8 ms·

The jurisdiction clause is there because of diplomats. It's a common thing in other Jus Solis countries, for good reason.

by fmobus 3mo ago

ventana 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo ago
      I look forward to reading the SCOTUS opinions on "US vs Chnr'xu@jjjjjj".
    - qingcharles 3mo ago
      At some point in the not-too-distant future this is going to recur on trying to apply the word "born" to AI, see e.g. Short Circuit II, Humans (2015)
    - NetMageSCW 3mo ago
      Hatching is definitely a birth (where do you think chickens come from?) but transmogrification maybe not.
- ycdeebs 3mo ago
  If they meant simply “diplomats”, why didn’t they just say “other than diplomats”? Maybe that’s what they meant, and maybe it’s not. One thing is sure: depending on which side you are on, it’s “obvious” that it means whatever supports your side.
  - projektfu 3mo ago
    There are other people who can be within the territorial boundary of the US but not subject to its jurisdiction. An invading army, for example. It leaves some interpretation of this question but it does not leave unlimited interpretation to the President, or even to Congress. That is the understanding of Wong Kim Ark, which overturned the law Congress passed 14 years after the ratification of the 14th amendment.
- cguess 3mo ago
  If you read Roberts's opinion he literally explains the definition of jurisdiction as it stood when the amendment was drafted (he cites three different dictionaries) and cites floor arguments directly from the Congressional record. It's not long, takes about 15 minutes to get through. The rest of the documents are the concurrences (Jackson) and the three, frankly insane, dissents. Thomas's is 90 pages long somehow (I couldn't get through all that one, it's properly crazy).
- matthewdgreen 3mo ago
  Here's part of the Senate debate where they discuss it. It turns out that they were extremely precise about what it meant, and they described the exceptions in great detail. It's even typewritten. The downside: you can't come away from reading this stuff and pretend like there's some legal flexibility in the term. If that's important to you, you probably shouldn't click the link. [1] https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30867/m1/12/ https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30867/m1/12...
arpinum 3mo ago
The debate is whether the USA is a Jus Soli (no s) country. Roberts claims Jus Soli applies to the USA by looking at historical concept of the words in the constitution and the king's obligations to those on his soil. He cites historical statements by founders. Thomas and Gorsuch rejects Jus Soli applies since it is a concept from feudal lords and serfdom which the USA did not inherit. The cite historical statements by founders. Kavanaugh thinks congress gets to decide the meaning (within reason), so he rejects Jus Soli as well. Jackson worries about backsliding and using this to oppress people, unsure about her legal reasoning, but seems to guess at how authors of the amendment understood the words. I would still classify her as saying USA did not inherit Jus Soli, but later codified it via amendment.
- rayiner 3mo ago
  This is a great summary! This is a case where all the opinions are quite good. I quite like Jackson’s opinion here. The framers of the 14th amendment were radical egalitarians and we shouldn’t lose sight of that.
  - solid_fuel 3mo ago
    Nah, the conservative opinions in this case aren't even worth the paper they are printed on. Every single court that saw this case decided the same way: birthright citizenship was intended to work exactly as it has been applied since its inception.
    - rayiner 3mo ago
      [flagged]
      - solid_fuel 3mo ago
        The precedent was correctly decided, as affirmed in this decision. They left the precedent stand, since it was never up for debate for any serious legal scholars. Thus, the supreme court never needed to take up this case. The only people entertaining a challenge to the previous decision are those who wish to ethnically cleanse the United States.
rayiner 3mo ago
[flagged]
- HDThoreaun 3mo ago
  Read Jackson’s opinion. The amendment was debated at the time and the history records show that at minimum it was intended to include all people living here who didn’t have permission to not follow laws like diplomats or invaders.
  - rayiner 3mo ago
    > who didn’t have permission to not follow laws like diplomats or invaders. That doesn’t quite work, because diplomats and invaders do have to follow US laws and can be tried in U.S. courts. In Ex Parte Quirin, for example, nobody doubted that German saboteurs on U.S. soil could be prosecuted in civilian courts. And while diplomats have immunities in certain areas, they can be sued under U.S. law in U.S. courts for commercial activities conducted in the U.S. If “subject to the jurisdiction” means the U.S. has some sort of jurisdiction over a foreign national, then children of ambassadors and foreign soldiers would have birthright citizenship. So there must be an additional step or wrinkle to get from the word “jurisdiction” to the exceptions that are recognized.
    - HDThoreaun 3mo ago
      German saboteurs on us soil are certainly subject to us jurisdiction. If they had kids while here the kids would be citizens according to the 14th. Wong Kim talks of invaders who are working under a different set of laws because they’re part of a military invasion, not a clandestine operation. They can’t be tried because there is no American presence on the invaded territory. I think you’re stretching the definition of jurisdiction with the diplomat stuff. Sure they’re expected to follow laws, but with only a few exceptions if they break laws they just got sent home, not imprisoned. They’re not really subject to our jurisdiction. Being able to withdraw our invitation isn’t the same as having jurisdiction.
      - 3mo ago
wang_li 3mo ago
Diplomats are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, that's why we have immunity agreements and we can order them out of the country. We also don't recognize the children of invading armies as citizens. Native Americans don't automatically get citizenship from the constitution. They get it from an act of congress in 1924.
- fmobus 3mo ago
  They are not subject to jurisdiction, where the hell did you get that idea? If a diplomat does something that would be a crime in the US, they are _asked_ to leave via diplomatic channels. They usually leave on their own. If they were under US jurisdiction, they could be TRIED in the US, but that basically never happens. The only few exceptions you will find to this were either cases where a) the person was not really immune to begin with b) their country waived the immunity or c) the immunity lapsed because the person did not leave the country in a reasonable timeframe after being asked to
  - wang_li 3mo ago
    If a diplomat is going on a shooting spree they can be shot and killed with no ensuing issues as a result of US law enforcement enforcing laws in the moment. If they are robbing a seven-eleven they can be arrested and held until arraignment. They can be ordered to remain in their home, aka house arrest. They can be ordered to leave and they have no option to remain in the country. The US constitution does not grant diplomats immunity it is something we have agreed to via treaty and law. They are 100% subject to our laws, that's why our law granting them immunity applies.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - IAmBroom 3mo ago
      That flies in the face of what I understand is true about diplomatic immunity. Citation required. As a less extreme example, diplomats can and DO park their vehicles illegally: in No Parking zones, Handicap Only zones, and blocking fire hydrants. Diplomat plates render the police unable to ticket them. It's civil not criminal courts, but for the exact reason that they are immune to our laws.

