5 ms·

To anyone who happens to be born on its soil, it actually is. And leaving people on bureaucratic limbo for decades is abusive.

by estebank 11mo ago

bill_joy_fanboy 11mo ago
[flagged]
- ivraatiems 11mo ago
  Effectively no legal scholars or judges of merit support that belief: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/how-birthright-citizenship-made-it-back-to-the-supreme-court/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/how-birthright-citizenshi...
  - bill_joy_fanboy 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ivraatiems 11mo ago
      I'm sure you know better than them due to your many years serving on courts of note.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - IAmBroom 11mo ago
      Alright, how about this rebuttal: That the Earth is round is also debatable. It is considered so by rational and informed people, however.
  - fl7305 11mo ago
    > Effectively no legal scholars or judges of merit support that belief And how did the "legal scholars or judges of merit" interpret the 2nd amendment in 1800? The same way as today? The constitution seems to have become a lot more flexible today than people should be comfortable with.
    - IAmBroom 11mo ago
      "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." NY Governor Charles Evans Hughes, 1907. No English sentence is without ambiguity in its meaning. If a controversy over meaning arises on a matter as important as law, we cannot function as a nation on the basis of, "Aw, everyone knows what they meant...". Whether the courts are currently too flexible is a matter of opinion, and unless you get nominated personally to the SCOTUS, an inconsequential one.
      - fl7305 11mo ago
        > we cannot function as a nation on the basis of, "Aw, everyone knows what they meant...". I guess that's fine when it comes to the 2nd, but not as fun when your opponents tries the same for the 14th?
- only-one1701 11mo ago
  Fantastic point, I assume you’re equally annoyed about how the right to bear arms has been removed from the contextual requirement that the armed be part of a well organized militia?
  - bill_joy_fanboy 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - IAmBroom 11mo ago
      But we're going to get to that, and Macs vs PCs, right?
- KK7NIL 11mo ago
  That is a total lie, the 14th amendment is absolutely clear and it was passed after the Civil War with the explicit point of granting citizenship to black slaves who, you'll notice, did not have citizen parents: > 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.
  - bill_joy_fanboy 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - toast0 11mo ago
      Even if you're here without permission, you can be tried in our courts, and are subject to our jurisdiction. I'm willing to be swayed, but it has to be compelling. Diplomatic immunity or maybe recognized tribal member on recognized reservation when they were being disenfranchised are the only times I'm aware of where people are physically within the States and DC and not subject to the jurrisdiction thereof. Perhaps if a child is born in an internation vessel at port, or in a duty free shop or a customs free trade zone. Territories and such get squishy, it's usually not clearly stated when the term United States is meant to include those portions of the country that are not a State; but the 14th ammendment is understood not to apply to territories. Citizenship at birth is granted in some territories (at least Puerto Rico) by federal legislation. That said, upthread you claimed: > this is only true if your parents were citizens And now you claim something about illegal aliens. There's a whole range of circumstances, some of which would have been uncontemplatable at the time of the 14th ammendment. If you are born in the US. You claim citizenship only if parentS are citizens. But if only one parent is a citizen, or both parents are permanent residents, or the parents are authorized visitors. For the historically impossible situation, what if the child is carried by a surrogate with authorized presence and the parents are non-citizens not present at birth ... that child is a US citizen by birth, and not included in your statement above.
    - 11mo ago
- CrulesAll 11mo ago
  @ivraatiems is effectively using a no True Scotsman argument.
  - ivraatiems 11mo ago
    You can just reply to me directly, you know :) "No True Scotsman" is not accurate here. This would actually be an appeal to authority. But the fact that it is one doesn't mean it has no merit. My implication is that the person I am responding to is ignorant of the state of the law, not that they must be wrong because others say they are.
    - CrulesAll 11mo ago
      There was no reply button. No it's definitely a True Scotsman. When you cherry pick what authority to quote, and therefore imply it's the only true position to have, it's a true Scotsman. Your next line affirms this. "My implication is that the person I am responding to is ignorant of the state of the law, " And now you've moved onto the Courtier's reply.
- Someone1234 11mo ago
  > The wording of the constitution indicates that this is only true if your parents were citizens. The Constitution doesn't define it at all, first off. The Fourteenth Amendment does. All the original Constitution says is that a "natural-born Citizen" is a requirement for President; and that per Article I, Section 8 congress has the power to define the mechanics of citizenship. The Fourteenth by contrast says plain text: > 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. So your claim is incorrect.
