"Jurisdiction" has nothing to do with geography. It has to do with the political alliance with the US
This is another half-baked policy idea probably from Steven Miller to simply fire up the base (as you can see on this board, all of sudden all the trumpets are constitutional scholars) and distract from all of the recent negative news for him. if he goes forward with it, he will be challenged instantaneously. Don't fall for yet another twisted "distract and conquer" ploy from the manipulator in chief.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...s-wrong/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.915f132c3fe9 Shades of Avenatti-never-won-a-case... https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/avenatti-the-slayer.321054/page-27
That's your best example?! Wow. 155 years ago and he was pro-slavery (a view that's closer to you conservatives than progressives.) ---- hint, the more you speak, the dumber you make your conservative brethren sound.
Wiki is correct! I may be wrong about this but I believe there was a more recent ruling in a California District Court since Ark. You're a lawyer. Can you find the ruling for us? There is no such thing as an anchor baby if that term is meant to imply that a child born here regardless of the parents status is automatically a citizen, as many on the radical right seem to think. That should be obvious to all, since the DACA folks would not be under threat of deportation were they automatically citizens by virtue of being born here. Many DACA young adults were not actually born in the US but were brought here at a very young age and grew up here. They are clearly not citizens, but neither are DACA people that were born here to parents that were here on Visas or here illegally. There really isn't an "anchor baby problem", there is a DACA problem. And that should not be a problem. Common sense says that we would find a way to citizenship for these folks, but at the same time start rigidly enforcing visas and cracking down on illegal entry. The latterwe already started doing under Obama. Trump has simply exploited and clouded the definition of anchor babies and used this issue to instill divisiveness. When it comes to Trump, one could say there is a CACA problem! The Ark case involved a child born to permanent residents. Since then, children born to permanent residents have always been U.S. Citizens. I recall reading that a much more recent case brought in a California District Court involved parents here on valid visas or here illegally. But if I read that here in a ET forum than all bets are off as to its reliability. There is tremendous confusion on this issue thanks to our hate inciting, demagogue President. ____________________ Cautionary Note: If I am correct, and hopefully I am not, and there was a California District Court ruling that a baby born to non-citizens here illegally or temporarily (on VISA) is a citizen , crazy as that sounds, then the situation would be very clouded indeed. I might add that District Court decisions are not binding in other jurisdictions -- rest assured jem will correct me if this is not right -- so in other states the ruling would not apply unless adjudicated in that State, or unless appealed to and adjudicated in the Supreme Court. When you think about it, the United States is really just a collection of independent little countries with mostly their own laws and a shared army. You can be executed in one State for the same crime you can not be executed for in another State. You can have legal sex with someone in one State that is illegal in another state, and on and on. God Bless America. What a "Country"!
Oh look... the 60 year old internet lurking fag hag from Canada has decreed that we should eliminate the Second Amendment
Ensign Buttlick, your dear leader Trump awaits: And he wishes to thank you in advance for your servicing.
Not going to drift all over the place with you as you lose your focus. But in general, this is just basic Judicial Rulings 101, where- as part of the remedy phase and ruling of the decision- the courts get to decide whether decisions that adversely affect parties are to be applied retro-actively or going forward or pursuant to a negotiated agreement between the parties on various elements. And would apply to this issue at hand. Done on this topic for today. Thank you for playing.