On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 10:57:45 PM UTC-4, Martin Eastburn wrote:
Your term - Basic Rights. Not full constitutional rights.

Martin

On 4/10/2017 9:14 AM, wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 12:08:41 AM UTC-4, Martin Eastburn wrote:
When living in the Trust of United Nations in the Pacific, the children
born there were given an option at their age of 21. (18 wasn't thought
of yet). They could decide on being a citizen of any of the United
Nations at the current year of decision. I think some parents got
ulcers with that but I never heard of one of the children of the
families I knew went anywhere except to the USA.

Anyone who treads on the USA land anywhere is subject to the laws.
It does not give them the rights of a citizen.

It gives them many civil rights -- due process, right to a jury, etc. Once they get past immigration, at an airport or whatever, they have the same basic civil rights as US citizens.

You can look this up easily; faster than the time it takes to get it wrong and type it out.

This is obvious since
those of many foreign nations have walked on our land and still remain
members of their country. Consider sport teams from Cuba and
elsewhere... Consider foreign Military here training. ...

"Walking on our land" doesn't make them US citizens. It just gives them the basic civil rights of citizens. Most of them are "subject to US jurisdiction," except for diplomats and certain other foreign nationals by agreement. Military here for training can go either way, depending on agreements, but they are entitled to basic civil rights while they're here.

The point here is that there is no "redundancy" in the 14th Amendment. There are just different types of cases, covered by the two phrases. This "redundancy" argument that Heritage has made is an old red herring that extreme conservatives have used before. It's not correct.


They can't vote and they can't run for federal elective office. Otherwise, under Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, (USSC 1953), they have pretty much the same rights as citizens.

Since 9/11, the Court has been willing to revisit some of that -- specifically, limitations to rights based on implementing statutes that relate to immigration.

That's a world apart from what you were saying.

--
Ed Huntress