5 ms·

Here is the full text of the relevant section of the 14th: > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are

Here is the full text of the relevant section of the 14th: > 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Please point to the section where it says "this only applies if the parents are citizens". The reading which the court affirmed is incredibly obvious. Republicans and xenophobes like to pretend it isn't, but the text is very simple.

pfannkuchen 4mo ago
[flagged]
- solid_fuel 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - pfannkuchen 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - Supermancho 4mo ago
      > I did say what I mean explicitly. > it comes out sideways in other dimensions > current moral programming Not one of these words holds meaning in context. If it were only the phrases, there might be some grounded message. Each word and phrase seems to be code for a concept attached to your specific mental model. People tend not to have discussions with other people who cannot grasp what they are, or are not, saying. I would guess and engage further, but assuming what you are saying is unfair and leads to the tired case of Humpty Dumpty versus Alice. Words mean what one side says they do, as a way to avoid exchange.
      - pfannkuchen 3mo ago
        Hmm I suppose that’s fair. Another commenter did seem to understand what I’m saying, but he may have a more similar background to myself. Coming out sideways is a common phrase in psychology land, or at least this is my impression. It refers to when a feeling cannot be expressed directly due to repression, and so the feeling comes out a different way. For example instead of feeling crushing shame about being wrong (due to past experiences of being shamed when wrong), a person gets angry at the person suggesting they are wrong, even though they are actually wrong and it wouldn’t be a big deal at that time to just admit it. Moral programming I thought was self explanatory. Where do you think morality comes from? Different groups in space and time have had different moralities, and children have whatever morality they are consistently exposed to growing up. It does get complicated if they are exposed to multiple moralities simultaneously, they are still programmed but it is more of an RNG in that case (e.g. Christianity at home but progressivism at school, the apparently socially dominant flavor typically wins but not always). Our current moral programming includes a lot of aspects about race and nationalism, and so people have difficulty thinking clearly in this area and sometimes when they internally disagree with the morality they are still unable to express that disagreement directly and so it comes out sideways as awkwardly critiquing some specific language in the constitution or whatever is happening this week about it.
- erxam 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - pfannkuchen 4mo ago
    Why are you being so rude? Please don't put words in my mouth, that is nothing like what I believe. My views are something like what the average American believed in 1910. Were they literally Hitler also?
    - ceejayoz 4mo ago
      America had a pretty decent sized fascist movement in the early 1900s.
      - pfannkuchen 3mo ago
        “Average”, son. Was the average American a fascist in the early 1900s? The fascist party in the early 1900s was a fringe party. It existed and was considered a legitimate opinion, fine, but don’t act like the average American was anywhere near fascist. What in gods name would blood and soil even mean when you’ve got Italians living next to Irish living next to Poles living next to English? You haven’t got any blood to fascism about!
        ceejayoz 3mo ago
        > You haven’t got any blood to fascism about! Like that stops people. Hitler hardly matched his own Aryan ideal. > Was the average American a fascist in the early 1900s? … The fascist party in the early 1900s was a fringe party. That’s equally true about Germany. As the sibling comment notes, it’s the era of Jim Crow and the female half of the country can’t even vote.
      - throwawaypath 3mo ago
        America had a pretty decent sized communist movement in the early 1900s.
- s1artibartfast 4mo ago
  I agree with the phenomenon but dont thinnk that is the case here. I know lots of people that have no issue loudly oposing demograpic change that still stumble on the issue of how to read constitutional text.
  - pfannkuchen 4mo ago
    My point is that I don't think anyone would be focusing on this particular constitutional text if the underlying reason they are focused on it were allowed to be discussed in the open. It sounds like you don't disagree with that? Do you logically agree but you feel like it must be wrong somehow? Moral programming do be like that.
    - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
      I agree that people use convouted rationalizations to justify the outcomes they want when their actual preferences are taboo to state outright. I thought you were accusing the SCOTUS of doing that, which I disagreed with. I agree the public discussion is more charged and less coherent because some people are trying to project their taboo moral stances on to dry and boring question of textual interpretation. That said, I think this case isnt the best example. I think there are lots of people who question if children of tourists or illegal enterants of the US should be given automatic citizenship, even without buying into demographic preferences.
