|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 09 2024 16:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 15:51 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. You mean "birthright citizenship" not "naturalized citizenship." Due to the very useful phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it would be entirely within the realm of possibility and scope of the Supreme Court to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not to be referring to people born of illegal aliens, without a further amendment to the constitution. Are illegals not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Because I agree that if you somehow stated that they're not then this phrase would be relevant and could cancel out the one preceding it but I'm pretty certain the reason why this phrase is there is for the sake of foreign diplomats.
Eh based on my reading it seems irrelevant whether illegals are subject to jurisdiction of the US because it's not talking about illegals. It's talking about people born in the United States, which would be the children of illegals and not illegals themselves. My first thought for the reasoning of this line was also foreign diplomats.
|
Norway28781 Posts
Hm that's a valid point tbh. Could perhaps be argued that citizenship isn't automatically granted until you've reached the criminal age or something like that? Which might be a bit iffy with some states not defining this and the age otherwise varying from state to state. But maybe jurisdiction is also a broader term than 'subject to potential punishment', I dunno.
|
It's also possible that extra condition was thrown in due to something to do with Native Americans and their reserves? In any case what is very clear to me upon reading the original text of the amendment is that it was written specifically to deal with the troubles of its time. Just as, I'd assume, all articles of the constitution are. Sure, they are written to be general, but nobody in 1868 was worried about anchor babies, nor considering their possibility when writing that text. Just as the authors of the first amendment didn't envision the existence of the internet, nor were they considering the existence of full automatic rifles capable of firing multiple rounds per second when writing the second. It seems beyond obvious to me that, if your constitution is as important as a legal basis that you keep it updated periodically. That has simply not happened. Population has boomed, information travels instantly from one end of the world to the other, and even people travel a few orders of magnitude faster. It's time to throw out the constitution as a document, take its ideas, and write a new one that works for this day and age. Then do it again in 50 years time or so.
E: and I added that addendum about using the constitution as an important legal document, because in a lot of Europe, that is not the function of the constitution. In a lot of Europe, laws are tested against the constitution during the lawmaking process, and it is thus a role of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch. I don't have a clue which system is better, but having individual cases tested against the constitution has seemed disruptive to the progress of law. Whether that is using Roe vs Wade as a stop-gap that allowed everybody to avoid passing actual abortion legislation, or having gun control laws struck down repeatedly.
|
Trump in typicall Trumpfashion went to the solution that can be easily worded, no matter how hard it would be to realize it.
Just as Trump Tariffs and Borderwalls.. and NATO exit.. it's just Wordvomit gobbled up by his Voters .. and the press to spin some fearmongering about.
|
On December 09 2024 17:29 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 17:10 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 16:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2024 15:51 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. You mean "birthright citizenship" not "naturalized citizenship." Due to the very useful phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it would be entirely within the realm of possibility and scope of the Supreme Court to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not to be referring to people born of illegal aliens, without a further amendment to the constitution. Are illegals not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Because I agree that if you somehow stated that they're not then this phrase would be relevant and could cancel out the one preceding it but I'm pretty certain the reason why this phrase is there is for the sake of foreign diplomats. We can agree the phrase must have some kind of meaning, otherwise it would mean the same thing as if the sentence didn't include that phrase, in which case it's superfluous. For me I imagine obviously redcoats torching the White House with a wagon train of their wives popping anchor babies would not have qualified as being born as US citizens. So there at least have to be some exceptions. You say foreign diplomats' newborns aren't immediately bestowed US citizenship - I would tend to agree with that also. However, these both seem to fall under the more general principle which it would fall to SCOTUS to decide (or willfully choose not to decide) whether illegal aliens count as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Well, if "illegals" are *not* subject to jurisdiction of the US, doesn't that open a larger can of worms? We allow diplomats to be immune to local laws as a necessary exception in order to enable diplomacy with countries who have wildly different local laws. Saying "anybody not legally residing in the US is not subject to local laws" extends the concept of diplomatic immunity to tourists and really any other foreigner. It'd be insane.
Diplomats are not supernational entities that get to shoot people and do whatever they want.
You think "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "have to follow laws?" Then you would have to accept the children of spies and invading armies example as birthright citizens. However, the US doesn't grant leave for spies and invading armies to do whatever they want.
Nor do they for diplomats, nor did they when the 14th Amendment was written.