The jurisdiction clause is there because of diplomats. It's a common thing in other Jus Solis countries, for good reason.

by fmobus 3mo ago

The jurisdiction clause is there because of diplomats. It's a common thing in other Jus Solis countries, for good reason.

ventana 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo ago
    I look forward to reading the SCOTUS opinions on "US vs Chnr'xu@jjjjjj".
  - qingcharles 3mo ago
    At some point in the not-too-distant future this is going to recur on trying to apply the word "born" to AI, see e.g. Short Circuit II, Humans (2015)
  - NetMageSCW 3mo ago
    Hatching is definitely a birth (where do you think chickens come from?) but transmogrification maybe not.
ycdeebs 3mo ago
If they meant simply “diplomats”, why didn’t they just say “other than diplomats”? Maybe that’s what they meant, and maybe it’s not. One thing is sure: depending on which side you are on, it’s “obvious” that it means whatever supports your side.
- projektfu 3mo ago
  There are other people who can be within the territorial boundary of the US but not subject to its jurisdiction. An invading army, for example. It leaves some interpretation of this question but it does not leave unlimited interpretation to the President, or even to Congress. That is the understanding of Wong Kim Ark, which overturned the law Congress passed 14 years after the ratification of the 14th amendment.
cguess 3mo ago
If you read Roberts's opinion he literally explains the definition of jurisdiction as it stood when the amendment was drafted (he cites three different dictionaries) and cites floor arguments directly from the Congressional record. It's not long, takes about 15 minutes to get through. The rest of the documents are the concurrences (Jackson) and the three, frankly insane, dissents. Thomas's is 90 pages long somehow (I couldn't get through all that one, it's properly crazy).
matthewdgreen 3mo ago
Here's part of the Senate debate where they discuss it. It turns out that they were extremely precise about what it meant, and they described the exceptions in great detail. It's even typewritten. The downside: you can't come away from reading this stuff and pretend like there's some legal flexibility in the term. If that's important to you, you probably shouldn't click the link. [1] https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30867/m1/12/ https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30867/m1/12...