  - kelseyfrog 11mo ago
    Am I to understand that your claim is, "amendments aren't part of the constitution"?
    - Someone1234 11mo ago
      Amendments are amendments to the Constitution. They have the force of law. The person I was responding to was discussing the "wording of the constitution" so the location of the wording absolutely matters. In this case the "wording of the [original] constitution" is ambiguous, but the wording of the 14th is clear. Thus my reply.
      - kelseyfrog 11mo ago
        For reference, amendments are part of the constitution. This is specified in TITLE 1 CHAPTER 2 Sec. 106b. Of the US Code[1] which reads > Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States. Amendments have the same force as the Constitution because they are a part of the constitution. They are not simply laws. Thank you for allowing me to clarify. 1. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/united-states-code.html https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/unite...
- toast0 11mo ago
  Well, the constitution didn't make any statements about who was a citizen, just the 14th ammendment has this: > 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. Of course, being part of the Constitution, few of the terms are defined. But, as I read it, if you're born here outside of diplomatic immunity, you're a citizen. And I'd need a well referenced argument to understand why 'subject to the jurisdiction therof' means something other than how I interpret it.
- etchalon 11mo ago
  It's not debatable. Though it is being debated by people who want that to be the case because racism.
  - IAmBroom 11mo ago
    Now now. Some xenophobes hate people of their color as well.
- duped 11mo ago
  It was debated in 1898 and this argument lost.
  - bill_joy_fanboy 11mo ago
    And I'm reviving it.
    - duped 11mo ago
      Ok but why? This open disregard for constitutional law because you don't like immigrants is weird and gross.
- sashank_1509 11mo ago
  Something has been ignored by legislators for over a hundred years and just now you have discovered it’s true meaning which happens to perfectly align with your policy preferences. Please, just be honest and say you want to enact a policy and use the US Supreme Court to do it, rather than gaslighting us into believing that words don’t mean what they do.
sometimes_all 11mo ago
Hasn't the president signed an executive order that says birthright citizenship is not for children of non-citizens? I see that it's being challenged in court, but the order is currently valid, right?
- etchalon 11mo ago
  It is not valid.
- Kenji 11mo ago
  [dead]
- Spoom 11mo ago
  Executive orders cannot overrule the Constitution. 14th Amendment: "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." There are rumblings about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" somehow excluding folks based on their immigration status, but frankly, the meaning is clear, and jurisprudence recognizes this. The jurisdiction carveout is for international diplomats, i.e. people who are literally not subject to US law. Immigrants, even illegal immigrants, are subject to US law. Stating otherwise would have vast repercussions.
  - rootusrootus 11mo ago
    > Executive orders cannot overrule the Constitution. And I would hope this is a fairly universally held position, not so partisan. Today one side might cheer an executive order overriding the 14th amendment, but how will they feel if the next administration decides to pull the same stunt with the 2nd? We don't want to go there. There are already some states experimenting with doing end-runs around the Constitution with their own civil laws, and for similar reasons I would expect rational people to want that effort to fail.
    - fl7305 11mo ago
      >> Executive orders cannot overrule the Constitution. > I would hope this is a fairly universally held position, not so partisan. I agree. I think the constitution limits both the executive and the legislative branches. > how will they feel if the next administration decides to pull the same stunt with the 2nd? The 2nd amendment has already been overridden by federal laws without a constutional amendment. The 2nd used to mean that the states has a right to let their citizens arm themselves privately with military weapons. The federal government was forbidden by the 2nd to interfere with this. I'm from Europe and fine with the very restrictive licensing we have here. But it looks very shortsighted to wildly re-interpret the constitution far outside of the original meaning, instead of passing new amendments.
dontwannahearit 11mo ago
And it can also be a burden. If you are born on US soil to non-US nationals and therefore become an accidental American you are subject to US tax laws on worldwide income. In the UK at least banks will not sell you financial products with tax implications (pensions, tax exempt savings schemas (ISA's to the locals)) because of the US reporting requirements. And getting your citizenship revoked requires lawyering so its a PITA. I know some Americans will find it hard to believe but there are people who want out of this system and feel trapped in it.
- amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
  That is also a problem. US taxes on worldwide income is absurd. Especially if you don't live in the US.
- HaZeust 11mo ago
  Yeah, rights can be burdens - no shit. Other people's right to a jury can actually invade YOUR freedoms when jury duty compels you to come hear their case under threats of fines/jail time, but we accept that right as a burden for others.

