Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#181

Post by fmobus »

wang_li wrote: post #173
fmobus wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jurisdiction clause is there because of diplomats. It's a common thing in other Jus Solis countries, for good reason.

Diplomats are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, that's why we have immunity agreements and we can order them out of the country. We also don't recognize the children of invading armies as citizens. Native Americans don't automatically get citizenship from the constitution. They get it from an act of congress in 1924.

They are not subject to jurisdiction, where the hell did you get that idea? If a diplomat does something that would be a crime in the US, they are _asked_ to leave via diplomatic channels. They usually leave on their own. If they were under US jurisdiction, they could be TRIED in the US, but that basically never happens. The only few exceptions you will find to this were either cases where a) the person was not really immune to begin with b) their country waived the immunity or c) the immunity lapsed because the person did not leave the country in a reasonable timeframe after being asked to

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#182

Post by mothballed »

archagon wrote: post #152
mothballed wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS has not had anything remotely close to a plain text reading since the 1930s and probably longer. "Shall not be infringed" was changed to "if an infantry rifle was made after 1986 then magically it can be infringed" and (until about a week ago when it was overturned) "if you smoke a left-handed cigarette actually the second amendment doesn't exist." The 1st amendment protects freedom of speech but yet it's lega…

An aside, but it’s a bit funny to focus on the plain-text reading of “shall not be infringed” and not “a well-regulated militia.”

Give me a plain-text explanation as to why a well-regulated militia can be infringed from having a 1987 select fire infantry rifle but not a 1985 one, both of which are probably the most bread and butter arms you could possibly consider as part of a well-regulated militia. (This despite the plain-text ascribes the right to "people" not the militia, and in any case US code defines virtually every able bodied citizen male as part of the militia). The NFA determinations by SCOTUS don't make sense even if the amendment said it was the militia's right rather than the people's.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#183

Post by fmobus »

rayiner wrote: post #175
fmobus wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that because jurisdiction is such a fundamental concept that it needs no further specification. It's fundamental to any system of laws, if a jurisdiction is not defined, the system of laws is useless. Running a legal system without a jurisdiction is like running computer code without memory space. The US legal system defined everyone in its soil to be under its jurisdiction, _except diplomats_, because of dip…

> If an illegal immigrant kills a person while in the US, they get tried according to US law. If a diplomat kills a person in the US, they do not get tried because the US has no jurisdiction over that diplomat. Diplomats have diplomatic immunity , which is not the same thing as jurisdiction . For example, diplomatic immunity doesn't extend to a diplomat's commercial activities: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diploma…

> We have to look to international standards concerning latin phrases to understand what Americans meant by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction," but that isn't "complicated?" If you say so.

It really isn't, it's literally what lawyers do for a living.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#184

Post by fmobus »

stvltvs wrote: post #172
fmobus wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that because jurisdiction is such a fundamental concept that it needs no further specification. It's fundamental to any system of laws, if a jurisdiction is not defined, the system of laws is useless. Running a legal system without a jurisdiction is like running computer code without memory space. The US legal system defined everyone in its soil to be under its jurisdiction, _except diplomats_, because of dip…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but jurisdiction can be summarized as whoever is subject to the law and the rule of the courts.

Yes that's my position.

A person who is not under jurisdiction (e.g., putatively, the illegal immigrants), cannot be prosecuted.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#185

Post by rayiner »

stvltvs wrote: post #172
fmobus wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that because jurisdiction is such a fundamental concept that it needs no further specification. It's fundamental to any system of laws, if a jurisdiction is not defined, the system of laws is useless. Running a legal system without a jurisdiction is like running computer code without memory space. The US legal system defined everyone in its soil to be under its jurisdiction, _except diplomats_, because of dip…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but jurisdiction can be summarized as whoever is subject to the law and the rule of the courts.

Everyone on U.S. soil is subject to the law and rule of the courts to some extent, including diplomats. Diplomats are immune to prosecution for crimes, but that's different than being outside the jurisdiction of U.S. laws.

For example, in 2013 several Russian diplomats were indicted for Medicaid fraud: https://abcnews.com/US/russian-diplomats-scammed-medicaid-15.... They had diplomatic immunity, so the U.S. had to get the Russian government to waive the diplomatic immunity. But if Russia waived the immunity, the prosecution could proceed even though the diplomats had diplomatic immunity at the time the crime was committed.

Moreover, diplomats are subject to civil liability for commercial activities beyond their office: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity. Diplomatic immunity doesn't protect them from suits in U.S. courts related to such activities.

So reading "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean "subject to the law and the rule of the courts" proves too much. The U.S. and its courts have some level of jurisdiction over everyone and everything on U.S. soil. So that makes the phrase "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" redundant--the words "subject to the jurisdiction" aren't doing any work that the phrase "in the United States" isn't already doing.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#186

Post by bigmadshoe »

sleepyguy wrote: post #156
iAMkenough wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While maybe a small scale issue, the solution isn’t an authoritative order that tries to rewrite the U.S. Constitution and bypass democracy.

Perhaps, but this is definitely an issue/problem and the US should model it's policy after the EU on this specific issue.

