| ▲ | arpinum 2 days ago |
| > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... It's the second part that is in dispute and is not clear from the constitution's text what exactly it means and who it excludes. And yes, it has always excluded some people born within the borders, it is not a meaningless statement. |
|
| ▲ | Windchaser 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Well, no, but almost everyone inside US borders is subject to US laws. The exceptions are rare: people in foreign embassies (which is "foreign soil"), invading armies, and indigenous tribes on tribal land. |
| |
| ▲ | sershe 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | So if you follow the logic of this administration (which I don't) you can construe the illegal immigrants as an invasion. You would assume that if there was an invading army that got dispersed and the stragglers were hiding out for years after the state surrendered, like some Japanese soldiers after WW2, as the law enforcement was trying to find and remove them, the jurisdiction would not apply to them. Then, there could be a wartime state sponsored guerilla force. Then, allegedly state affiliated guerilla force infiltrating without an official conflict, like Russians in Donetsk in 2015. You have to draw a line somewhere, and in theory it could be pretty far either way | |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | Tadpole9181 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh, please, this is just blatant sanewashing. Anyone who does not have an explicit exclusion is under the jurisdiction of US laws while on US soil. There's zero room for ambiguity unless you're coming in bad faith with politically motivated intent. Or are you seriously arguing there's an interpretation where illegal immigrants can commit any crime they want and can't be deported? | | |
| ▲ | arpinum 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | "subject to jurisdiction" does not mean "has to follow US law", that is territorial jurisdiction. Subject to jurisdiction means political jurisdiction and allegiance. That is why children born to members of Native American tribes (no matter the location of birth) were considered not subject to jurisdiction because the parents held allegiance to their tribe. Read United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). I don't have an opinion on the legally correct answer, reading the full decision and dissents I'd give a slight edge to the majority. | |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Where does it say "jurisdiction" only refers to criminal law? Diplomats aren't excluded from being subject to civil laws for "commercial activities," and U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats in suits pertaining to such activities. | | |
| ▲ | Windchaser 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This then seems like an argument that the children of diplomats should be US citizens, not an argument against naturalized birth for immigrants. |
| |
| ▲ | solid_fuel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are correct, but you will never sway the account you are replying to. Check their comment history. They put a ton of effort into carrying water for conservative causes, even when there is no legal or logical backing for them. Just like the conservatives on the supreme court, they arrive at their desired results first and work backward to their justification. | | |
| ▲ | arpinum 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > You are correct, but you will never sway the account you are replying to. Check their comment history. Me above: > I don't have an opinion on the legally correct answer, reading the full decision and dissents I'd give a slight edge to the majority. I'm also British, so DGAF about outcomes. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nozzlegear 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > subject to the jurisdiction thereof > A well regulated Militia POV: you're about to hear the dumbest takes on the internet. /s Seriously though, were the founding fathers just master ragebaiters or what? More ink has been spilled over these two lines than any other in modern history. |