To anyone who happens to be born on its soil, it actually is. And leaving people on bureaucratic limbo for decades is abusive.

bill_joy_fanboy 11mo ago

[flagged]

ivraatiems 11mo ago
Effectively no legal scholars or judges of merit support that belief: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/how-birthright-citizenship-made-it-back-to-the-supreme-court/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/how-birthright-citizenshi...
- bill_joy_fanboy 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ivraatiems 11mo ago
    I'm sure you know better than them due to your many years serving on courts of note.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - IAmBroom 11mo ago
    Alright, how about this rebuttal: That the Earth is round is also debatable. It is considered so by rational and informed people, however.
- fl7305 11mo ago
  > Effectively no legal scholars or judges of merit support that belief And how did the "legal scholars or judges of merit" interpret the 2nd amendment in 1800? The same way as today? The constitution seems to have become a lot more flexible today than people should be comfortable with.
  - IAmBroom 11mo ago
    "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." NY Governor Charles Evans Hughes, 1907. No English sentence is without ambiguity in its meaning. If a controversy over meaning arises on a matter as important as law, we cannot function as a nation on the basis of, "Aw, everyone knows what they meant...". Whether the courts are currently too flexible is a matter of opinion, and unless you get nominated personally to the SCOTUS, an inconsequential one.
    - fl7305 11mo ago
      > we cannot function as a nation on the basis of, "Aw, everyone knows what they meant...". I guess that's fine when it comes to the 2nd, but not as fun when your opponents tries the same for the 14th?
only-one1701 11mo ago
Fantastic point, I assume you’re equally annoyed about how the right to bear arms has been removed from the contextual requirement that the armed be part of a well organized militia?
- bill_joy_fanboy 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - IAmBroom 11mo ago
    But we're going to get to that, and Macs vs PCs, right?
KK7NIL 11mo ago
That is a total lie, the 14th amendment is absolutely clear and it was passed after the Civil War with the explicit point of granting citizenship to black slaves who, you'll notice, did not have citizen parents: > 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.
- bill_joy_fanboy 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - toast0 11mo ago
    Even if you're here without permission, you can be tried in our courts, and are subject to our jurisdiction. I'm willing to be swayed, but it has to be compelling. Diplomatic immunity or maybe recognized tribal member on recognized reservation when they were being disenfranchised are the only times I'm aware of where people are physically within the States and DC and not subject to the jurrisdiction thereof. Perhaps if a child is born in an internation vessel at port, or in a duty free shop or a customs free trade zone. Territories and such get squishy, it's usually not clearly stated when the term United States is meant to include those portions of the country that are not a State; but the 14th ammendment is understood not to apply to territories. Citizenship at birth is granted in some territories (at least Puerto Rico) by federal legislation. That said, upthread you claimed: > this is only true if your parents were citizens And now you claim something about illegal aliens. There's a whole range of circumstances, some of which would have been uncontemplatable at the time of the 14th ammendment. If you are born in the US. You claim citizenship only if parentS are citizens. But if only one parent is a citizen, or both parents are permanent residents, or the parents are authorized visitors. For the historically impossible situation, what if the child is carried by a surrogate with authorized presence and the parents are non-citizens not present at birth ... that child is a US citizen by birth, and not included in your statement above.
  - 11mo ago
CrulesAll 11mo ago
@ivraatiems is effectively using a no True Scotsman argument.
- ivraatiems 11mo ago
  You can just reply to me directly, you know :) "No True Scotsman" is not accurate here. This would actually be an appeal to authority. But the fact that it is one doesn't mean it has no merit. My implication is that the person I am responding to is ignorant of the state of the law, not that they must be wrong because others say they are.
  - CrulesAll 11mo ago
    There was no reply button. No it's definitely a True Scotsman. When you cherry pick what authority to quote, and therefore imply it's the only true position to have, it's a true Scotsman. Your next line affirms this. "My implication is that the person I am responding to is ignorant of the state of the law, " And now you've moved onto the Courtier's reply.
Someone1234 11mo ago
> The wording of the constitution indicates that this is only true if your parents were citizens. The Constitution doesn't define it at all, first off. The Fourteenth Amendment does. All the original Constitution says is that a "natural-born Citizen" is a requirement for President; and that per Article I, Section 8 congress has the power to define the mechanics of citizenship. The Fourteenth by contrast says plain text: > 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. So your claim is incorrect.
- kelseyfrog 11mo ago
  Am I to understand that your claim is, "amendments aren't part of the constitution"?
  - Someone1234 11mo ago
    Amendments are amendments to the Constitution. They have the force of law. The person I was responding to was discussing the "wording of the constitution" so the location of the wording absolutely matters. In this case the "wording of the [original] constitution" is ambiguous, but the wording of the 14th is clear. Thus my reply.
    - kelseyfrog 11mo ago
      For reference, amendments are part of the constitution. This is specified in TITLE 1 CHAPTER 2 Sec. 106b. Of the US Code[1] which reads > Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States. Amendments have the same force as the Constitution because they are a part of the constitution. They are not simply laws. Thank you for allowing me to clarify. 1. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/united-states-code.html https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/unite...
toast0 11mo ago
Well, the constitution didn't make any statements about who was a citizen, just the 14th ammendment has this: > 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. Of course, being part of the Constitution, few of the terms are defined. But, as I read it, if you're born here outside of diplomatic immunity, you're a citizen. And I'd need a well referenced argument to understand why 'subject to the jurisdiction therof' means something other than how I interpret it.
etchalon 11mo ago
It's not debatable. Though it is being debated by people who want that to be the case because racism.
- IAmBroom 11mo ago
  Now now. Some xenophobes hate people of their color as well.
duped 11mo ago
It was debated in 1898 and this argument lost.
- bill_joy_fanboy 11mo ago
  And I'm reviving it.
  - duped 11mo ago
    Ok but why? This open disregard for constitutional law because you don't like immigrants is weird and gross.
sashank_1509 11mo ago
Something has been ignored by legislators for over a hundred years and just now you have discovered it’s true meaning which happens to perfectly align with your policy preferences. Please, just be honest and say you want to enact a policy and use the US Supreme Court to do it, rather than gaslighting us into believing that words don’t mean what they do.