Either YOUR interpretation is correct, in which case the amendment needs to be repealed due to being absurd, or your interpretation makes no sense due to insufficient jurisprudence, and actually the amendment was shrewdly worded to keep itself applicable by just such interpretations as we can for example apply to illegal immigration.
|
On December 09 2024 20:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 17:29 Acrofales wrote:On December 09 2024 17:10 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 16:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2024 15:51 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. You mean "birthright citizenship" not "naturalized citizenship." Due to the very useful phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it would be entirely within the realm of possibility and scope of the Supreme Court to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not to be referring to people born of illegal aliens, without a further amendment to the constitution. Are illegals not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Because I agree that if you somehow stated that they're not then this phrase would be relevant and could cancel out the one preceding it but I'm pretty certain the reason why this phrase is there is for the sake of foreign diplomats. We can agree the phrase must have some kind of meaning, otherwise it would mean the same thing as if the sentence didn't include that phrase, in which case it's superfluous. For me I imagine obviously redcoats torching the White House with a wagon train of their wives popping anchor babies would not have qualified as being born as US citizens. So there at least have to be some exceptions. You say foreign diplomats' newborns aren't immediately bestowed US citizenship - I would tend to agree with that also. However, these both seem to fall under the more general principle which it would fall to SCOTUS to decide (or willfully choose not to decide) whether illegal aliens count as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Well, if "illegals" are *not* subject to jurisdiction of the US, doesn't that open a larger can of worms? We allow diplomats to be immune to local laws as a necessary exception in order to enable diplomacy with countries who have wildly different local laws. Saying "anybody not legally residing in the US is not subject to local laws" extends the concept of diplomatic immunity to tourists and really any other foreigner. It'd be insane. Diplomats are not supernational entities that get to shoot people and do whatever they want. You think "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "have to follow laws?" Then you would have to accept the children of spies and invading armies example as birthright citizens. However, the US doesn't grant leave for spies and invading armies to do whatever they want. Nor do they for diplomats, nor did they when the 14th Amendment was written. Either YOUR interpretation is correct, in which case the amendment needs to be repealed due to being absurd, or your interpretation makes no sense due to insufficient jurisprudence, and actually the amendment was shrewdly worded to keep itself applicable by just such interpretations as we can for example apply to illegal immigration.
Actually, that is exactly what diplomatic immunity means. There might be specific exceptions carved out, but it's generally complete legal immunity. Note that legal immunity does not mean void of any consequences.
That said, yes, the child of a spy born in the US would probably be a US citizen. Do you have any actual examples? Or are you just inventing hypotheticals?
As for invasion, the last time the US was invaded by a foreign force was... never, or so long ago that nobody remembers. But I know that the children of Nazi soldiers all over Europe are legal citizens of wherever they were born, usually because the mother was a local. In the case of an invading soldier bringing a wife/girlfriend from home along, and the child being born locally, I haven't a clue what would happen, but I'd probably say that if things progressed that far, the US constitution would be locally suspended there anyway, and after the US reconquered that land, an arrangement would have to be made. As was the case in Europe post-WW2.
|
On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 20:44 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 17:29 Acrofales wrote:On December 09 2024 17:10 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 16:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2024 15:51 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. You mean "birthright citizenship" not "naturalized citizenship." Due to the very useful phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it would be entirely within the realm of possibility and scope of the Supreme Court to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not to be referring to people born of illegal aliens, without a further amendment to the constitution. Are illegals not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Because I agree that if you somehow stated that they're not then this phrase would be relevant and could cancel out the one preceding it but I'm pretty certain the reason why this phrase is there is for the sake of foreign diplomats. We can agree the phrase must have some kind of meaning, otherwise it would mean the same thing as if the sentence didn't include that phrase, in which case it's superfluous. For me I imagine obviously redcoats torching the White House with a wagon train of their wives popping anchor babies would not have qualified as being born as US citizens. So there at least have to be some exceptions. You say foreign diplomats' newborns aren't immediately bestowed US citizenship - I would tend to agree with that also. However, these both seem to fall under the more general principle which it would fall to SCOTUS to decide (or willfully choose not to decide) whether illegal aliens count as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Well, if "illegals" are *not* subject to jurisdiction of the US, doesn't that open a larger can of worms? We allow diplomats to be immune to local laws as a necessary exception in order to enable diplomacy with countries who have wildly different local laws. Saying "anybody not legally residing in the US is not subject to local laws" extends the concept of diplomatic immunity to tourists and really any other foreigner. It'd be insane. Diplomats are not supernational entities that get to shoot people and do whatever they want. You think "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "have to follow laws?" Then you would have to accept the children of spies and invading armies example as birthright citizens. However, the US doesn't grant leave for spies and invading armies to do whatever they want. Nor do they for diplomats, nor did they when the 14th Amendment was written. Either YOUR interpretation is correct, in which case the amendment needs to be repealed due to being absurd, or your interpretation makes no sense due to insufficient jurisprudence, and actually the amendment was shrewdly worded to keep itself applicable by just such interpretations as we can for example apply to illegal immigration. Actually, that is exactly what diplomatic immunity means. There might be specific exceptions carved out, but it's generally complete legal immunity. Note that legal immunity does not mean void of any consequences.
