you are in the American parts of the ISS, you are not on US territory, but you are under US jurisdiction. Diplomatic immunity is just one way not to fall under US jurisdiction.

However, principally, if you are in the territory of a state, you fall under their jurisdiction automatically, unless they have lost control. For instance, if you are in Northern Cyprus, you will be in Cypriot territory, while being under Turkish jurisdiction. Same goes for Cuba and Guantanamo Bay. However, in the rule, if you are in a nation’s territory, you fall under their jurisdiction, which gives them legal power over you.

Would the scenario in which Trump manages to exclude illegal immigrants from US jurisdiction, knowingly or otherwise, be an exception to this? They’re being singled out after all, which I don’t think would have much precedent to fall back on.

The president cannot exclude individuals from US jurisdiction, I think, but you would have to ask a constitutional lawyer. It would certainly not be desirable. It would mean immunity from the laws of the US. People could steal, burn, riot, kill, without being held accountable before a court of law. Congress could do it in principle, but imagine what such blanket immunity before the law would entail.

[Vince Vaughn]

Ending birthright citizenship for foreigners and heavily punishing people who employee illegals would basically end the incentive for illegal immigration. Once you combine it with visa tracking so that people who overstay their visas can be deported quickly, you wouldn't even need a wall.

[Vassenor]

Ending birthright citizenship for foreigners and heavily punishing people who employee illegals would basically end the incentive for illegal immigration. Once you combine it with visa tracking so that people who overstay their visas can be deported quickly, you wouldn't even need a wall.

Or we could stop being asses to people just to sate the demographic anxiety of a few.

[Vince Vaughn]

Ending birthright citizenship for foreigners and heavily punishing people who employee illegals would basically end the incentive for illegal immigration. Once you combine it with visa tracking so that people who overstay their visas can be deported quickly, you wouldn't even need a wall.

Or we could stop being asses to people just to sate the demographic anxiety of a few.

How does what I described constitute being an "ass"?

[Shrillland]

Here is a map of countries with Jus soli: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli# ... _world.svg

Makes me wonder if new world colonisation has anything to do with the disparity there.

It does, actually, for two reasons. First, it was to make sure that the children of colonists did not have to go through any hoops to be citizens of their respective colonies. Second, and in more modern times, it has to do with the fact that since no nation in the Americas truly has a ethno-national identity like the European and Asian nations do, and some of them are based more on ideas than people groups, it only stands to reason that any person born in one of these countries is a citizen of that country because the national identity is whatever the people say it is.

[Vince Vaughn]

Second, and in more modern times, it has to do with the fact that since no nation in the Americas truly has a ethno-national identity like the European and Asian nations do

For most of American history, this was not true at all.

[Neutraligon]

Ending birthright citizenship for foreigners and heavily punishing people who employee illegals would basically end the incentive for illegal immigration. Once you combine it with visa tracking so that people who overstay their visas can be deported quickly, you wouldn't even need a wall.

It would also create massive problems for things like the hospitality industry as well as for farmers. Well, that is if all you do is increase the punishment. If you create more Visas for migrant workers, you might be able to forestall the issue.

[Shrillland]

Second, and in more modern times, it has to do with the fact that since no nation in the Americas truly has a ethno-national identity like the European and Asian nations do

For most of American history, this was not true at all.

Oh, I know that. Hell, my ancestors hid in North Carolina for years because it was a nation for white people. In the last few decades, however, we've become so open and accepting, for the most part, that saying the American ethnicity is white is kind of silly.

[Neutraligon]

Second, and in more modern times, it has to do with the fact that since no nation in the Americas truly has a ethno-national identity like the European and Asian nations do

For most of American history, this was not true at all.

Given that the various colonies and then the various states took on the characteristics of the various European countries that colonized them, I would say it is very much true. New York always had a different culture and in the beginning different nationality to say...Florida or Georgia.

[Vince Vaughn]

Ending birthright citizenship for foreigners and heavily punishing people who employee illegals would basically end the incentive for illegal immigration. Once you combine it with visa tracking so that people who overstay their visas can be deported quickly, you wouldn't even need a wall.

It would also create massive problems for things like the hospitality industry as well as for farmers.

So what? They've been profiting off of illegally low wages for years. While I understand these industries seem to think they should be above the law, but that is really wrong. By making them compete fairly in the legal market, while it might make things more expensive, the new prices would also be reflective of what their actual cost of business should be. If that means that a lot of companies suffer because they can't compete, then that's on them.

Well, that is if all you do is increase the punishment. If you create more Visas for migrant workers, you might be able to forestall the issue.

The number of visas issued is a separate issue, and that number should vary on a seasonal, as-needed basis. What I'm talking about is closing these morally questionable loopholes.

[Vince Vaughn]

For most of American history, this was not true at all.

Given that the various colonies and then the various states took on the characteristics of the various European countries that colonized them, I would say it is very much true. New York always had a different culture and in the beginning different nationality to say...Florida or Georgia.

Different parts of the U.S. having different ethnic identities doesn't mean that they don't (or didn't, rather) have ethnic identities.

[Jazz Commies and Sexy Astrophysicists]

One thing that I always find funny about these debates is that migrant workers help the U.S. economy and the nation as a whole by allowing food prices to be as cheap as they are. But ethno-nationalism of so many of the citizens in affect hinders the country's ability to exploit these same people (albeit for terrible reasons).

[Vince Vaughn]

For most of American history, this was not true at all.

Oh, I know that. Hell, my ancestors hid in North Carolina for years because it was a nation for white people. In the last few decades, however, we've become so open and accepting, for the most part, that saying the American ethnicity is white is kind of silly.

Since the end of World War II, that's more or less been true. But it was certainly not the case when our first citizenship and immigration laws were created.

[Vince Vaughn]

One thing that I always find funny about these debates is that migrant workers help the U.S. economy and the nation as a whole by allowing food prices to be as cheap as they are. But ethno-nationalism of so many of the citizens in affect hinders the country's ability to exploit these same people (albeit for terrible reasons).

They "help" the us economy by allowing employers to take advantage of a black market. People who employ illegals benefit in the same way slave owners "benefited" from having free labor.