[somenameforme]

Every day across the world thousands of people are removed from countries around the world for violating immigration laws. Except in cases of where it coincided with criminality, it's always going to be very ugly, because it means somebody had built up a life for themselves somewhere and that is now ended due to them having been born in a different place and then overstayed their permission, or never received such, to stay somewhere else.

Like in this case, what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people? The parents were in the country illegally, and the children's citizenship was solely one of birthright. Any sort of "pleasant" outcome would effectively require turning birthright citizenship into defacto citizenship for the parents as well, at least if they can stay illegally for long enough. That's not only completely unrealistic, but also a complete slap in the face to the millions of people who try to migrate legally and are refused entry.

[sswatson]

The phrase "solely one of birthright" suggests the diminishment of the citizenship of certain people. That is not how citizenship works: no one is less of a citizen than anyone else.

The most objectionable part here — by far — is not the deportation of the parents, but the deportation of citizens and the lack of due process.

The alternative being proposed is that if ICE is going to deport the parents of US citizen children, the parents should be given the opportunity to seek legal counsel regarding how they're going to ensure care for their children.

[kadushka]

no one is less of a citizen than anyone else

This is not true - a citizen by birth can become the president, a naturalized citizen cannot.

[bryanrasmussen]

that's true, so basically they deported somebody that one day could become President!

[lawn]

They deported someone with (supposedly) more rights than Elon Musk.

[V-eHGsd_]

While true, I believe op was talking about with respect to the protections afforded by the law.

[threatofrain]

While true, one thing OP could be talking about is the spiritualism implied by that rule, and whether it finds catch in the American psychology.

[somenameforme]

In this case it's clear that the children were not literally deported. The parents were given the choice of taking their children with them, or leaving them with social services, and they did what any half decent parent would do. So they ended up given a "free flight" on a plane full of people being deported, which blurs the difference - but it's obviously there. The issue is that the parents were not granted access to legal counsel, though that's a consequence of expedited removal [1], which dates back to Clinton.

I think this issue mostly emphasizes the highly unpleasant issues that unrestricted bithright citizenship causes. There's a reason literally no other advanced economy, besides Canada, has maintained such a thing. [1] And Canada is probably the outlier there due to being geographically protected from illegal immigration. Even if somebody e.g. boats over to North America, they're going to be much more likely to head towards the US than Canada.

I say maintained because it's self evident that birthright citizenship would have been a given in the times before big government, if not only because it couldn't not be a given. But basically everywhere desirable started getting rid of it once it started being abused. The entry on Ireland, the last country in Europe to eliminate unrestricted birthright citizenship, is interesting:

---

On 1 January 2005, the law was amended to require that at least one of the parents be an Irish citizen; a British citizen; a resident with a permanent right to reside in Ireland or in Northern Ireland; or a legal resident residing three of the last four years in the country (excluding students and asylum seekers) (see Irish nationality law).[64] The amendment was prompted by the case of Man Chen, a Chinese woman living in mainland United Kingdom who traveled to Belfast (Northern Ireland, part of the UK) to give birth in order to benefit from the previous rule whereby anyone born on any part of the island of Ireland was automatically granted Irish citizenship. The Chinese parents used their daughter's Irish (and thereby European Union) citizenship to obtain permanent residence in the UK as parents of a dependent EU citizen. Ireland was the last country in Europe to abolish unrestricted jus soli. (see Irish nationality law).[107]

---

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#

[EasyMark]

I don't think it was meant to devalue their citizenship, but citizenship doesn't trump their safety or need to be with their parents. The parents are going to be deported for being here illegally, would you have the child be separated and put in a foster/community home? Emotions are important but the only pragmatic solution here is to deport all 3, if your nation's policy is deportation for being here illegally. I agree with that policy in general but not with the US policy of Trump of manhandling illegal aliens or their children. Nor do I agree the lawlessness of what they're doing currently by sending off "suspected gang members" without due process to what amount to torture camps in El Salvador.

[lawn]

Sentencing children to die as they can't receive proper medical care when deported is not in any way the best solution.

Unless of course your lack empathy and de-humanize people by calling them "aliens".

[chasd00]

What you’re really saying is you want this family broken up for the rage bait. You want the picture of a child crying for their mother as the plane takes off for the views.

