4 ms·

Most of the world doesn't have unconditional birth right citizenship. It somehow functions and is not fascist.

cjk 1y ago
The bit that’s fascist is that birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the US Constitution, and the current administration is openly flouting it.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  The debate is over what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, it's misleading to simply announce it's guaranteed - the whole legal argument is over whether it is guaranteed.
  - magicalist 1y ago
    > it's misleading to simply announce it's guaranteed. Let's not pretend all assertions are equally worth entertaining. Maybe it's "misleading" if you're Stephen Miller, but every court case where it's ever been heard and the legislative record at the time of adopting the 14th amendment show that citizenship is guaranteed. The Trump administration hasn't even raised it in appeals!
    - Amezarak 1y ago
      The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me. > Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"[30]—a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.[32]
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > The author of the clause… That'd be a deeply ironic thing to cite as evidence for this court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism "Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is based exclusively on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law." Legislative intent didn't save the Voting Rights Act, or the EPA.
      - magicalist 1y ago
        > He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons" yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction. Meanwhile: > The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . Here is a simple declaration that a score or a few score of human beings born in the United States shall be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment for crime with other citizens; and that such a provision should be deprecated by any person having or claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension. (the "declared that by law" is referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that Howard used as the basis of the 14th amendment: "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States")
        FireBeyond 1y ago
        > yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction. What? Absolutely you are. Are you trying to claim there's some strange diplomatic immunity here?
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    If these folks aren't subject to our jurisdiction, how does one manage to deport them?
  - EasyMark 1y ago
    as soon as you step foot in the USA you are subject to its jurisdiction. Just like if you go to Canada or Zimbabwe and break a law there. You would be laughed at with much gusto for breaking the law and telling them they don't have jurisdiction.
EasyMark 1y ago
that doesn't matter, they also don't have a 14th amendment that is very easy to read and understand, even for those with fascistic tendencies.
const_cast 1y ago
The difference is the US does, and it's explicitly in our constitution. We're walking it back on a road to authoritarianism. I think we all know if this were any other amendment, people would be losing their god damn minds.

cjk 1y ago

The bit that’s fascist is that birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the US Constitution, and the current administration is openly flouting it.

Amezarak 1y ago
The debate is over what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, it's misleading to simply announce it's guaranteed - the whole legal argument is over whether it is guaranteed.
- magicalist 1y ago
  > it's misleading to simply announce it's guaranteed. Let's not pretend all assertions are equally worth entertaining. Maybe it's "misleading" if you're Stephen Miller, but every court case where it's ever been heard and the legislative record at the time of adopting the 14th amendment show that citizenship is guaranteed. The Trump administration hasn't even raised it in appeals!
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me. > Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"[30]—a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.[32]
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > The author of the clause… That'd be a deeply ironic thing to cite as evidence for this court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism "Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is based exclusively on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law." Legislative intent didn't save the Voting Rights Act, or the EPA.
    - magicalist 1y ago
      > He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons" yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction. Meanwhile: > The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . Here is a simple declaration that a score or a few score of human beings born in the United States shall be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment for crime with other citizens; and that such a provision should be deprecated by any person having or claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension. (the "declared that by law" is referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that Howard used as the basis of the 14th amendment: "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States")
      - FireBeyond 1y ago
        > yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction. What? Absolutely you are. Are you trying to claim there's some strange diplomatic immunity here?
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  If these folks aren't subject to our jurisdiction, how does one manage to deport them?
- EasyMark 1y ago
  as soon as you step foot in the USA you are subject to its jurisdiction. Just like if you go to Canada or Zimbabwe and break a law there. You would be laughed at with much gusto for breaking the law and telling them they don't have jurisdiction.

EasyMark 1y ago

that doesn't matter, they also don't have a 14th amendment that is very easy to read and understand, even for those with fascistic tendencies.

const_cast 1y ago

The difference is the US does, and it's explicitly in our constitution. We're walking it back on a road to authoritarianism. I think we all know if this were any other amendment, people would be losing their god damn minds.