hubbyofhoarder

Agreed. I've also had noni juice made the traditional way: the raw fruit is left in a steel vessel in the sun to rot. After it putrefies, the juice is drawn off. Supposedly the rotting enhances the medicinal properties.

It's terrible

Who is subject to US law is formally described in Federal law:

According to 31 CFR 515.329 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329), any person inside the United States is subject to its jurisdiction.

Further, 31 CFR 515.330 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.330) defines a person within the United States as "Any person actually within the United States".

Easy-peasy

No. That question is codified by statute:

According to 31 CFR 515.329 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329), any person inside the United States is subject to its jurisdiction.

Further, 31 CFR 515.330 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.330) defines a person within the United States as "Any person actually within the United States".

Passed in 1985 and revised several times since then.

It seems like the law is crystal clear here:

The 14th amendment to the US Con. is clear: If you are born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, you are a citizen.

According to 31 CFR 515.329 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329), any person inside the United States is subject to its jurisdiction.

Further, 31 CFR 515.330 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.330) defines a person within the United States as "Any person actually within the United States".

What Trump and Trumpeters don't understand is the issue of jurisdiction. If you are a person and on US soil, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. There is no exception for immigrants of any kind (temporary, legal, illegal, documented, undocumented) or visitors. All of those folks (and citizens) are subject to the laws of the US. It *has* to be so. If undocumented immigrants weren't subject to US jurisdiction they couldn't be deported or charged with crimes; both of those things are legal matters tried under the laws of the US.

The only carveout for US jurisdiction is for those on diplomatic passports; those folks are not subject to US law pursuant to treaty obligations with their home countries.

The "most countries" argument is irrelevant. The above is what our law says in clear and unambiguous language. Lawyers certainly have tricks up their sleeves. One of those tricks is interpreting laws by "the clear language of the statute". There is no wiggle room here. Trump will lose this one, and he knows it. Trump is simply throwing meat to his base prior to the mid-terms.

Then call the kid's bluff. If the kid won't leave, call the principal, and the foster parents and let them come to that class and get her. Take the other kids to the library or cafeteria. Part of her intransigence is that she's making a show for the other kids. Remove the other kids, and there is no show. If she were alone in a class with no other kids, only adults, the wind would go right out of her sails.

If an adult in a position of authority needs to manhandle a kid to get his or her way, the war was lost a long time ago with that kid.