4 ms·

Jurisdiction has to do with the location of the birth. If a child is born on US soil - whether that be US proper or US embassies in foreign countries (which ar

Jurisdiction has to do with the location of the birth. If a child is born on US soil - whether that be US proper or US embassies in foreign countries (which are treated as US soil), they are automatically a citizen. Note that it also explicitly skips foreign nationals born inside foreign embassies, which are treated as sovereign land of the hosted country - e.g., a French Embassy is French land, so a child born to a French ambassador is not a US citizen. The argument that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction would also be followed by the absurdity that law enforcement could not arrest them for crimes and ICE could not deport them... due to lack of jurisdiction.

Ancapistani 1y ago
My understanding on this topic has progressed quite a bit. Please see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44403323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44403323 > Note that it also explicitly skips foreign nationals born inside foreign embassies I’m unsure whether or not being on embassy grounds changes anything here in a general sense, but a child born to a foreign ambassador is not a US citizen regardless of birth location. The fact that the parents are foreign nationals working on behalf of a foreign nation means that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Of course, now I’m curious how things would shake out if, for instance, a foreign state appointed a US citizen as their ambassador to the US… > The argument that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction would also be followed by the absurdity that law enforcement could not arrest them for crimes and ICE could not deport them... due to lack of jurisdiction. This makes sense, but I want to know more about the specific legal process happening here. I believe we can agree on the following. Let me know if you disagree with any of these bullet points: - Ambassadors to the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US - Children of ambassadors to the US who are born in the US are not citizens of the US, barring extenuating circumstances such as at least one parent being a US citizen themselves. - The only available remedy in most cases for an ambassador violating US law is ejecting them from the country (deportation). In light of the above, if we assume in good faith that this administration believes that these people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then deportation is consistent with how similar cases are handled when the person in question is a foreign diplomat. To put it another way, if the US could not deport people without jurisdiction we would not be able to eject foreign diplomats. Given that we have done that in the past, _clearly_ the US does not require jurisdiction to for at least _some_ deportations.

Ancapistani 1y ago

My understanding on this topic has progressed quite a bit. Please see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44403323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44403323 > Note that it also explicitly skips foreign nationals born inside foreign embassies I’m unsure whether or not being on embassy grounds changes anything here in a general sense, but a child born to a foreign ambassador is not a US citizen regardless of birth location. The fact that the parents are foreign nationals working on behalf of a foreign nation means that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Of course, now I’m curious how things would shake out if, for instance, a foreign state appointed a US citizen as their ambassador to the US… > The argument that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction would also be followed by the absurdity that law enforcement could not arrest them for crimes and ICE could not deport them... due to lack of jurisdiction. This makes sense, but I want to know more about the specific legal process happening here. I believe we can agree on the following. Let me know if you disagree with any of these bullet points: - Ambassadors to the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US - Children of ambassadors to the US who are born in the US are not citizens of the US, barring extenuating circumstances such as at least one parent being a US citizen themselves. - The only available remedy in most cases for an ambassador violating US law is ejecting them from the country (deportation). In light of the above, if we assume in good faith that this administration believes that these people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then deportation is consistent with how similar cases are handled when the person in question is a foreign diplomat. To put it another way, if the US could not deport people without jurisdiction we would not be able to eject foreign diplomats. Given that we have done that in the past, _clearly_ the US does not require jurisdiction to for at least _some_ deportations.