[sixothree]

Fairly clear that is not the argument here.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

US hospitals do not have magical pixie dust to grant US citizenship.

This is why birthright as a legal concept is a diminishment of citizenship for all those who hold it.

Parents pass on the shared history, values, and national culture to their kids. Parents are those who give value to US citizenship.

Not coming out of a belly, that happens to be inside a US hospital.

[Erem]

US constitution thoughtfully disagrees with you, elevating presence on the land at birth over bloodline wrt citizenship.

“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.” -US Constitution, 14th Amendment

Quite literally, US hospitals do have that magic pixie dust because they are on the land of this country.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

>> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Will need to be resolved.

Its not a coincidence that Switzerland is the longest-lasting democracy in the world by a factor of 4x, vs USA. Their framers had the foresight to enshrine their communities' common history, values, and culture.... over pixie dust.

[cycrutchfield]

It has been resolved, for over 125 years of precedent.

If you don’t know US history, why bother to show your ignorance so visibly?

[Revanche1367]

Ironically, his parents didn’t do a good enough job of passing on the shared history, values, and national culture of the US.

[roughly]

> Parents pass on the shared history, values, and national culture to their kids.

Except our nation’s shared history, values, and national culture is that we’re a nation of immigrants, a melting pot of global cultures, a refuge for those in need, and a place where anyone can come to seek their fortune, so obviously American parents haven’t been passing on those values to their children if we’re still having this debate, and I think the only fair response to that is to deport all the children who don’t meet your standards of citizenship, by which I mean the entire cohort that’s arguing all this is OK.

[shadowgovt]

To be blunt, America's children are getting a lot more of their shared cultural values from Bluey than their parents, so I think we could stand to pump the brakes on concern about whether children born in this country are as American as children born in this country to parents who were born in this country.

That way lies a very ugly argument about who is enough on the team. One that almost nobody who thinks themselves American wins, because the real winners of that argument should be the folks stuck into reservations by the alien ancestors of those who see themselves as "true Americans, born of Americans."

For Americans in particular, the best strategy for not having their own legitimacy challenged is definitely not to pull too hard on the legitimacy thread.

[roughly]

As maybe my favorite Twitter dunk of all time goes - “Ah yes, Jack Posobiec, of the Mayflower Posobiecs.”

[IG_Semmelweiss]

Yes. We are a nation of immigrants. But you are using the word "immigrant" very loosely. Illegal alien != immigrant. Today, the first 2 acts of an illegal alien arriving in this country are (1) breaking the law (2) lying on an application, another crime. This is wildly different from historical migrants.

In fact, all immigrants who came into this country, actually passed tests (education, work exp, english, etc) before being allowed in. Even in Ellis island at the height of the immigration boom, immigrants who could not support themselves, were sick, etc, were turned around [1]

So yes, we are a nation of immigrants, not a nation of illegal aliens

[1] https://www.nps.gov/elis/learn/historyculture/index.htm

[cycrutchfield]

US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

Wax poetic about nativism all you like, it won’t change the truth.

[saagarjha]

As a birthright citizen I think my parents did a whole lot better than yours at instilling American values.

[kj4211cash]

Do you really believe this? I've never met anyone opposed to birthright citizenship for the US. Our shared history, values, and national culture are all about immigration so this isn't computing for me. Plus the law seems settled on this issue, or at least was before Trump 2.0. I genuinely don't understand how thinking people can support the current administration's policies on numerous issues. Tried going to r/conservative, watching Fox News, etc. but it hasn't helped much to date.

[cycrutchfield]

It’s pretty easy to understand, you only need to look at which subset of immigrants they have a problem with. There’s one commonality with all of them, and it is (so to speak) only skin-deep.

[shadowgovt]

The great irony of the American bigot arguing against "chain migration" is that their immediate forefathers not only allowed it as a compromise, but embraced it with open arms.

In the fifties and sixties, those in America who deeply concern themselves with average skin tone saw a darkening country. They believed that fast-tracking immigration for family members would allow Europeans escaping the aftermath of World War II to immigrate rapidly to America, which would bolster the numbers and tilt the national average a bit, if you will, caucasian.