cco 4mo ago
The word jurisdiction is where it gets confusing. The meaning of that word does not map 1:1 to its modern usage. To wit, if we read it as "subject to the laws of the land", then the invading army exception does not make sense, invading soldiers are subject to the laws of the United States and have been tried and convinced of violating them. Note, diplomat exception still makes sense, they _are not_ subject to the laws of the land. So, how do you define jurisdiction in this amendment in a way that covers both invading soldiers and diplomats? I don't think it is super straightforward. To put good faith on the table, I ultimately agree with your opinion here that birthright citizenship is settled and the vast majority of folks arguing against it are doing so in bad faith. But I also recognize the text of the amendment has holes to my eyes and could be updated for clarity.
- rayiner 4mo ago
  It doesn’t cover diplomats either because courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain non-criminal matter. > vast majority of folks arguing against it are doing so in bad faith What’s “bad faith” about it?
  - HelloMcFly 3mo ago
    In my view: the lack of engagement with the historical record. This topic - and the meaning and expected outcomes of the wording for the amendment - were discussed and debated as part of the open record. Senator Cowan thought the phrasing created a loophole for birthright citizenship, and the amendment creators explicitly, overtly, repeatedly agreed with his interpretation of the phrasing and defended it as deliberate policy. As I posted elsewhere, you can read some of this for yourself: https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjustice/ch5/01/#:~:text=The%20proposition%20before%20us%20.%20.%20.,that%20they%20shall%20be%20citizens. https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjusti... (CTRL+F "If my friend from Pennsylvania" for a quite pertinent line).
- solid_fuel 4mo ago
  > To wit, if we read it as "subject to the laws of the land", then the invading army exception does not make sense, invading soldiers are subject to the laws of the United States and have been tried and convinced of violating them. Note, diplomat exception still makes sense, they _are not_ subject to the laws of the land. I don't agree with your assertion here. Do you have more details on the claim that "invading soldiers [...] have been tried and convinced of violating them [US Laws]"? As I understand it, invading soldiers are not subject to the laws of the United States nor are they protected by the bill of rights - instead they are enemy combatants and subject to military force. You don't arrest and charge active combatants, you fight them. If they surrender they become prisoners of war and would be covered under the treaties that apply to POWs, not civilian laws. They don't become citizens by surrendering. I suspect the gray area would be around terrorists and stateless combatants, but the general principle that "people who are operating under the orders of a foreign government are not subject to the laws of the united states, but rather bound by the treaties between the US and their foreign state" would still apply.
MisterMower 4mo ago
Members of American Indian tribes were born in the United States after the 14th amendment was passed but it took an act of Congress to make them citizens. The question of jurisdiction is a very real one that isn’t nearly as cut and dry as you’re implying it to be.
- matthewdgreen 3mo ago
  You're trying to impute complexity to a thing in order to achieve a goal that is not achievable. The 1866 Congress that debated the amendment understood and intended that Indian tribal nations would not be covered by the clause because they were separate nations not under the jurisdiction of US law. Here's an example of the debate [1] where they discuss it. Far from making your point, examples like this make it obvious that everyone involved in framing the amendment thought deeply about what "jurisdiction" meant, which is why you can't just assign new meaning like "yeah it means parents have to be citizens." I really urge you to read the original debate. It isn't like the handwritten notes we get from the 1700s; it's typewritten and the Senators are so thoughtful and utterly precise about what they meant. It's ELI12. [1] https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30867/m1/12/ https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30867/m1/12...
  - dnemmers 3mo ago
    Have you read through that link? I'm not taking a side here, but it injects a couple more words that could imply something else: [Mr. Howard] (Sen. from MI) "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory as what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States." (Apologies for any typos as this was hand written.)
jhhh 4mo ago
What in the dissenting opinions definition of jurisdiction did you disagree with?
whateveracct 4mo ago
literally on the tin

