3 ms·

> whether the child is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. at birth If I strangle said child in the maternity ward, do you think the US will go "whoops,

> whether the child is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. at birth If I strangle said child in the maternity ward, do you think the US will go "whoops, no jurisdiction!"

hacker_homie 4mo ago
that would be jurisdiction on you committing murder, which they do have.
- ceejayoz 4mo ago
  So reversing the scenario - an illegal immigrant kills me - can't be prosecuted? Because they're not under US jurisdiction?
  - doctorpangloss 4mo ago
    you are arguing with people who are being academic to a fault, unable to see how they've been co-opted. that said, i appreciate the commentary from real lawyers - i LIKE academic stuff even if the real, hard embodied politics of it all is straightforward.
  - qingcharles 4mo ago
    Unless you were snuffed out on federal land, I think state law would reign in this situation, and the states can have jurisdiction over you just by being on their territory. In fact, I seem to remember a time when you could be a citizen of a state, but not of the United States, to further complicate matters.
    - ceejayoz 4mo ago
      > the states can have jurisdiction over you just by being on their territory Go on, take that theory just the tiniest little step further logically. > I seem to remember a time when you could be a citizen of a state, but not of the United States... When was that?
      - latency-guy2 4mo ago
        > Go on, take that theory just the tiniest little step further logically. So you take that step, is that illegal immigrant a citizen now because they killed someone?
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        No. But they are certainly under our jurisdiction. They will be arrested, tried, and convicted accordingly. If pregnant, their child, having been born in the US and under its jurisdiction, will be a citizen when born in prison. They will not be sent home PNG like an ambassador.
    - igjjigjk 4mo ago
      [dead]
      - henry2023 4mo ago
        Not sure if his status as sex offender is relevant in this discussion but it’s funny to see the stereotype in action.
        deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
        throwawaypath 4mo ago
        >to see the stereotype in action. Which stereotype, the "leftists are child groomers" one? He's clearly a left-wing commenter...
  - tzs 4mo ago
    That question isn't really meaningful, because commission of a crime is a basis for jurisdiction. Generally if party A commits a crime against party B jurisdiction can be claimed by (1) the country where the crime occurred, (2) the country A is a citizen of, and (3) the country B is a citizen of.
    - ceejayoz 4mo ago
      > jurisdiction can be claimed by (1) the country where the crime occurred Or the birth, as it were?
      - throwawaypath 4mo ago
        >Or the birth, as it were? Not always. The people of American Samoa do not have birthright citizenship in the United States. They are clearly under the jurisdiction of the US.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        "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." They are not born/naturalized in the United States, but one of its territories. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is satisfied, but the other part is not. (We can grant citizenship to territories by statute, like Puerto Rico, but the Constitution does not mandate it. American Samoa, thus far, doesn't seem to want it.) The history of this is all a bit gross. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases
        throwawaypath 4mo ago
        >They are not born/naturalized in the United States They are clearly born in the United States, the territories are part of the United States. The United States is the sovereign state of American Samoa. The point you're making is exactly the point I was making. We define by statue and court precedent which territories are magically included in this. American Samoa was included and considered in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction" as recently as 2019: https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-rules-american-samoans-are-u-s-citizens/ https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-rules-american-... All it may take is for congress to pass a change to 8 U.S. Code § 1401 to deny birthright citizenship to illegal aliens. Trump's EO ran afoul of this according to the dissent.
- garyfirestorm 4mo ago
  jurisdiction is not dependent just on the person. it is a geographical encapsulation. all people within this boundary are subject to the jurisdiction.
  - phainopepla2 4mo ago
    That's not true. Even the liberal interpretation of this recognizes that some people within the geographic boundary are not subject to the jurisdiction. Diplomats and invading armies, for example.

> whether the child is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. at birth If I strangle said child in the maternity ward, do you think the US will go "whoops, no jurisdiction!"

hacker_homie 4mo ago

that would be jurisdiction on you committing murder, which they do have.

ceejayoz 4mo ago
So reversing the scenario - an illegal immigrant kills me - can't be prosecuted? Because they're not under US jurisdiction?
- doctorpangloss 4mo ago
  you are arguing with people who are being academic to a fault, unable to see how they've been co-opted. that said, i appreciate the commentary from real lawyers - i LIKE academic stuff even if the real, hard embodied politics of it all is straightforward.
- qingcharles 4mo ago
  Unless you were snuffed out on federal land, I think state law would reign in this situation, and the states can have jurisdiction over you just by being on their territory. In fact, I seem to remember a time when you could be a citizen of a state, but not of the United States, to further complicate matters.
  - ceejayoz 4mo ago
    > the states can have jurisdiction over you just by being on their territory Go on, take that theory just the tiniest little step further logically. > I seem to remember a time when you could be a citizen of a state, but not of the United States... When was that?
    - latency-guy2 4mo ago
      > Go on, take that theory just the tiniest little step further logically. So you take that step, is that illegal immigrant a citizen now because they killed someone?
      - ceejayoz 4mo ago
        No. But they are certainly under our jurisdiction. They will be arrested, tried, and convicted accordingly. If pregnant, their child, having been born in the US and under its jurisdiction, will be a citizen when born in prison. They will not be sent home PNG like an ambassador.
  - igjjigjk 4mo ago
    [dead]
    - henry2023 4mo ago
      Not sure if his status as sex offender is relevant in this discussion but it’s funny to see the stereotype in action.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      - throwawaypath 4mo ago
        >to see the stereotype in action. Which stereotype, the "leftists are child groomers" one? He's clearly a left-wing commenter...
- tzs 4mo ago
  That question isn't really meaningful, because commission of a crime is a basis for jurisdiction. Generally if party A commits a crime against party B jurisdiction can be claimed by (1) the country where the crime occurred, (2) the country A is a citizen of, and (3) the country B is a citizen of.
  - ceejayoz 4mo ago
    > jurisdiction can be claimed by (1) the country where the crime occurred Or the birth, as it were?
    - throwawaypath 4mo ago
      >Or the birth, as it were? Not always. The people of American Samoa do not have birthright citizenship in the United States. They are clearly under the jurisdiction of the US.
      - ceejayoz 4mo ago
        "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." They are not born/naturalized in the United States, but one of its territories. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is satisfied, but the other part is not. (We can grant citizenship to territories by statute, like Puerto Rico, but the Constitution does not mandate it. American Samoa, thus far, doesn't seem to want it.) The history of this is all a bit gross. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases
        throwawaypath 4mo ago
        >They are not born/naturalized in the United States They are clearly born in the United States, the territories are part of the United States. The United States is the sovereign state of American Samoa. The point you're making is exactly the point I was making. We define by statue and court precedent which territories are magically included in this. American Samoa was included and considered in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction" as recently as 2019: https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-rules-american-samoans-are-u-s-citizens/ https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-rules-american-... All it may take is for congress to pass a change to 8 U.S. Code § 1401 to deny birthright citizenship to illegal aliens. Trump's EO ran afoul of this according to the dissent.
garyfirestorm 4mo ago
jurisdiction is not dependent just on the person. it is a geographical encapsulation. all people within this boundary are subject to the jurisdiction.
- phainopepla2 4mo ago
  That's not true. Even the liberal interpretation of this recognizes that some people within the geographic boundary are not subject to the jurisdiction. Diplomats and invading armies, for example.