United States | News & Politics

2003 readers

1242 users here now

Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

193

Trump Says He’ll Issue an Executive Order Ending Birthright Citizenship — a Constitutionally Protected Right (truthout.org)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ArbitraryValue 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I have read the 14th amendment, and so have the people arguing against birthright citizenship as it exists now. Here's what they have to say. Some excerpts:

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Presumably you disagree with the Heritage Foundation (I'm quite surprised to find myself agreeing with them here) but they are in fact well-informed about the text of the Constitution, its history, and relevant case law.

Edit: Does tagging people like this work? I don't want to post the same reply multiple times.

/u/[email protected]

/u/_[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You’re quoting the people who literally wrote the plan on how to usurp democracy and install Trump as a dictator, and holding them up as some kind of reliable expert on what the constitution says.

[–] ArbitraryValue 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

the people who literally wrote the plan

That's my point. These are the guys who wrote the plan to end birthright citizenship and "read the 14th amendment" doesn't go very far against them because they have. Neither does "the meaning of the 14th amendment is obvious" because they're constitutional lawyers and they're saying it isn't. They may still very well be wrong, but they aren't "ha ha, you haven't even heard of the constitution" wrong.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The original intent of "subject to the jurisdiction of" means areas of the US not under foreign military occupation, or diplomats, and anyone working with diplomats in a diplomatic mission. And probably includes the inside of the embassy/consolate. And maybe the UN building. But it was not supposed to mean anything to do with nationality. And I think "being here illegally" is also very problematic. Like are the enslaved people here "legally"? The 14th amendment was used to give citizenship to enslaved people. Enslaved people aren't considered people in terms of citizenship, and the moment slavery was outlawed, do enslaved people become "illegal immigrants". So are we just gonna remove citizenship from every decendent of an enslaved person in the us?

How do we even know who is here legally and who's not. And what if we found an "illegal" immigrant that entered in the 1900s, are we gonna deport every of their decendents?