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

191–200 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#191

Post by [deleted] »

wang_li wrote: post #187
fmobus wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#192

Post by rayiner »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #168
rayiner wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Oh, please, this is just blatant sanewashing. Anyone who does not have an explicit exclusion is under the jurisdiction of US laws while on US soil. There's zero room for ambiguity unless you're coming in bad faith with politically motivated intent. Or are you seriously arguing there's an interpretation where illegal immigrants can commit any crime they want and can't be deported?

Where does it say "jurisdiction" only refers to criminal law? Diplomats aren't excluded from being subject to civil laws for "commercial activities," and U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats in suits pertaining to such activities.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#193

Post by rayiner »

cogman10 wrote: post #161
rayiner wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what does “subject to the jurisdiction” mean, from a textualist standpoint? The word “jurisdiction” in the law can have different meanings in different contexts. What does it mean here?

> 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. Notice the "and" clause before the "subject to the jurisdiction". It means "everyone who is born in the united states and additionally everyone who is subject to a US jurisdiction". It's the clause which allows people born on US military bases to also…

No, the "and" functions the same way as in programming: "(born or naturalized in the U.S.) && (subject to the jurisdiction thereof)" requires both things to be true.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#194

Post by fmobus »

rayiner wrote: post #185
stvltvs wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

A child of recognized foreign diplomat, if born in US soil, however, is not a US citizen at birth. And if they try to claim that later in life, it will be denied.

This has always been like that. All jus soli countries do it.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#195

Post by rayiner »

toast0 wrote: post #157
rayiner wrote: post #90

[flagged]

Your deleted post elsewhere mentioned the text of the 1866 civil rights act stating not subject to a foreign power, but the amendment uses this text instead. IMHO, that shows awareness of the issue and a different choice. Also, IMHO, The Indian Citizenship act addresses the complex soverignity of native tribes. Members of recognized tribes, on reservations have broad exclusion from laws of the State and in many cases…

> Your deleted post elsewhere mentioned the text of the 1866 civil rights act stating not subject to a foreign power, but the amendment uses this text instead. IMHO, that shows awareness of the issue and a different choice.

Couldn't it go either way? The 1866 civil rights act says: "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed."

The 14th amendment says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

I agree that Congress could have intended the different language to have different meaning. But it seems plausible to me that Congress intended the 14th amendment to have the same scope as the law it had drafted just two years earlier, but just used slightly different language.

> The Indian Citizenship act addresses the complex soverignity of native tribes. Members of recognized tribes, on reservations have broad exclusion from laws of the State and in many cases are also excluded from jurisdiction of Federal law. This complexity has changed over time, but in 1924 it certainly wasn't clear that Indians were subject to the jursisdiction of the United States

Members of tribes on tribal land have been subject to federal law since 1817, though crimes committed by tribe members against other tribe members on tribal land were within the jurisdiction of the tribes. So you had and have a system of concurrent federal and tribal jurisdiction.

But the same complexity applies to foreign nationals too. Countries have jurisdiction over the conduct of their citizens even as to overseas conduct. For example, the U.S. government exercises jurisdiction over Americans who engage in child sex tourism by American nationals in Thailand.

I don’t find it compelling to read “subject to the jurisdiction” to mean “being subject to U.S. laws.” That proves too much and doesn’t justify the acknowledge exceptions. I think there’s a good reason Roberts focused heavily on the common law to buttress up the text.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#196

Post by fmobus »

ventana wrote: post #190
fmobus wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

I look forward to reading the SCOTUS opinions on "US vs Chnr'xu@jjjjjj".

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#197

Post by rayiner »

fmobus wrote: post #167
thehoff wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question. Isn't this statement aimed at citizenship tourism or whatever its called? I used to live in a state where some new friends had told us about places that facilitated pregnant women's trips to the US solely for the purpose of staying and giving birth in the US so the child could become citizens. They then head home. I have no idea how prevalent this is.

Well, it doesn't matter. If the SCOTUS decides that some people, in certain circumstances, are not in jurisdiction of US law, then they have to apply that notion everywhere. They can't pick and choose "oh no they are in jurisdiction of law A but not in law B". Jurisdiction is a fundamental concept, there's no middle ground. As for whether people are really doing birth tourism: sure, there might be some cases, but wel…

Jurisdiction is not some singular concept that means the same thing in every context. You can have jurisdiction over some things in some contexts and not have jurisdiction over other things in other contexts.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#198

Post by defen »

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…

"US jurisdiction" also includes foreign heads of state residing in, and present in, their own country. I don't think a theoretical definition of jurisdiction is tenable; only a realist one.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#199

Post by rayiner »

paxys wrote: post #24

The most obvious read of the constitution in the world still being a 6-3 verdict shows the state of the Supreme Court today.

What does "subject to the jurisdiction" "obviously" mean, keeping in mind that everyone agrees children of diplomats aren't citizens at birth, but U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats for some activities?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#200

Post by cogman10 »

rayiner wrote: post #193
cogman10 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Notice the "and" clause before the "subject to the jurisdiction". It means "everyone who is born in the united states and additionally everyone who is subject to a US jurisdiction". It's the clause which allows people born on US military bases to also…

No, the "and" functions the same way as in programming: "(born or naturalized in the U.S.) && (subject to the jurisdiction thereof)" requires both things to be true.

Not according to the supreme court any time this has come up.
Post reply on HN