I don’t think that birthright citizenship for the children of people not in the USA legally is as clearly established in the Constitution as some people say.
I have read the 14th amendment, and so have the people arguing against birthright citizenship as it exists now. Here’s what they have to say. Some excerpts:
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.
Presumably you disagree with the Heritage Foundation (I’m quite surprised to find myself agreeing with them here) but they are in fact well-informed about the text of the Constitution, its history, and relevant case law.
Edit: Does tagging people like this work? I don’t want to post the same reply multiple times.
You’re quoting the people who literally wrote the plan on how to usurp democracy and install Trump as a dictator, and holding them up as some kind of reliable expert on what the constitution says.
That’s my point. These are the guys who wrote the plan to end birthright citizenship and “read the 14th amendment” doesn’t go very far against them because they have. Neither does “the meaning of the 14th amendment is obvious” because they’re constitutional lawyers and they’re saying it isn’t. They may still very well be wrong, but they aren’t “ha ha, you haven’t even heard of the constitution” wrong.
The original intent of “subject to the jurisdiction of” means areas of the US not under foreign military occupation, or diplomats, and anyone working with diplomats in a diplomatic mission. And probably includes the inside of the embassy/consolate. And maybe the UN building. But it was not supposed to mean anything to do with nationality. And I think “being here illegally” is also very problematic. Like are the enslaved people here “legally”? The 14th amendment was used to give citizenship to enslaved people. Enslaved people aren’t considered people in terms of citizenship, and the moment slavery was outlawed, do enslaved people become “illegal immigrants”. So are we just gonna remove citizenship from every decendent of an enslaved person in the us?
How do we even know who is here legally and who’s not. And what if we found an “illegal” immigrant that entered in the 1900s, are we gonna deport every of their decendents?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Personally I think it’s clear but this little clause leaves enough wiggle room for the current supreme court to effectively end it. Again I want to stress that I think it’s ridiculous, but legal reasoning being extremely flimsy hasn’t stopped them yet. Listen to a few five to four podcast episodes and you’ll find flimsier.
Flood v Kuhn might be the dumbest if not the most egregious decision. Basically professional baseball is immune to antitrust law because … one of the justices really liked it?
Castle Rock v Gonzalez. Content warning, the circumstances of the case are dark. Basically even if a state law explicitly directs a police officer to protect someone, said officer can just not. No reason required. Because of tradition or some shit
It will be interesting (and terrifying) to see what kind of legal knots they tie themselves into to argue that immigrants are not subject to the law when it comes to protections but are subject to the law when it comes to enforcement.
Everyone down voting this clearly hasn’t read the 14th amendment and thought about all the ways you could interpret “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
I’m not saying I agree with it, it’s easy to see how you could intentionally try to spin that to mean essentially “…under the legal jurisdiction thereof…”
And who ultimately decides what the “correct” interpretation is? Not you or me…it’s the Supreme Court
I don’t think that birthright citizenship for the children of people not in the USA legally is as clearly established in the Constitution as some people say.
Read the 14th amendment.
I have read the 14th amendment, and so have the people arguing against birthright citizenship as it exists now. Here’s what they have to say. Some excerpts:
Presumably you disagree with the Heritage Foundation (I’m quite surprised to find myself agreeing with them here) but they are in fact well-informed about the text of the Constitution, its history, and relevant case law.
Edit: Does tagging people like this work? I don’t want to post the same reply multiple times.
/u/thebardingreen@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz
/u/IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
/u/_cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You’re quoting the people who literally wrote the plan on how to usurp democracy and install Trump as a dictator, and holding them up as some kind of reliable expert on what the constitution says.
That’s my point. These are the guys who wrote the plan to end birthright citizenship and “read the 14th amendment” doesn’t go very far against them because they have. Neither does “the meaning of the 14th amendment is obvious” because they’re constitutional lawyers and they’re saying it isn’t. They may still very well be wrong, but they aren’t “ha ha, you haven’t even heard of the constitution” wrong.
The original intent of “subject to the jurisdiction of” means areas of the US not under foreign military occupation, or diplomats, and anyone working with diplomats in a diplomatic mission. And probably includes the inside of the embassy/consolate. And maybe the UN building. But it was not supposed to mean anything to do with nationality. And I think “being here illegally” is also very problematic. Like are the enslaved people here “legally”? The 14th amendment was used to give citizenship to enslaved people. Enslaved people aren’t considered people in terms of citizenship, and the moment slavery was outlawed, do enslaved people become “illegal immigrants”. So are we just gonna remove citizenship from every decendent of an enslaved person in the us?
How do we even know who is here legally and who’s not. And what if we found an “illegal” immigrant that entered in the 1900s, are we gonna deport every of their decendents?
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
What’s unclear about this to you?
Personally I think it’s clear but this little clause leaves enough wiggle room for the current supreme court to effectively end it. Again I want to stress that I think it’s ridiculous, but legal reasoning being extremely flimsy hasn’t stopped them yet. Listen to a few five to four podcast episodes and you’ll find flimsier.
Flood v Kuhn might be the dumbest if not the most egregious decision. Basically professional baseball is immune to antitrust law because … one of the justices really liked it?
https://shows.acast.com/5-4-premium/episodes/60a43606b9651700192ddc69
Castle Rock v Gonzalez. Content warning, the circumstances of the case are dark. Basically even if a state law explicitly directs a police officer to protect someone, said officer can just not. No reason required. Because of tradition or some shit
https://shows.acast.com/5-4-premium/episodes/60a43606b9651700192ddc7d
To say nothing of cases like Buck v Bell, Plessy v Ferguson, etc.
It will be interesting (and terrifying) to see what kind of legal knots they tie themselves into to argue that immigrants are not subject to the law when it comes to protections but are subject to the law when it comes to enforcement.
Everyone down voting this clearly hasn’t read the 14th amendment and thought about all the ways you could interpret “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
I’m not saying I agree with it, it’s easy to see how you could intentionally try to spin that to mean essentially “…under the legal jurisdiction thereof…”
And who ultimately decides what the “correct” interpretation is? Not you or me…it’s the Supreme Court
It is perfectly clear, and the wording leaves no interpretation to it.
bro really being a 🤡
Read more constitution, not 4chan