What is exactly what it means? That diplomats can shoot people and do whatever they want? Don't hang us up on the word "can" in this intentionally dense way. Of course I technically "can" shoot whoever I please also, it just doesn't mean there won't be any consequences. Correct.
Diplomatic immunity:
1) Comes in levels/degrees, usually immune to prosecution/arrest/investigation for x/y/z.
2) Can be suspended
3) Does not let people do whatever they want just because they may be immune from prosecution, as you explained, if your conduct causes your immunity to be suspended, or you get deported while destroying international relations, and most importantly:
4) Did not exist in the 1860s in its current form.
The reason you may not see it suspended often is simply you don't often see brazenly criminal diplomats, because people tasked with being diplomats are not morons waiting their whole life for whatever kid-in-a-candy-store hall pass you think diplomatic immunity confers, which they correctly realize it doesn't confer.
On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
That said, yes, the child of a spy born in the US would probably be a US citizen. Do you have any actual examples? Or are you just inventing hypotheticals?
Why would a spy's child be a US citizen if a diplomat's weren't? Where exactly are you taking us with this...?
Oh, nevermind. I get it. You think "legal immigrant spy." Of course.
On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
As for invasion, the last time the US was invaded by a foreign force was... never, or so long ago that nobody remembers.
The 14th Amendment was not only written in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War (its main purpose being to enshrine citizenship of freed blacks), it was written in the same century the aforementioned burning of the White House by a foreign army happened and that fact had not escaped public knowledge at the time. I do not give a flying fuck what you remember or not.
On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
But I know that the children of Nazi soldiers all over Europe are legal citizens of wherever they were born, usually because the mother was a local.
This is an important observation. There are countries in the western tradition without unrestricted birthright citizenship. Somehow the sky has not fallen there.
On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
In the case of an invading soldier bringing a wife/girlfriend from home along, and the child being born locally, I haven't a clue what would happen, but I'd probably say that if things progressed that far, the US constitution would be locally suspended there anyway, and after the US reconquered that land, an arrangement would have to be made. As was the case in Europe post-WW2.
Is your point that, barring martial law and the suspension of the Constitution, a constitution that explicitly enshrines the right to bear arms and proscribes quartering of soldiers, that same Constitution was written with the assumption that every single soul born on the land, no matter to who, no matter whether to foreign invader or not, was automatically a citizen? EXCEPT the child of a diplomat? Is this where you stand?
Anyway most of this tangent is moot for this reason: It is not an amendment denominating what categories of people have to obey the law or not. Everybody has to obey the law. That's why it's law. Obviously "and under the jurisdiction thereof" means something else.
"Under the jurisdiction thereof" could mean either one of two things from the perspective of originalism:
1) It refers to both people born in the United States and people born under the jurisdiction thereof - meaning not the States themselves but also territories. (Unfortunately this explanation is not in the cards because Congress has had to legislate citizenship for US territories.)
2) It refers to people who are born in the United States "while" (scare, not direct, quote) also under the jurisdiction thereof - meaning something essentially like while adhering to the law, while applicable citizenship/immigration law applies to them. Not while simply being in a place where they'd have to follow US law, which as explained above, refers to everybody in the US to begin with - whereas again, historically, not everyone has gotten citizenship, so the clause wouldn't mean that.
Here is my personal map of most law-following to least law-following ( - denoting what I think are distinct but anyway approximately comparable categories)
National
Green card - Permanent resident
Visa holder - legal resident
Tourist - diplomat
Illegal immigrant (overstay)
Illegal immigrant (illegal entry)
Spy - Terrorist - Invading Army
I would not personally draw the line under the 7th line like you, but closer to the 3rd line, although I can see arguments for the 2nd or 4th.