Do you have much evidence that this is a real problem on the scale of the US population? I would imagine a tiny percentage of citizens were anchor children (i.e. people whose parents came to the US purely to give birth to them, then left again)

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#187

Post by wang_li »

fmobus wrote: post #181
wang_li wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diplomats are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, that's why we have immunity agreements and we can order them out of the country. We also don't recognize the children of invading armies as citizens. Native Americans don't automatically get citizenship from the constitution. They get it from an act of congress in 1924.

They are not subject to jurisdiction, where the hell did you get that idea? If a diplomat does something that would be a crime in the US, they are _asked_ to leave via diplomatic channels. They usually leave on their own. If they were under US jurisdiction, they could be TRIED in the US, but that basically never happens. The only few exceptions you will find to this were either cases where a) the person was not reall…

If a diplomat is going on a shooting spree they can be shot and killed with no ensuing issues as a result of US law enforcement enforcing laws in the moment. If they are robbing a seven-eleven they can be arrested and held until arraignment. They can be ordered to remain in their home, aka house arrest. They can be ordered to leave and they have no option to remain in the country. The US constitution does not grant diplomats immunity it is something we have agreed to via treaty and law. They are 100% subject to our laws, that's why our law granting them immunity applies.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#188

Post by fmobus »

graemep wrote: post #103
Supermancho wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note: There are ~30ish countries that provide citizenship to anyone born within their national borders (many with restrictions, for whatever that may mean). Largely, this covers a spotting of countries across the globe, but is almost universally true within the Americas.

As far as I can see it is almost entirely countries in the Americas plus Pakistan that have real birthright citizenship. Everywhere else has some restriction such as stateless parents, or multiple generations born in the country, or a minimum period of residence or similar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

Hate to be that guy, but this a pet peeve of mine that pisses me of...

The term "birthright" means "a right that is derived from the circumstances of your birth". Virtually ALL countries grant citizenship by consequence of the circumstances of birth, but what circumstances they consider vary. For some countries, the circumstance is "birth happened in the soil of the country" (jus soli), for others, it's "birth was to parents who are citizens of our country".

I said "virtually", because there is one SINGLE exception. The Vatican. Ok, there's the SMOM, but do they even count?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#189

Post by rayiner »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #159
rayiner wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who didn’t have permission to not follow laws like diplomats or invaders. That doesn’t quite work, because diplomats and invaders do have to follow US laws and can be tried in U.S. courts. In Ex Parte Quirin , for example, nobody doubted that German saboteurs on U.S. soil could be prosecuted in civilian courts. And while diplomats have immunities in certain areas, they can be sued under U.S. law in U.S. courts for…

German saboteurs on us soil are certainly subject to us jurisdiction. If they had kids while here the kids would be citizens according to the 14th. Wong Kim talks of invaders who are working under a different set of laws because they’re part of a military invasion, not a clandestine operation. They can’t be tried because there is no American presence on the invaded territory. I think you’re stretching the definition…

> Wong Kim talks of invaders who are working under a different set of laws because they’re part of a military invasion, not a clandestine operation. They can’t be tried because there is no American presence on the invaded territory.

Whether the U.S. has jurisdiction over territory has nothing to do with whether it can enforce its jurisdiction as a practical matter. If someone blew up a court in a particular district, that would not mean that the court, as a legal entity, ceased to have jurisdiction. By your reasoning, if Mexico invades Texas, children of Mexican servicemen born on U.S. soil would qualify as U.S. citizens. I don't think that's correct.

> I think you’re stretching the definition of jurisdiction with the diplomat stuff. Sure they’re expected to follow laws, but with only a few exceptions if they break laws they just got sent home, not imprisoned.

Being immune from prosecution is different from not being subject to the law. Diplomats are subject to the laws just like anyone else. They have immunity from prosecution for crimes. But the U.S. can request the immunity be revoked, and if that happens, they can be prosecuted for crimes that occurred while the had immunity.

And diplomats can be sued in civil cases in U.S. courts for their commercial activities. They are very much subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, even if we can't always prosecute them for crimes.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#190

Post by ventana »

fmobus wrote: post #174
ventana wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And so we have the whole bench of 9 people guessing and discussing the intention of the lawmakers. Did they indeed mean diplomats when they wrote "subject of the jurisdiction thereof"? If a Martian lands on the US soil and gives birth, will the offspring immediately be "subject of the jurisdiction thereof"? What was the common meaning of the word "jurisdiction" in 1868? This kind of stuff.

Citizenship means having political rights. If it's decided at some point that a martian may have political rights...then yes, as it stands, their offspring would have citizenship upon birth/ejection/hatching/transmogrification or whatever means of reproduction they use. This is really no different than if we decided that a dolphin or a naked mole rat are able to hold political rights. If an understanding that this is…

You are surely oversimplifying it. The amendment clearly says "born or naturalized"; can hatching or transmogrification be considered a birth? We need to look at the original meaning of the word "born" in 1868.

Also, it does not say anything about having political rights, just about being a "person", which will surely start a separate debate :)

Post reply on HN