| |
| ▲ | tzs 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > jurisdiction can be claimed by (1) the country where the crime occurred Or the birth, as it were? | | |
| ▲ | throwawaypath 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >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 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." 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 | | |
| ▲ | throwawaypath 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >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-... 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. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The United States is made up of… states. The United States also posesses some territories, which are not states. This is why Puerto Ricans got their citizenship by statue in 1917, rather than via the Fourteenth Amendment. > American Samoa was included and considered in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction" as recently as 2019… No, it wasn't. That case was overturned on appeal. It remains under US jurisdiction; its people remain nationals, not citizens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitisemanu_v._United_States > The United States appealed and in a 2–1 decision the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court decision with Judge Bacharach dissenting. The court cited one of the Insular Cases, Downes v. Bidwell, as a Supreme Court Precedent not to affirm the lower court's decision. The Court of Appeals also denied an en banc hearing, over the dissent of Judges Bacharach and Moritz. > A petition for writ of certiorari was filed in the United States Supreme Court on April 27 and was discussed in their conference on October 14, 2022 and decided to deny certiorari on October 17, 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downes_v._Bidwell > The decision narrowly held that the Constitution does not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress has jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for US states. | | |
| ▲ | throwawaypath 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >The United States is made up of… states. And territories, minor outlying islands, and a federal district. >No, it wasn't. Yes it was, the opinion of the court held that those born in American Samoa were born in the United States.: >“Plaintiffs, having been born in the United States, and owing allegiance to the United States, are citizens by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Waddoups added. It was eventually overturned, but the fact is a court's decision included American Samoa as "in the United States." The point is courts can decide what is considered "under the jurisdiction there of" much as there can decide what is considered "in the United States." All it takes is another case to completely throw out the Insular Cases. >In United States v. Vaello Madero, No. 20-303, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred and noted that "The Insular Cases have no foundation in the Constitution and rest instead on racial stereotypes. They deserve no place in our law."[32] Gorsuch argues that the Court must find a case to overrule the Insular Cases which were "based on racist assumptions and imperial ambitions." | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If I get to cite losing cases, I can win any argument of this nature. |
|
| |
| ▲ | toast0 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Downes v. Bidwell (1901) created a difference between 'incorporated territory' and 'unincorporated territory' The Second Organic Act of 1912 explicitly extends the constitution (and the 14th amendment) to the Alaksa territory. Supreme court cases have established that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to unincorporated territories. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | qingcharles 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > 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 2 days ago | parent [-] | | 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 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] | | |
| ▲ | henry2023 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Not sure if his status as sex offender is relevant in this discussion but it’s funny to see the stereotype in action. | | |
| ▲ | throwawaypath a day ago | parent | next [-] | | >to see the stereotype in action. Which stereotype, the "leftists are child groomers" one? He's clearly a left-wing commenter... | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | doctorpangloss 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