Like this is definitely something clarified multiple times by acts of Congress and also by SCOTUS cases as to where the line is - and the existence of a line. They both have a say from different angles - Congress can enforce the amendment more or less aggressively but they couldn't undo the protections afforded from the amendment by settled case law (ultimately SCOTUS). If things swing too far you don't need another amendment to reclarify things slightly in the other direction any more than you needed an amendment to get to where we are now from where we were in the 19th century (which we didn't).
|
United States43818 Posts
On December 09 2024 17:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 16:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2024 15:51 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. You mean "birthright citizenship" not "naturalized citizenship." Due to the very useful phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it would be entirely within the realm of possibility and scope of the Supreme Court to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not to be referring to people born of illegal aliens, without a further amendment to the constitution. Are illegals not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Because I agree that if you somehow stated that they're not then this phrase would be relevant and could cancel out the one preceding it but I'm pretty certain the reason why this phrase is there is for the sake of foreign diplomats. We can agree the phrase must have some kind of meaning, otherwise it would mean the same thing as if the sentence didn't include that phrase, in which case it's superfluous. For me I imagine obviously redcoats torching the White House with a wagon train of their wives popping anchor babies would not have qualified as being born as US citizens. So there at least have to be some exceptions. You say foreign diplomats' newborns aren't immediately bestowed US citizenship - I would tend to agree with that also. However, these both seem to fall under the more general principle which it would fall to SCOTUS to decide (or willfully choose not to decide) whether illegal aliens count as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
That example shows you’re clearly not aware of any of the historical context of the constitutional amendment in question. You’re about a hundred years too early.
The amendment was to give citizenship to a group of humans who were born in the United States but were not citizens because they, legally speaking, were chattel at the time of their birth. Redcoats weren’t part of the equation, it was a very specifically American problem.
So in terms of whether the legal status of the parents matters the constitution and the original context are very clear. Not only do the parents not need to be legal green card holding US residents, they don’t even need to be legally people.
If you don’t like that then don’t build a nation on slavery I guess. But if you build a nation on slavery and then have to work out how to give citizen rights to millions of people who formally weren’t legally people then you end up here and can’t subsequently go “but what if the parents are illegal”. "What if the parents aren't legal residents" is exactly the use case it was intending to cover.
|
I'm a bit confused about your lack of understanding. At this point it's a tangent of a tangent, but lets still just set the record straight:
On December 10 2024 01:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:On December 09 2024 20:44 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 17:29 Acrofales wrote:On December 09 2024 17:10 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 16:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2024 15:51 oBlade wrote:On December 09 2024 11:34 Vindicare605 wrote:So Trump is saying that he's serious about ending Naturalized Citizenship. Good thing we have this little thing called the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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.
Says right in there in language so clear not even the Supreme Court can fudge it. So Trump is going to call for a Constitutional Ammendment then right? That's the only way he can actually go about fulfilling this insane campaign promise of his. There's absolutely NO chance that a Joint Resolution ever gets through this Congress. They couldn't get a joint resolution passed on ANY issue much less this one. But Trump's base still thinks he has the power to do this because of course they do. lol. It's never going to happen. You mean "birthright citizenship" not "naturalized citizenship." Due to the very useful phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" it would be entirely within the realm of possibility and scope of the Supreme Court to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" not to be referring to people born of illegal aliens, without a further amendment to the constitution. Are illegals not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Because I agree that if you somehow stated that they're not then this phrase would be relevant and could cancel out the one preceding it but I'm pretty certain the reason why this phrase is there is for the sake of foreign diplomats. We can agree the phrase must have some kind of meaning, otherwise it would mean the same thing as if the sentence didn't include that phrase, in which case it's superfluous. For me I imagine obviously redcoats torching the White House with a wagon train of their wives popping anchor babies would not have qualified as being born as US citizens. So there at least have to be some exceptions. You say foreign diplomats' newborns aren't immediately bestowed US citizenship - I would tend to agree with that also. However, these both seem to fall under the more general principle which it would fall to SCOTUS to decide (or willfully choose not to decide) whether illegal aliens count as "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Well, if "illegals" are *not* subject to jurisdiction of the US, doesn't that open a larger can of worms? We allow diplomats to be immune to local laws as a necessary exception in order to enable diplomacy with countries who have wildly different local laws. Saying "anybody not legally residing in the US is not subject to local laws" extends the concept of diplomatic immunity to tourists and really any other foreigner. It'd be insane. Diplomats are not supernational entities that get to shoot people and do whatever they want. You think "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "have to follow laws?" Then you would have to accept the children of spies and invading armies example as birthright citizens. However, the US doesn't grant leave for spies and invading armies to do whatever they want. Nor do they for diplomats, nor did they when the 14th Amendment was written. Either YOUR interpretation is correct, in which case the amendment needs to be repealed due to being absurd, or your interpretation makes no sense due to insufficient jurisprudence, and actually the amendment was shrewdly worded to keep itself applicable by just such interpretations as we can for example apply to illegal immigration. Actually, that is exactly what diplomatic immunity means. There might be specific exceptions carved out, but it's generally complete legal immunity. Note that legal immunity does not mean void of any consequences. What is exactly what it means? That diplomats can shoot people and do whatever they want? Don't hang us up on the word "can" in this intentionally dense way. Of course I technically "can" shoot whoever I please also, it just doesn't mean there won't be any consequences. Correct. Diplomatic immunity: 1) Comes in levels/degrees, usually immune to prosecution/arrest/investigation for x/y/z. 2) Can be suspended 3) Does not let people do whatever they want just because they may be immune from prosecution, as you explained, if your conduct causes your immunity to be suspended, or you get deported while destroying international relations, and most importantly: 4) Did not exist in the 1860s in its current form.
If you shoot somebody, you get arrested and thrown in jail. If the ambassador from the UK shoots somebody, they are immune from prosecution in the US. That doesn't mean it doesn't cause a major diplomatic incident. The ambassador will be recalled, and probably prosecuted for murder in the UK. Maybe the UK will revoke their diplomatic immunity and extradite them to the US. But essentially it's up to the UK to respond. And yes, obviously there's degrees. That said, Assange hid out in the Ecuadorian embassy for years, without the UK doing anything, because nabbing Assange was just not worth causing a diplomatic tussle with Ecuador over. All throughout that time, the Ecuadorian ambassador and a bunch of other diplomats went about their life, visiting with cabinet ministers, etc. while knowingly harboring a fugitive. Not once did the metropolitan police bother them. I suggest you try harboring Assange in your home and see how long it takes before a SWAT team is busting down your door, or arresting you for harboring a fugitive when you go out for groceries.
Anyway, last thing we really have to say about the tangent, because you claim this type of thing didn't exist in the 1860s and I'm willing to take that at face value. I doubt that it was codified in treaties the way it is now, although for as long as there have been governments, there have been official emissaries representing those governments, and a corresponding code of conduct. But it's entirely possible that there was no treaty codifying diplomatic rules between the US and France (for instance) in 1860.
The reason you may not see it suspended often is simply you don't often see brazenly criminal diplomats, because people tasked with being diplomats are not morons waiting their whole life for whatever kid-in-a-candy-store hall pass you think diplomatic immunity confers, which they correctly realize it doesn't confer.
Once again, legal immunity doesn't mean freedom from any consequence. And yes, of course the country sending diplomats thinks about what diplomat to send, and usually won't send some criminal. Although Trump apparently doesn't care, in the case of France.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
That said, yes, the child of a spy born in the US would probably be a US citizen. Do you have any actual examples? Or are you just inventing hypotheticals? Why would a spy's child be a US citizen if a diplomat's weren't? Where exactly are you taking us with this...? Oh, nevermind. I get it. You think "legal immigrant spy." Of course.
Well, yes. Most spies are/were legal immigrants. Or actually already US citizens. Anyway, another bizarre niche situation, which you decided to bring up. I'm still waiting for examples.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
As for invasion, the last time the US was invaded by a foreign force was... never, or so long ago that nobody remembers. The 14th Amendment was not only written in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War (its main purpose being to enshrine citizenship of freed blacks), it was written in the same century the aforementioned burning of the White House by a foreign army happened and that fact had not escaped public knowledge at the time. I do not give a flying fuck what you remember or not.
Neither of those were foreign invasions. The former is a civil war, and the latter was during the US' war of independence. The US as a country didn't really exist yet until that war was won. Until that time the question of who could become a US citizen was a bit of a moot point. In any case, I highly doubt that the authors of the 14th amendment were worried about British invasions on US soil, and were definitely far more worried about ensuring that former slaves would be considered US citizens.