sometimes_all 11mo ago

Hasn't the president signed an executive order that says birthright citizenship is not for children of non-citizens? I see that it's being challenged in court, but the order is currently valid, right?

etchalon 11mo ago
It is not valid.
Kenji 11mo ago
[dead]
Spoom 11mo ago
Executive orders cannot overrule the Constitution. 14th Amendment: "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." There are rumblings about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" somehow excluding folks based on their immigration status, but frankly, the meaning is clear, and jurisprudence recognizes this. The jurisdiction carveout is for international diplomats, i.e. people who are literally not subject to US law. Immigrants, even illegal immigrants, are subject to US law. Stating otherwise would have vast repercussions.
- rootusrootus 11mo ago
  > Executive orders cannot overrule the Constitution. And I would hope this is a fairly universally held position, not so partisan. Today one side might cheer an executive order overriding the 14th amendment, but how will they feel if the next administration decides to pull the same stunt with the 2nd? We don't want to go there. There are already some states experimenting with doing end-runs around the Constitution with their own civil laws, and for similar reasons I would expect rational people to want that effort to fail.
  - fl7305 11mo ago
    >> Executive orders cannot overrule the Constitution. > I would hope this is a fairly universally held position, not so partisan. I agree. I think the constitution limits both the executive and the legislative branches. > how will they feel if the next administration decides to pull the same stunt with the 2nd? The 2nd amendment has already been overridden by federal laws without a constutional amendment. The 2nd used to mean that the states has a right to let their citizens arm themselves privately with military weapons. The federal government was forbidden by the 2nd to interfere with this. I'm from Europe and fine with the very restrictive licensing we have here. But it looks very shortsighted to wildly re-interpret the constitution far outside of the original meaning, instead of passing new amendments.

dontwannahearit 11mo ago

And it can also be a burden. If you are born on US soil to non-US nationals and therefore become an accidental American you are subject to US tax laws on worldwide income. In the UK at least banks will not sell you financial products with tax implications (pensions, tax exempt savings schemas (ISA's to the locals)) because of the US reporting requirements. And getting your citizenship revoked requires lawyering so its a PITA. I know some Americans will find it hard to believe but there are people who want out of this system and feel trapped in it.

amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
That is also a problem. US taxes on worldwide income is absurd. Especially if you don't live in the US.
HaZeust 11mo ago
Yeah, rights can be burdens - no shit. Other people's right to a jury can actually invade YOUR freedoms when jury duty compels you to come hear their case under threats of fines/jail time, but we accept that right as a burden for others.