... what they fundamentally failed to grasp is that after the war, America sent her fighting boys (and girls) out to enforce Democracy over Communism at the point of a sword. Sen them to countries where the average citizen was not, generally, bothered by intense direct sunlight. And those boys fell in love. With people who distinctly lacked a certain, shall we say, Innsmouth look that our bigot friends preferred in their fellow citizens. Plus, folks from geographically-adjacent countries who went through the arduous process of naturalization were able to bring their extended families in as well.

The final consequence was a policy that had been supported on one side for mostly economic and "melting pot" reasons that was also supported by bigots for decidedly bigot reasons... Turned out to make the country more diverse, not the less-diverse the bigots had hoped for.

It's a feel-good self-own story.

[sanderjd]

> the children's citizenship was solely one of birthright

Under the US Constitution, this is not a distinction. What you're looking for is just "the children's citizenship" without this qualifier that signifies nothing under the law.

The better alternative is to aggressively enforce employment laws against employers. Immigrants come here and stay here to work.

[retzkek]

And then, what? Are citizens beating down the doors to do these jobs but getting out-competed by migrants? Are these the same citizens who are lining up to do sweatshop labor when manufacturing “returns” to the US?

If undocumented workers are finding productive work in an economy with low unemployment then the problem is that the government is not facilitating them gaining legal status.

[tastyfreeze]

The problem would be minimum wage and insurance requirements for employing citizens. There are plenty of citizens that would work those jobs but nobody would hire them because they cost too much. What you are arguing for is to continue allowing people to come here so employers can pay them less than a citizen is legally required to be paid. Once they become legal employers no longer want to employ them for the same reason they don't want to hire citizens.

[mgkimsal]

US citizens by and large don't want to go work in tobacco fields for $15/hr, in a state with $7/hr min wage. But mexican workers coming over legally, getting the work visas and all that... will.

[sanderjd]

What I'm arguing for is to not let employers do that.

[conor_mc]

We do have a chicken and egg problem. I think the idea here is that it's a systemic issue and the enforcement is focussed on individuals. This is analogous to the concept of getting everyday people to recycle when the companies creating the products have greater control over how much garbage is produced.

Employers need to stop taking advantage of undocumented workers at artificially suppressed wages. This has acted like a subsidy keeping these poor business models afloat. This has led us to the situation we are in now, where we've become dependent on undocumented migrants (food production etc), who we are being taking advantage of (lower wages, less rights), and also trying to villanize & deport them (the article above). All simultaneously.

It's possible with careful coordination of industry, legislation, and immagration, we wouldn't be here. But now that we are, we need to either find a way to improve the situation or reverse it.

[sanderjd]

I don't think it's chicken and egg at all. I think lots of employers employ immigrants illegally, and then the immigrants take all the political heat. Anyone pissed about "all these illegals" should be at least just as pissed about all the businesses illegally employing them.

We should stop letting employers do this, and then we all discover that we still really want to employ immigrants, we should enable that, legally.

[whimsicalism]

or alternatively that the US doesn't have a guest worker program similar in scope to most of the developed world, and this is at least partially due to political concerns around birthright.

[sanderjd]

I think then we would have an "oh shit" moment and finally reform the legal immigration system to allow immigrants to come do all these jobs legally.

It would be a forcing function.

[firesteelrain]

Agree and proper border control which the previous administration failed to enforce. Step 1 is stop the influx.

[faster]

The data seem to show that at the end of Biden's term, ICE enforcement actions were very low. But for some reason, the stats page doesn't show Trump's previous term. https://www.ice.gov/statistics

Looking at the most recent DHS yearbook (apples and oranges, but the best I can find so far) at https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook and scaling to match the curve at the ICE stats page, it looks like illegal immigration was way down at the end of Biden's term.

So maybe the influx was already slowed dramatically. I don't think it's possible to stop people from wanting to go to the US, except by making it worse that the places people are leaving. I don't think that's a worthy goal.

[firesteelrain]

The question we have to ask ourselves is why was ICE not empowered to conduct enforcement ? Why were border crossings up over Biden’s term and then when Trump is elected and comes into office they drop dramatically ?

