It basically was. The common law doctrine of citizenship by birth prevailed from the founding up to Dred Scott.
The reason it is uncommon worldwide is because nobody practices common law outside of the Anglophone former colonies and England itself. England had absolute birthright citizenship right up until Thatcher
Yep, jus soli. And Dred Scott overruled that for blacks. And (after the Civil War which was about slavery) the 14th Amendment overturned Dred Scott with birthright citizenship.
Did you read the executive order? It clearly states it also covers parents that are here legally through visas like H, F etc... It is not just about illegal immigration. E.g. if you work in the US on H and have a kid with a student on F visa, the kid will not be a US citizen going forward (starting in 30 days).
I'd be curious to hear the argument that people legally working or studying here aren't "subject to jurisdiction" of. People on H1B for a while file the exact same taxes citizens file (because they're US persons for tax purposes). Not sure how are they legally not subject to jurisdiction of?
>or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
It specifically says the child of someone here on a work visa would not be a citizen. If that person became a citizen or permanent resident after the child’s birth, the child would need to pursue residency/citizenship through their own merit as a non-citizen.
What visa is given to non citizens born while in the US I wonder?
The definition of jurisdiction matters a lot here. But it's hard to explain why it would be that if someone who is here legal or illegal in the US, commits a crime is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and therefore should simply go free and be deported as if they were simply a diplomat, with diplomatic immunity...
There's many cases as well like the Gitmo cases that explain what "jurisdiction" means, and it doesn't even simply mean whether or not you are on US soil, but can be subjected to US laws, even when overseas.
This will surely dissuade people from coming to work on work visa. It’s a big step to relocate your carrier to another country. If there is no perspective to fully commit and plan proper migration, then there is less motivation to even go in the first place.
I believe that historically, the primary group of people who are "not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" are diplomatic personnel from other countries. Those people actually are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The 14th Amendment is already the law. SCOTUS has previously ruled that the exception to birthright are quite narrow. This EO is all about getting the case back to SCOTUS so they can change a previous ruling.
Expect this to go all the way to SCOTUS. I would imagine multiple lower courts will rule on it in the near-term, probably with injunctions and such. Multiple lawsuits challenging it have already been prepared and will be filed shortly
Certainly reminiscent of Bannon's shock and awe strategy from '16
False. I would have agreed with you if this order also included ending it also for all "US Citizens" and "lawful permanent residents", but it does not.
Read it again and you can clearly see that it is for those who are *not born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents"*.
>>> (c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.
it's still ending _birthright_ citizenship; if you're born to US citizens (wherever you may be born) you get citizenship through your parents, not birthright.
The important distinction is that this order is only for:
>>> those who are NOT born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents".
This order does NOT affect children born IN the US to US citizens or "lawful permanent residents" while the OP suggested that this order was "ending birthright citizenship in America" which that is totally false, otherwise it would have included everyone including US citizens or permanent residents, but it does not.
Only for those who are NOT born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents".
HN isn't a current affairs site, so users tend to flag most of the hottest stories-of-the-day. That's expected and desirable.
Is there a specific submission that you feel should be getting a discussion on HN? Keep in mind that the mandate here is thoughtful conversation about stories that gratify intellectual curiosity (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
Very few countries have birthright citizenship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli). I still find it to be a strange concept. It seems like in the US, birthright citizenship isn’t granted in the constitution or laws directly but was the result of a court ruling, which is extra strange. I’m not sure if this is the right way to go about it, but I think removing it is the right direction to have a sense of sovereignty and make citizenship meaningful.
Very few countries have a huge statue at the entrance of a major port with a big bronze plaque bearing the message "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free (...)".
The 14th Amendment was a direct rebuttal of a court case: Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott ruled that Black people could not be citizens, because they were property not people, including a "free negro" because they descended from property. The Citizenship Clause intentionally rebuts the ruling. There is no other way to interpret the Clause.
The United States has a lot of unique traits that few other countries have (American exceptionalism), birthright citizenship being just one characteristic. I'd think an executive order is just testing the water, but to change it definitively requires a constitutional amendment.
Well, at least they aren't trying to enforce this retroactively.