6 ms·

In this case, the president does not have the authority under the constitution to purport to invalidate the citizenship of natural-born citizens. It is the exec

In this case, the president does not have the authority under the constitution to purport to invalidate the citizenship of natural-born citizens. It is the executive that broke the proper functioning of the government.

thatfrenchguy 1y ago
I know words are just words, but trying to re-interpret "subject to the jurisdiction" is such a ridiculous over-reach. Enjoy the chaos though, because some later administration as a revenge will very likely strip the rights of folks who can't show a naturalization certificate in the same way.
indil 1y ago
Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country: "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." Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born in America to tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side. Even the author of the 14th amendment said that was the point of that clause. Even in logical terms it makes sense: You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable. However, this case wasn't about citizenship. It was about the broader issue of lower courts issuing restraining orders outside their jurisdictions. It's a recipe for chaos. There's a reason why there are multiple jurisdictions, and courts are limited to their jurisdictions. What happens when two lower courts issue conflicting nationwide orders? The only court in the US that has jurisdiction over the entire country is the Supreme Court. This was a losing battle. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about addressing problems. Court cases are sometimes more about the core issues involved than the concrete circumstances. Sure, birthright citizenship was the reason for the suit, but the core issue was judicial overreach. Don't get mad because the way your side was "winning" was by cheating, and they were stopped. Try having an actual good argument, and doing things the right way by arguing the actual case in a court.
- EasyMark 1y ago
  It's not valid. When you're in a country you are subject to it's laws, whether it's the USA or Somalia
  - Jensson 1y ago
    If you are an undocumented immigrant so the country doesn't know about you then its arguable.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      No it's not. In fact the concept of "undocumented immigrant" or even just "immigrant" only makes sense in the context of an asserted jurisdiction.
    - boothby 1y ago
      If a foreign diplomat is pulled over by the cops after running over a pedestrian, they can flash an ID card and drive away. If an undocumented immigrant does the same, they go directly to jail and probably get deported in short order. That's what jurisdiction means. In ordinary times, the notion of establishing precedent that immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the US would be met with sputtering indignance for all but the most idealistic anarchists. Because that goes way beyond open borders, it promotes foreigners to super-citizens untouchable by the law.
    - 1659447091 1y ago
      I mean they paid some $97 Billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022 [0], the country knows about them, and taxes them. They contribute so much to the economy Texas refuses to have business verify worker's work status for fear of the economic impact it would have. [0] https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/ https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/
    - freen 1y ago
      They are not subject to the law of the land and can act with full legal immunity?
EasyMark 1y ago
I really don't understand why they didn't turn the case into a 14th amendment case. I guess they wanted to provide more slack and time for their benefactor and political ally (SCOTUS conservatives <--> Trump)

thatfrenchguy 1y ago

I know words are just words, but trying to re-interpret "subject to the jurisdiction" is such a ridiculous over-reach. Enjoy the chaos though, because some later administration as a revenge will very likely strip the rights of folks who can't show a naturalization certificate in the same way.

indil 1y ago

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country: "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." Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born in America to tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side. Even the author of the 14th amendment said that was the point of that clause. Even in logical terms it makes sense: You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable. However, this case wasn't about citizenship. It was about the broader issue of lower courts issuing restraining orders outside their jurisdictions. It's a recipe for chaos. There's a reason why there are multiple jurisdictions, and courts are limited to their jurisdictions. What happens when two lower courts issue conflicting nationwide orders? The only court in the US that has jurisdiction over the entire country is the Supreme Court. This was a losing battle. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about addressing problems. Court cases are sometimes more about the core issues involved than the concrete circumstances. Sure, birthright citizenship was the reason for the suit, but the core issue was judicial overreach. Don't get mad because the way your side was "winning" was by cheating, and they were stopped. Try having an actual good argument, and doing things the right way by arguing the actual case in a court.

EasyMark 1y ago
It's not valid. When you're in a country you are subject to it's laws, whether it's the USA or Somalia
- Jensson 1y ago
  If you are an undocumented immigrant so the country doesn't know about you then its arguable.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    No it's not. In fact the concept of "undocumented immigrant" or even just "immigrant" only makes sense in the context of an asserted jurisdiction.
  - boothby 1y ago
    If a foreign diplomat is pulled over by the cops after running over a pedestrian, they can flash an ID card and drive away. If an undocumented immigrant does the same, they go directly to jail and probably get deported in short order. That's what jurisdiction means. In ordinary times, the notion of establishing precedent that immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the US would be met with sputtering indignance for all but the most idealistic anarchists. Because that goes way beyond open borders, it promotes foreigners to super-citizens untouchable by the law.
  - 1659447091 1y ago
    I mean they paid some $97 Billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022 [0], the country knows about them, and taxes them. They contribute so much to the economy Texas refuses to have business verify worker's work status for fear of the economic impact it would have. [0] https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/ https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/
  - freen 1y ago
    They are not subject to the law of the land and can act with full legal immunity?

EasyMark 1y ago

I really don't understand why they didn't turn the case into a 14th amendment case. I guess they wanted to provide more slack and time for their benefactor and political ally (SCOTUS conservatives <--> Trump)