[sanderjd]

I'm in favor of that too, but I think this insistence on it being step 1 is actually just a resistance to solving the real problem. (Which is that employers are happy to pay below market wages to illegally employ immigrants who are here unlawfully.)

[firesteelrain]

We should go after it all to include implementing E-Verify for all. Republicans are also in favor of the guest worker program to legally meet the demand. But we have to stop the flow

[sanderjd]

I agree that we should do those things. But what I've seen for the past couple decades that I've been voting is that Republican politicians pretend to want to do those things, but refuse to do them "until we've stopped the flow" or "but the border has to be step 1".

This is a classic political tactic to be able to say you want to do something, but never actually have to do it. Politicians use this tactic when they don't actually want to do the thing for some reason. In this case, it's because it's really unpopular with business owners, who like to employ illegal immigrants.

It's perfectly reasonable to say "we need to crack down on employers in conjunction with aggressive border and deportation enforcement". But I'm very skeptical of anyone saying "stopping the flow is step 1". I've heard that story before!

[laurent_du]

Not enough. Some immigrants come and stay to commit crimes.

[__turbobrew__]

> Like in this case, what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people?

I like how nobody has actually answered this question yet, and have only harped on your birthright comment.

The parents are in the US illegally, ICE deports people who are in the US illegally. Presumably the parents didn’t want to leave their USC kids behind so they brought them.

I guess possible options are

1. Allow illegal parents to designate USC kids a guardian who has legal US immigration status

2. Dont deport illegal immigrants who have USC kids (basically making birthright transitive to parents)

[Volundr]

While plenty of people would prefer 2) there would be a lot less outcry if they were allowing 1) especially in cases where the kid already has a legal USC guardian like the one discussed here where the father couldn't even speak with the mother before her and his child was deported.

[FireBeyond]

> The parents are in the US illegally

No, the father is not. And when trying to get the mother legal help for her situation was cut off from her. Same when the court tried to get information, ICE ignored it, got her on a plane and then shortly after said “sorry, too late”.

[__turbobrew__]

The question then is the mother the legal guardian of the kids and was she given a choice to hand off the kids to someone else? If the mother was the legal guardian and she decided to take the USC kids with her, that is her right.

I think the details will matter here, it does seem like ICE skrewed the pooch here in not giving the family recourse to get the kids out of the detainee facility. If the USC kids were involuntarily detained that is a problem (despite it may be legal to do that according to US federal law).

[Swizec]

> 2. Dont deport illegal immigrants who have USC kids (basically making birthright transitive to parents)

Birthright is somewhat transitive. US citizens can sponsor family members for a green card once they’re 18.

[yodsanklai]

> it's always going to be very ugly,

It doesn't have to be as ugly as what is described in the article.

[p_j_w]

> what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people?

How about real actual fucking due process? Maybe they can NOT cut off communication when the citizen father tried to provide her with a phone number for legal counsel. Anything else is ghoulish. Keep defending it if you really don’t give a shit about your level of humanity.

[rdtsc]

> Maybe they can NOT cut off communication when the citizen father tried

Is father a US citizen?

Based on https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.21... assuming that's the right case it doesn't seem like he is

[jolmg]

Possibly meant "the citizen's father"

[rdtsc]

That could be, but I see other comments also indicating the father is a U.S. citizen.

[UncleMeat]

> and the children's citizenship was solely one of birthright

My citizenship is solely that way too, even though generations of my ancestors were also citizens.

Unless you personally naturalized then your citizenship is solely by birthright. The vast majority of US citizens are this way. Insisting that this is somehow worth less in terms of legal protections is just frankly wrong.

Imagine you said this for other circumstances. "Well, a parent going to prison is always going to be hard for the family - better imprison the whole family!"

[apical_dendrite]

> Any sort of "pleasant" outcome would effectively require turning birthright citizenship into defacto citizenship for the parents as well, at least if they can stay illegally for long enough.

No, there are lots of immigration statuses between "illegal" and "citizen". DAPA, which was the Obama administration's policy, gave parents of US citizens a status where they could get temporary renewable work permits and exemption for deportation. This was not citizenship, or even a status that could allow someone to eventually become a citizen.