arpinum 3mo ago

The debate is whether the USA is a Jus Soli (no s) country. Roberts claims Jus Soli applies to the USA by looking at historical concept of the words in the constitution and the king's obligations to those on his soil. He cites historical statements by founders. Thomas and Gorsuch rejects Jus Soli applies since it is a concept from feudal lords and serfdom which the USA did not inherit. The cite historical statements by founders. Kavanaugh thinks congress gets to decide the meaning (within reason), so he rejects Jus Soli as well. Jackson worries about backsliding and using this to oppress people, unsure about her legal reasoning, but seems to guess at how authors of the amendment understood the words. I would still classify her as saying USA did not inherit Jus Soli, but later codified it via amendment.

rayiner 3mo ago
This is a great summary! This is a case where all the opinions are quite good. I quite like Jackson’s opinion here. The framers of the 14th amendment were radical egalitarians and we shouldn’t lose sight of that.
- solid_fuel 3mo ago
  Nah, the conservative opinions in this case aren't even worth the paper they are printed on. Every single court that saw this case decided the same way: birthright citizenship was intended to work exactly as it has been applied since its inception.
  - rayiner 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - solid_fuel 3mo ago
      The precedent was correctly decided, as affirmed in this decision. They left the precedent stand, since it was never up for debate for any serious legal scholars. Thus, the supreme court never needed to take up this case. The only people entertaining a challenge to the previous decision are those who wish to ethnically cleanse the United States.

rayiner 3mo ago

[flagged]

HDThoreaun 3mo ago
Read Jackson’s opinion. The amendment was debated at the time and the history records show that at minimum it was intended to include all people living here who didn’t have permission to not follow laws like diplomats or invaders.
- rayiner 3mo ago
  > who didn’t have permission to not follow laws like diplomats or invaders. That doesn’t quite work, because diplomats and invaders do have to follow US laws and can be tried in U.S. courts. In Ex Parte Quirin, for example, nobody doubted that German saboteurs on U.S. soil could be prosecuted in civilian courts. And while diplomats have immunities in certain areas, they can be sued under U.S. law in U.S. courts for commercial activities conducted in the U.S. If “subject to the jurisdiction” means the U.S. has some sort of jurisdiction over a foreign national, then children of ambassadors and foreign soldiers would have birthright citizenship. So there must be an additional step or wrinkle to get from the word “jurisdiction” to the exceptions that are recognized.
  - HDThoreaun 3mo ago
    German saboteurs on us soil are certainly subject to us jurisdiction. If they had kids while here the kids would be citizens according to the 14th. Wong Kim talks of invaders who are working under a different set of laws because they’re part of a military invasion, not a clandestine operation. They can’t be tried because there is no American presence on the invaded territory. I think you’re stretching the definition of jurisdiction with the diplomat stuff. Sure they’re expected to follow laws, but with only a few exceptions if they break laws they just got sent home, not imprisoned. They’re not really subject to our jurisdiction. Being able to withdraw our invitation isn’t the same as having jurisdiction.
    - 3mo ago

wang_li 3mo ago

Diplomats are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, that's why we have immunity agreements and we can order them out of the country. We also don't recognize the children of invading armies as citizens. Native Americans don't automatically get citizenship from the constitution. They get it from an act of congress in 1924.

fmobus 3mo ago
They are not subject to jurisdiction, where the hell did you get that idea? If a diplomat does something that would be a crime in the US, they are _asked_ to leave via diplomatic channels. They usually leave on their own. If they were under US jurisdiction, they could be TRIED in the US, but that basically never happens. The only few exceptions you will find to this were either cases where a) the person was not really immune to begin with b) their country waived the immunity or c) the immunity lapsed because the person did not leave the country in a reasonable timeframe after being asked to
- wang_li 3mo ago
  If a diplomat is going on a shooting spree they can be shot and killed with no ensuing issues as a result of US law enforcement enforcing laws in the moment. If they are robbing a seven-eleven they can be arrested and held until arraignment. They can be ordered to remain in their home, aka house arrest. They can be ordered to leave and they have no option to remain in the country. The US constitution does not grant diplomats immunity it is something we have agreed to via treaty and law. They are 100% subject to our laws, that's why our law granting them immunity applies.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - IAmBroom 3mo ago
    That flies in the face of what I understand is true about diplomatic immunity. Citation required. As a less extreme example, diplomats can and DO park their vehicles illegally: in No Parking zones, Handicap Only zones, and blocking fire hydrants. Diplomat plates render the police unable to ticket them. It's civil not criminal courts, but for the exact reason that they are immune to our laws.