[flagged]

That exception comes from the fact that, I'm guessing, no diplomat or their children have sued over it.

If they have, I'd love to see exactly where a prior SC decided that it's constitutional.

If you are an originalist, textualist, or even just standard jurisprudence believer then it's crystal clear what the 14th meant. The only reason for any question about it is because a large portion of people hate the fact that someone can get citizenship by being born here.

The dissents violate the supposed judicial theory of these justices. It shows naked partisanship.

▲

rayiner 2 days ago | parent [-]

So what does “subject to the jurisdiction” mean, from a textualist standpoint? The word “jurisdiction” in the law can have different meanings in different contexts. What does it mean here?

▲

cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-]

> 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.

Notice the "and" clause before the "subject to the jurisdiction". It means "everyone who is born in the united states and additionally everyone who is subject to a US jurisdiction". It's the clause which allows people born on US military bases to also be citizens of the US because that's a jurisdiction of the US. For example, Ted Cruz. It does not mean "Who are also"

And since this is a clause which additionally adds on people it's talking about, you could exclude it all together. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States".

▲

rayiner 2 days ago | parent [-]

No, the "and" functions the same way as in programming: "(born or naturalized in the U.S.) && (subject to the jurisdiction thereof)" requires both things to be true.

▲

cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-]

Not according to the supreme court any time this has come up.

▲

rayiner 2 days ago | parent [-]

That’s how the Supreme Court always interprets “and” in a list of conditions.

▲

cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-]

No it's not. And, as a prime example, this case which the supreme court does not and did not take that view. It's not even something the dissent argued. This is your own personal interpretation.

	▲	rayiner 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, it’s the opposite. In this case, everyone agreed that the “and” means both conditions must hold. Everyone agrees that someone must be both (1) born in the US and (2) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Under your reading, the whole discussion about children of diplomats makes no sense. Under your reading, children of diplomats would automatically be U.S. citizens if born on U.S. soil. But everyone agrees that they’re not.

▲

Windchaser 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, aren't diplomats immune to US laws? Literal "diplomatic immunity".

It makes sense to me to say that they do not fall under US laws and US jurisdiction, and their children likewise.

	▲	rayiner 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Diplomats have some immunities but are not categorically outside the jurisdiction of US laws. For example, they can be sued for “commercial activity” outside the scope of their duties. If a diplomat sells you fake Hermes bags passing them off as real, you can sue them under civil law.