And yeah, we all need to be worried about an interpretation that being in America somehow does not place a person under the justification of the American justice system and all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
The Constitution references “under the jurisdiction of the United States” so if they do rule that these people aren’t entitled to Constitutional rights, I’m curious how that doesn’t also mean that these people are immune from US laws too. You can’t claim these people aren’t protected by our laws while also claiming that they’re subject to those same laws.
You can’t claim these people aren’t protected by our laws while also claiming that they’re subject to those same laws.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Historically “not under the jurisdiction of the United States” meant exactly what you think it meant. It meant that they were not subject to the laws of the US and was a status commonly called “diplomatic immunity”.
I agree with your conclusion that people cannot be both immune from rights and subject to law, but sadly the courts have disagreed.
The Constitution references “under the jurisdiction of the United States” so if they do rule that these people aren’t entitled to Constitutional rights, I’m curious how that doesn’t also mean that these people are immune from US laws too. You can’t claim these people aren’t protected by our laws while also claiming that they’re subject to those same laws.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Historically “not under the jurisdiction of the United States” meant exactly what you think it meant. It meant that they were not subject to the laws of the US and was a status commonly called “diplomatic immunity”.
I agree with your conclusion that people cannot be both immune from rights and subject to law, but sadly the courts have disagreed.
They won’t claim it outloud but they already operate under this interpretation.