pfannkuchen 4mo ago

[flagged]

solid_fuel 4mo ago
[flagged]
- pfannkuchen 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Supermancho 4mo ago
    > I did say what I mean explicitly. > it comes out sideways in other dimensions > current moral programming Not one of these words holds meaning in context. If it were only the phrases, there might be some grounded message. Each word and phrase seems to be code for a concept attached to your specific mental model. People tend not to have discussions with other people who cannot grasp what they are, or are not, saying. I would guess and engage further, but assuming what you are saying is unfair and leads to the tired case of Humpty Dumpty versus Alice. Words mean what one side says they do, as a way to avoid exchange.
    - pfannkuchen 3mo ago
      Hmm I suppose that’s fair. Another commenter did seem to understand what I’m saying, but he may have a more similar background to myself. Coming out sideways is a common phrase in psychology land, or at least this is my impression. It refers to when a feeling cannot be expressed directly due to repression, and so the feeling comes out a different way. For example instead of feeling crushing shame about being wrong (due to past experiences of being shamed when wrong), a person gets angry at the person suggesting they are wrong, even though they are actually wrong and it wouldn’t be a big deal at that time to just admit it. Moral programming I thought was self explanatory. Where do you think morality comes from? Different groups in space and time have had different moralities, and children have whatever morality they are consistently exposed to growing up. It does get complicated if they are exposed to multiple moralities simultaneously, they are still programmed but it is more of an RNG in that case (e.g. Christianity at home but progressivism at school, the apparently socially dominant flavor typically wins but not always). Our current moral programming includes a lot of aspects about race and nationalism, and so people have difficulty thinking clearly in this area and sometimes when they internally disagree with the morality they are still unable to express that disagreement directly and so it comes out sideways as awkwardly critiquing some specific language in the constitution or whatever is happening this week about it.
erxam 4mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- pfannkuchen 4mo ago
  Why are you being so rude? Please don't put words in my mouth, that is nothing like what I believe. My views are something like what the average American believed in 1910. Were they literally Hitler also?
  - ceejayoz 4mo ago
    America had a pretty decent sized fascist movement in the early 1900s.
    - pfannkuchen 3mo ago
      “Average”, son. Was the average American a fascist in the early 1900s? The fascist party in the early 1900s was a fringe party. It existed and was considered a legitimate opinion, fine, but don’t act like the average American was anywhere near fascist. What in gods name would blood and soil even mean when you’ve got Italians living next to Irish living next to Poles living next to English? You haven’t got any blood to fascism about!
      - ceejayoz 3mo ago
        > You haven’t got any blood to fascism about! Like that stops people. Hitler hardly matched his own Aryan ideal. > Was the average American a fascist in the early 1900s? … The fascist party in the early 1900s was a fringe party. That’s equally true about Germany. As the sibling comment notes, it’s the era of Jim Crow and the female half of the country can’t even vote.
    - throwawaypath 3mo ago
      America had a pretty decent sized communist movement in the early 1900s.
s1artibartfast 4mo ago
I agree with the phenomenon but dont thinnk that is the case here. I know lots of people that have no issue loudly oposing demograpic change that still stumble on the issue of how to read constitutional text.
- pfannkuchen 4mo ago
  My point is that I don't think anyone would be focusing on this particular constitutional text if the underlying reason they are focused on it were allowed to be discussed in the open. It sounds like you don't disagree with that? Do you logically agree but you feel like it must be wrong somehow? Moral programming do be like that.
  - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
    I agree that people use convouted rationalizations to justify the outcomes they want when their actual preferences are taboo to state outright. I thought you were accusing the SCOTUS of doing that, which I disagreed with. I agree the public discussion is more charged and less coherent because some people are trying to project their taboo moral stances on to dry and boring question of textual interpretation. That said, I think this case isnt the best example. I think there are lots of people who question if children of tourists or illegal enterants of the US should be given automatic citizenship, even without buying into demographic preferences.