But seeing as we've discarded diplomat, I am not sure what the authors did have in mind when discussing someone who is born or naturalized in the United States, but wouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Whether or not they correctly follow the law is moot. They are subject to its jurisdiction. The only other case I could think of was Native Americans in their reserves, but Native Americans get singled out specifically in the subsequent paragraph, so it'd be quite inconsistent wording.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
But I know that the children of Nazi soldiers all over Europe are legal citizens of wherever they were born, usually because the mother was a local. This is an important observation. There are countries in the western tradition without unrestricted birthright citizenship. Somehow the sky has not fallen there. Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
In the case of an invading soldier bringing a wife/girlfriend from home along, and the child being born locally, I haven't a clue what would happen, but I'd probably say that if things progressed that far, the US constitution would be locally suspended there anyway, and after the US reconquered that land, an arrangement would have to be made. As was the case in Europe post-WW2. Is your point that, barring martial law and the suspension of the Constitution, a constitution that explicitly enshrines the right to bear arms and proscribes quartering of soldiers, that same Constitution was written with the assumption that every single soul born on the land, no matter to who, no matter whether to foreign invader or not, was automatically a citizen? EXCEPT the child of a diplomat? Is this where you stand? Anyway most of this tangent is moot for this reason: It is not an amendment denominating what categories of people have to obey the law or not. Everybody has to obey the law. That's why it's law. Obviously "and under the jurisdiction thereof" means something else. "Under the jurisdiction thereof" could mean either one of two things from the perspective of originalism: 1) It refers to both people born in the United States and people born under the jurisdiction thereof - meaning not the States themselves but also territories. (Unfortunately this explanation is not in the cards because Congress has had to legislate citizenship for US territories.) 2) It refers to people who are born in the United States "while" (scare, not direct, quote) also under the jurisdiction thereof - meaning something essentially like while adhering to the law, while applicable citizenship/immigration law applies to them. Not while simply being in a place where they'd have to follow US law, which as explained above, refers to everybody in the US to begin with - whereas again, historically, not everyone has gotten citizenship, so the clause wouldn't mean that.
That isn't what that sentence means, though. Breaking the law doesn't mean you aren't under its jurisdiction. If you weren't under its jurisdiction there would inherently be nothing to break. Legal language is precise. If they meant to exclude people transgressing the law, they would have used words that mean that.
Here is my personal map of most law-following to least law-following ( - denoting what I think are distinct but anyway approximately comparable categories)
National
Green card - Permanent resident
Visa holder - legal resident
Tourist - diplomat
Illegal immigrant (overstay)
Illegal immigrant (illegal entry)
Spy - Terrorist - Invading Army
I would not personally draw the line under the 7th line like you, but closer to the 3rd line, although I can see arguments for the 2nd or 4th.
Like this is definitely something clarified multiple times by acts of Congress and also by SCOTUS cases as to where the line is - and the existence of a line. They both have a say from different angles - Congress can enforce the amendment more or less aggressively but they couldn't undo the protections afforded from the amendment by settled case law (ultimately SCOTUS). If things swing too far you don't need another amendment to reclarify things slightly in the other direction any more than you needed an amendment to get to where we are now from where we were in the 19th century (which we didn't).
Once again, following the law or not is irrelevant. Spies and terrorists in the US are subject to its jurisdiction, regardless of how many laws they are breaking at any given time. The only one there where you could say it's iffy is the invading army, because by nature of being an invading army, they are suspending the constitution in places they conquer and putting their own laws in its place. The US loses jurisdiction there by merit of having lost control of that territory to someone else who is imposing their own jurisdiction. If the US reconquers that then whatever happened in the meantime has to be reconciled with the (new) US law. If lots of invaders had babies, that is something I don't think is covered by the 14th amendment! So... I guess maybe you were right, and the authors were indeed worried about giving citizenship to hordes of red coat wearing babies. It isn't a very likely explanation, but it's more likely than that they meant to revoke criminals' citizenship!
|
|
|
On December 09 2024 19:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Hm that's a valid point tbh. Could perhaps be argued that citizenship isn't automatically granted until you've reached the criminal age or something like that? Which might be a bit iffy with some states not defining this and the age otherwise varying from state to state. But maybe jurisdiction is also a broader term than 'subject to potential punishment', I dunno.