[pclmulqdq]

Most of those statuses are called "visas" and they have been around for a while. Obama's innovation was giving a weird form of status ("we know you broke the law and we aren't enforcing it") to people who broke the law when crossing the border. Most people with a non-illegal and non-citizen status are supposed to apply for that status before crossing the border.

[apical_dendrite]

Sure, the point is that the poster I was responding to said that the only way to avoid putting US citizen minor children in a position where they have to either leave the country, or stay in the country without their parents, is to effectively grant citizenship to the parents. My point is that that's a false choice, it would be possible to grant the parents a temporary, conditional status that's based on having minor US-citizen children. It's not an ideal solution, but it protects the constitutional rights of US-citizen minor children without granting citizenship to the parents.

[sashank_1509]

How is that any different from granting parents citizenship. In some sense you presume birthright citizenship doesn’t make sense. Let us say an immigrant illegally comes into the country and becomes a robber. He in fact, just mugs people on the street. Clearly he’s a net negative, someone you want to deport. Now he has a child. Now by virtue of him having a child, we can no longer deport him, because then we make the child who’s a citizen less parent less. Also assume in this case the mother is some criminal too, to drive the point home.

The simpler, logically consistent solution would be that the child’s citizenship is only granted if the parents are citizens. (Or at least if parents are not illegal immigrants). Then when you deport the parents, you can legally deport the child too. It still is not a pleasant situation, there is no ideal solution here, except he should have never been let in at all, but once he is, these seem the only choices

[apical_dendrite]

It's completely different. A conditional work visa is just that, conditional. If you commit a crime you can lose status and be deported. In fact, DAPA eligibility was dependent on not having a felony record. That is not the same thing as citizenship. There's no reason to believe that because you give a temporary work authorization to someone that you have to then make that person a citizen.

Citizenship by blood creates its own problems. I am eligible for Polish citizenship if I choose to pursue it based on where my ancestors lived. I have never been to Poland, don't speak the language, and don't really know that much about the culture or feel any loyalty or even much affinity to Poland. On the other hand, let's say that someone is born in Poland to immigrant parents. Culturally they are entirely Polish - they lived their whole life there, speak the language, were educated by the Polish school system and consider themselves entirely Polish - they've never lived anywhere else. Yet they would not have the same ability to become a citizen that I have. If I got Polish citizenship, I'd just take whatever benefits I could from it and contribute nothing to Poland. How is it logical that I could be a Polish citizen and this person couldn't be?

[sanderjd]

This gets at another portion of the answer to the "what's your alternative suggestion?" question: I'd suggest Congress pass laws, rather than presidents making stuff up, illegally. This is clearly not a partisan point! Every president in my voting lifetime - Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden - has made up immigration law while Congress sat on its thumbs.

[apical_dendrite]

I agree with you.

I think there has to be a reasonable solution that gives legal status to the guy who's been here for 20 years and is making a positive contribution to society, but doesn't allow someone to show up and exploit loopholes to stay forever.

I think a reasonable compromise would look something like this:

* Make it much easier for people to get temporary visas for the kinds of jobs where we need migrant workers.

* Provide a pathway to citizenship for people who have been in this country for a very long time and are contributing to society.

* Make it very difficult for people to come to the US without a visa - e.g. make people apply for asylum outside of the US. Stop issuing temporary protected status to huge blocks of migrants.

Unfortunately, political polarization has basically made it impossible for Congress to solve real problems.

[sanderjd]

Yep, the solution is pretty clear in broad strokes, as you described, but the bases of both parties advocate for radically opposed policy through executive action, which just makes the situation worse.

[roamerz]

There have been many laws passed by Congress addressing immigration. It is against law to cross the border without authorization. This particular case exists as a result of not enforcing those laws. Pretty simple.

[sanderjd]

Despite past congresses passing laws, the system is not good. A major contributor to the problem of people immigrating illegally is that our legal immigration system is a total mess. This is why there have been a number of efforts at reforms over the past few decades. But none of them have worked, leaving us in this situation where presidents from both parties do all this illegal stuff by executive action.

[jfengel]

It's not quite that Congress has sat on its thumbs. Individual Congressmen have been (figuratively) screaming at each other. Committees are at each other's throats trying to get some sort of legislation to the table. Nobody can stand the possibility of giving the other side what they want -- at the insistence of their constituents.

