5 ms·

The U.S. Constitution is very far from being clear. The whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to explain the meaning of what is written in the Constitution; the

• mothballed 4mo ago
  This is why American Samoans aren't citizens. They aren't subject to the full jurisdiction of the USA even though they are born in the United States. Yet you rarely find anyone giving a shit about the American Samoans, you never hear about it. ----- re: below due to throttling--------- >American Samoans aren't citizens because American Samoa is a territory, not a state. Puerto Rico has a special status that was extended to it to grant its residents citizenship – this isn't a status that's automatically granted to all territories, it requires Federal approval which AS has never formally pushed for. Unless you falsely believe PR or AS are not part of the United States, you are just agreeing with me with extra words regarding the jurisdictional differences. The only option for denying birthright citizenship would be not born in United States, or not subject to jurisdiction thereof. See this excellent prior comment[] on why the difference between PR and AS is jurisdiction and not whether it is part of the US. >This seems entirely subjective. I'm not going to do a formal academic study with you, it's plainly obvious as of late you see far more headlines on hackernews (a search shows a single HN topic on AS citizenship in the history of HN, but full page+ of search results on the birthright citizenship issue at hand) and elsewhere regarding the birthright citizenship issue at hand and far more rarely the fact American Samoans don't get it. [] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16700413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16700413
  • nozzlegear 4mo ago
    American Samoans aren't citizens because American Samoa is a territory, not a state. Puerto Rico has a special status that was extended to it to grant its residents citizenship – this isn't a status that's automatically granted to all territories, it requires Federal approval which AS has never formally pushed for. > Yet you rarely find anyone giving a shit about the American Samoans, you never hear about it. This seems entirely subjective.
    • arjie 4mo ago
      What a curiosity. It appears that other territories count by statute but for American Samoa the US national designation was created to give them similar rights to citizens but not voting or political office and in exchange the Samoans get some more self-determination than other territories. Cool!
      • mothballed 4mo ago
        Yes, lots of them don't want the 14th amendment. They have racist/ethnocentric land ownership laws that contradict the 14th amendment, the same one that creates birthright citizenship. There are also allegedly some low quasi-government tribal positions in remote areas where women are effectively ineligible for office, though this one is less provable, it also would not be consistent with constitutional protections.
        • arjie 4mo ago
          So many historical curiosities in this whole thing. Hawaii vs Puerto Rico, for instance, the latter having more people but not a state. I imagine we put up with the Samoan rules because we wanted the strategic base. My own citizenship rests on the fact that other territories have been included into birthright citizenship by statute.
          • mothballed 4mo ago
            Hawaii also bizarrely has 14th amendment violating land laws. There is a non-Indian-reservation, state owned land called the "Hawaiian Homelands" where only those of "the blood" of the right people can lease from. This violates the 14th amendment (SCOTUS has ruled Indians are exempted, but Hawaiians were determined in Rice v Cayetano to not be Indians) protections on equal protection under the law of different races to enjoyment of the public lands. No one has bothered to challenge it yet, but I expect especially under this SCOTUS the Homelands will get steamrolled if they do. Hawaii's 14th and 15th amendment violating laws have slowly been getting flushed out. In ~2000 non "native" local voters could finally vote for all offices (RBG dissented, vouching for racist voting laws and against the 15th amendment), and IIRC not long after that it became possible for those with the wrong "blood" to hold all offices.
• fmobus 4mo ago
  The jurisdiction clause is there because of diplomats. It's a common thing in other Jus Solis countries, for good reason.
  • ventana 4mo ago
    And so we have the whole bench of 9 people guessing and discussing the intention of the lawmakers. Did they indeed mean diplomats when they wrote "subject of the jurisdiction thereof"? If a Martian lands on the US soil and gives birth, will the offspring immediately be "subject of the jurisdiction thereof"? What was the common meaning of the word "jurisdiction" in 1868? This kind of stuff.
    • fmobus 4mo ago
      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 possible emerges, then as a logical consequence any dolphin or naked mole rat born in US jurisdiction would be a citizen.
      • ventana 4mo ago
        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 :)
        • fmobus 4mo ago
          I look forward to reading the SCOTUS opinions on "US vs Chnr'xu@jjjjjj".
        • 4mo ago
• HDThoreaun 4mo ago
  No it really isn’t. Immigrants are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As Wong Kim stated the only way not to be is if the government has given you permission to be here without being under jurisdiction like a diplomat or if you’re part of an invading force. Every other person in the us is expected to follow us laws. Just because they don’t doesn’t mean the us doesn’t have jurisdiction.
  • ventana 4mo ago
    Were you so sure yesterday that the Court would decide the way it did? I'm sure that with a different set of justices, the result could've been different. A "clear" law would likely not result in a 6:3 vote. There are enough cases in the Supreme Court that get 9:0, those can probably be called "clear".
    • HDThoreaun 4mo ago
      I was sure that Thomas would come up with some bullshit that is completely divorced from the text and history of the constitution. The other 3 doing the same is a disappointment but not a huge surprise.
    • SauciestGNU 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      • ycdeebs 4mo ago
        Aaaaand, there it is. If I disagree with a ruling, or with the politics of the president that appointed a judge that made a ruling, then the rulings are “illegitimate”.
        • SauciestGNU 4mo ago
          Yes, justices who take bribes or whose spouses help to organize a coup and an insurrection against the United States are not legitimate (Thomas, Alito). I'm more apt to listen to Gorsuch, even though he was in the dissent here, because he seems like a legitimate thoughtful jurist.
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• tzs 4mo ago
  There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant in the US when the 14th Amendment was ratified.