cco 4mo ago

The word jurisdiction is where it gets confusing. The meaning of that word does not map 1:1 to its modern usage. To wit, if we read it as "subject to the laws of the land", then the invading army exception does not make sense, invading soldiers are subject to the laws of the United States and have been tried and convinced of violating them. Note, diplomat exception still makes sense, they _are not_ subject to the laws of the land. So, how do you define jurisdiction in this amendment in a way that covers both invading soldiers and diplomats? I don't think it is super straightforward. To put good faith on the table, I ultimately agree with your opinion here that birthright citizenship is settled and the vast majority of folks arguing against it are doing so in bad faith. But I also recognize the text of the amendment has holes to my eyes and could be updated for clarity.

rayiner 4mo ago
It doesn’t cover diplomats either because courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain non-criminal matter. > vast majority of folks arguing against it are doing so in bad faith What’s “bad faith” about it?
- HelloMcFly 3mo ago
  In my view: the lack of engagement with the historical record. This topic - and the meaning and expected outcomes of the wording for the amendment - were discussed and debated as part of the open record. Senator Cowan thought the phrasing created a loophole for birthright citizenship, and the amendment creators explicitly, overtly, repeatedly agreed with his interpretation of the phrasing and defended it as deliberate policy. As I posted elsewhere, you can read some of this for yourself: https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjustice/ch5/01/#:~:text=The%20proposition%20before%20us%20.%20.%20.,that%20they%20shall%20be%20citizens. https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjusti... (CTRL+F "If my friend from Pennsylvania" for a quite pertinent line).
solid_fuel 4mo ago
> To wit, if we read it as "subject to the laws of the land", then the invading army exception does not make sense, invading soldiers are subject to the laws of the United States and have been tried and convinced of violating them. Note, diplomat exception still makes sense, they _are not_ subject to the laws of the land. I don't agree with your assertion here. Do you have more details on the claim that "invading soldiers [...] have been tried and convinced of violating them [US Laws]"? As I understand it, invading soldiers are not subject to the laws of the United States nor are they protected by the bill of rights - instead they are enemy combatants and subject to military force. You don't arrest and charge active combatants, you fight them. If they surrender they become prisoners of war and would be covered under the treaties that apply to POWs, not civilian laws. They don't become citizens by surrendering. I suspect the gray area would be around terrorists and stateless combatants, but the general principle that "people who are operating under the orders of a foreign government are not subject to the laws of the united states, but rather bound by the treaties between the US and their foreign state" would still apply.

MisterMower 4mo ago

Members of American Indian tribes were born in the United States after the 14th amendment was passed but it took an act of Congress to make them citizens. The question of jurisdiction is a very real one that isn’t nearly as cut and dry as you’re implying it to be.

matthewdgreen 3mo ago
You're trying to impute complexity to a thing in order to achieve a goal that is not achievable. The 1866 Congress that debated the amendment understood and intended that Indian tribal nations would not be covered by the clause because they were separate nations not under the jurisdiction of US law. Here's an example of the debate [1] where they discuss it. Far from making your point, examples like this make it obvious that everyone involved in framing the amendment thought deeply about what "jurisdiction" meant, which is why you can't just assign new meaning like "yeah it means parents have to be citizens." I really urge you to read the original debate. It isn't like the handwritten notes we get from the 1700s; it's typewritten and the Senators are so thoughtful and utterly precise about what they meant. It's ELI12. [1] https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30867/m1/12/ https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30867/m1/12...
- dnemmers 3mo ago
  Have you read through that link? I'm not taking a side here, but it injects a couple more words that could imply something else: [Mr. Howard] (Sen. from MI) "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory as what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States." (Apologies for any typos as this was hand written.)

jhhh 4mo ago

What in the dissenting opinions definition of jurisdiction did you disagree with?

whateveracct 4mo ago

literally on the tin