The net result, of course, is identical to if they had all stayed home.

[sanderjd]

Yeah I think you just described what sitting on their thumbs looks like, for a legislative body :)

[pclmulqdq]

Exactly. People forget, but the first selective enforcement edict (on illegal immigration) came from HW Bush.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

First, the US needs to resolve its issue of citizenship. It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise). For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been strictly enforced for some time. Instead we defaulted to "anyone born in a US hospital is a citizen"

Then, as welfare, lack of law enforcement and border grew, the broken citizenship process became a larger problem that now we have to deal with.

To me, the answer to your question of what is the alternative is as follows: The sole act of breaking laws and cutting the line to come into the country, to then birth babies here for the pusposes of straightjacketing the host's own response seems like should not be allowed, full stop. The premise of becoming a US citizen cannot be grounded in 2 crimes being committed before you are a citizen (1 illegal entry, 1 lying about your asylum petition).

We then have the issue of citizenship. It cannot be that because you come out of a womb that happens to be passing by a US hospital, you are a US citizen. US hospitals do not have magic pixie dust that grant american-ness. The Swiss have the right model that you actually have to come from at least 1 national parent, to foster national unity. The Swiss have the longest-lasting democracy in the world for a reason. Ignoring this seems suicidal. In nature and history, no humans prospered without an organized tribe centered around shared history and values.

Then there are the cases of people that came here, all legally, and found a life worth having by contributing to society. There should be a path for them to be citizens. What that path looks like, I dont know. But that's a conversation worth having soon since they are paying the price for the crimes and abuse committed by the 1st group.

[whimsicalism]

Let's remind ourselves of the text of the 14th amendment:

“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.”

> It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise). For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been strictly enforced for some time.

I think any clear reading of the 14th amendment shows that you are incorrect.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

IANAL, but interpretation of:

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

seems critical to make a determination on whether you are correct or not.

Take the act of a random french spy who goes to the UK for the purpose of defecting, without express permission of either government. Does that make him a subject to the UK crown? I think the historical outcome of such situation would be crystal-clear.

[vessenes]

SCOTUS ruled on this over a hundred years ago, in the case of a child born in the US of Chinese immigrants who went to China in his 30s, and was denied re-entry. Denial theory: Chinese citizens are subject to the Chinese emperor annd therefore aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

SCOTUS response: “LOL”. 6-2 (1 abstention) in favor of him being a citizen. The majority assent lays out pretty clearly that the jurisdiction language was to except diplomats and Native American tribespeople who had different treaties and status.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling is super, super, super clear that it would only be in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances that the 14th wouldn’t apply. For instance, two people in an invasion force sent by King George to take back the colonies have a baby with each other on US soil: probably not a citizen. Even then, if those two were in prison and had the baby: probably a citizen. Baby of two diplomats: not a citizen (called out in the ruling).

The dissent says: The 14th was really about Dredd Scott, and giving former slaves born in US soil full citizenship rights, and therefore “jurisdiction” is obviously only for naturalized citizens: Mr. Ark didn’t seek citizenship and therefore didn’t have it, since he wasn’t a former slave or child of a former slave, the 14th doesn’t apply.

The current attempt to reframe the 14th while including the Ark ruling relies on the very novel idea that anyone in the country without permission is not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”. ICE’s actions clearly bely that take. It’s not a tenable angle to try and get rid of birthright citizenship, full stop.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

This is a good example and it puts the current de facto interpretation of the law very friendly towards birthright citizenship.

However, as you well said, this is the interpretation of the amendment at the time based on that particular case.

The SCOTUS ruling is based the understanding of the 14th amendment for that particular case. Laws are re-interpreted based on originalist or expansionist understanding of the law at the time is was written. It could very well be that this was one of the latter examples, and that there is ample evidence of it that simply didn't make it to Ark. A legal scholar will need to do the work to really understand what was the intent of the 14th as it was written, and present its case to SCOTUS to persevere. The administration could really be attempting to reframe without any legal basis, and if so, the EO won't survive, and we will be able to move on with a full understanding of the 14th.