No it can't be argued. It says in the Ammendment that people born in the United States ARE citizens. Doesn't say "can become citizens." It says they ARE citizens.
|
Mangione was caught with a ghost gun that uses 9mm bullets, a silencer, a US passport, four fake IDs with names used during the killer’s stint in New York City and the manifesto, sources said.
Well that was a lot stupider than I expected. He had a silenced gun on him, and the ID he used at the hostel. Given how far away from nyc he got, he could've ditched the ID and gun anywhere.
I'm incredibly disappointed, but the trial will still be an interesting story to follow. Jury trial is going to be a minefield for prosecutors.
|
On December 10 2024 09:09 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +Mangione was caught with a ghost gun that uses 9mm bullets, a silencer, a US passport, four fake IDs with names used during the killer’s stint in New York City and the manifesto, sources said. Well that was a lot stupider than I expected. He had a silenced gun on him, and the ID he used at the hostel. Given how far away from nyc he got, he could've ditched the ID and gun anywhere.
Do you not feel like it doesn't pass the smell test? Dude doesn't even burn the ID? Guns are harder to completely destroy, but the ID not being destroyed strongly implies this was all intentional. There's just no way the guy who planned all this sits on his ass with all this hugely incriminating evidence/liability for 3 days.
|
Northern Ireland26505 Posts
On December 10 2024 10:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 09:09 Lmui wrote:Mangione was caught with a ghost gun that uses 9mm bullets, a silencer, a US passport, four fake IDs with names used during the killer’s stint in New York City and the manifesto, sources said. Well that was a lot stupider than I expected. He had a silenced gun on him, and the ID he used at the hostel. Given how far away from nyc he got, he could've ditched the ID and gun anywhere. Do you not feel like it doesn't pass the smell test? Dude doesn't even burn the ID? Guns are harder to completely destroy, but the ID not being destroyed strongly implies this was all intentional. There's just no way the guy who planned all this sits on his ass with all this hugely incriminating evidence/liability for 3 days.
There are many, many ways that they potentially do. Psychotic break for one. Having been there myself, attention to overall detail isn’t always there to put it mildly, although it doesn’t necessarily preclude you from carrying out certain tasks.
Alternatively he was bold up until the act and the ‘oh shit I just shot a guy in cold blood’ subsequently paralysed him.
Or he’s just not that smart. Although IIRC he was supposedly an Ivy League student so he’s probably not a total dumbass.
Whatever it is I don’t think it necessarily has to go to conspiratorial domains
|
On December 10 2024 10:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 09:09 Lmui wrote:Mangione was caught with a ghost gun that uses 9mm bullets, a silencer, a US passport, four fake IDs with names used during the killer’s stint in New York City and the manifesto, sources said. Well that was a lot stupider than I expected. He had a silenced gun on him, and the ID he used at the hostel. Given how far away from nyc he got, he could've ditched the ID and gun anywhere. Do you not feel like it doesn't pass the smell test? Dude doesn't even burn the ID? Guns are harder to completely destroy, but the ID not being destroyed strongly implies this was all intentional. There's just no way the guy who planned all this sits on his ass with all this hugely incriminating evidence/liability for 3 days.
Gotta agree with you there. Seems premeditated, probably wants to send a message, in as public of a way as possible. Given his educational background, hard to imagine he didn't think through his plans in the last 48 hours.
News outlets are going to be eating well.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy.
If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter.
EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case.
Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html
|
They updated your article:
CNN) — New York prosecutors have charged Luigi Mangione with murder in the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, hours after he was apprehended at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, on Monday.
The 26-year-old Ivy League graduate from Maryland was also charged with two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, one count of second-degree possession of a forged document, and one count of third-degree criminal possession of a firearm, online court documents show.
|
Have any politicians been asked how they will address people's dissatisfaction with healthcare insurance companies and healthcare in general? It seems like it would be an obvious question to ask from the incoming administration. Or are politicians already on holiday vacations?
|
On December 10 2024 16:14 Legan wrote:
Have any politicians been asked how they will address people's dissatisfaction with healthcare insurance companies and healthcare in general? It seems like it would be an obvious question to ask from the incoming administration. Or are politicians already on holiday vacations?
Politicians have no intent on addressing people's dissatisfaction with healthcare, they have zero intentions of answering that question at all
|
On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy. If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter. EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case. Show nested quote +Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html
Do you think they nabbed some other guy with a ghost gun, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto explaining his actions? Or that there is some kind of conspiracy to frame an innocent person?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GeZTsi9WEAEuENr?format=jpg&name=small)