[vessenes]

I hear that, and this is no doubt headed to the Roberts court. That said, this would to my eyes need to be interpreted as an expansionist "new interpretation" decision by all counts if we're getting rid of birthright citizenship; caselaw, US practice before and after the Ark case (for 100 years!) and the UK Common Law basis of US law (done away with in the 80s by a new law: see https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/7... for much, much more detail), which had hundreds of years of birthright citizenship all point pretty strongly at this being unilaterally understood a certain way here in the US so far.

That Yale article points out European countries have more traditionally relied on "jus sanguinis" -- parentage-based nationality, where UK, US and LatAm countries are mostly "jus soli" with "sanguinis" additions for, say, kids born in foreign countries to nationals.

Anyway - it would be pretty surprising to hear that this is not a reframe. I'll be reading the case with interest.

[mrj]

That's been a fringe legal theory for a while. But historically it's been understood that even if in the country illegally, somebody driving too fast is going to get a ticket, right? If they commit a crime they are thrown in jail. Clearly they are subject to jurisdiction.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

but they could very well be deported 1st. There's nothing stopping that, in fact.

The only reason they go to jail is because de-facto that is is fair for the victimm in that he/she gets "Restitution" in the form of jail time for the non-citizen, and presumably, the foreign country may even be able to challenge that.

The dejure interpretation may be he should be banished, although that would be unfair to the victim.

[whimsicalism]

How could they deport them? They're not subject to the jurisdiction of the authorities, right?

[whimsicalism]

Are only people with at least 1 naturalized citizen parent the only people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

[IG_Semmelweiss]

This is switching the topic.

The 14th amendment discusses who is a citizen. It does not capture who is a subject to US jurisdictions, or not. That part is open to interpretation , likely because it is based in common law.

[whimsicalism]

e: You've now edited your comment to be consistent with what you originally said. Before edit, the commenter said that the jurisdiction clause meant that at least one parent needed to be at least a legal visitor to the US.

Not only is that not in the text of the 14th, it's different from your original proposal two comments ago. If you really want to do this fine-grained reading to try to support your point, you might notice that 1. the subject to the jurisdiction clause is the baby, not the parents, 2. breaking a law does not mean you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state you reside in.

[jf]

Please note that the 14th Amendment does not “discuss” who is a citizen, a better word would be “establishes” or “determines” - the “discussion” happened during the drafting and ratification processes and all of those records are available for you to read. Post ratification, the court system uses those discussions as part of their decisions on issues related to clarification of questions that arose after ratification. Those court decisions are also available for you to read.

[jf]

Your example doesn’t make sense because the 14th amendment only applies to the United States and not the United Kingdom.

[cyberax]

> "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

It means that the parents must be immune from the US government actions. For example, if they are diplomats and literally can't be arrested even if they commit a murder in the plain sight.

[mayneack]

Why does the birthright status quo need resolving? Why is there magic pixie dust based on who your parents are? None of these are fundamental truths. The US and the Swiss just chose different laws.

[rs186]

Exactly. Same for dual citizenship. I realize there is nothing right or wrong about whether a countries allows dual citizenship -- it's just two different ways of doing things. Although that's a bit of a stretch here.

[chasd00]

> It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise)

I like this a lot. That makes total sense and would take away the incentive to cross the border to give birth.

[ivape]

The people that come here legally don't really build anything of significant value when you compare it to entire immigrant communities. Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Irish, you name it, they build vast amounts of culture and businesses that get integrated into America. Even if you give me 2 million of the smartest legal immigrants, they will pale in comparison to what large immigrant communities offer to the fabric of America. This is deeply American issue, you either get it or you don't.

Just Apu from the Simpsons is only possible due to our immigration. Just the very fucking iconic cartoon character. This is not from legal immigration. Taco Tuesdays, every Irish pub, like, it sounds silly, but what they offer America is ten fold. I do not care about the best and the brightest, give us your tired and poor.

The American right-wing reeks of elitism (soft language for racist/xenophobic) and it is the antithesis of the American spirit and dream. I'm not with it.

This will be one of my final posts on this topic because I believe we are only in month five, and have 3.5 years to go. I pray the midterms are a landslide, and I pray the next Democrat grants Amnesty. See you all on the other side, because to me this issue is no different than the anit-gay marriage bullshit from the 2000s that we wiped the table clean of once and for all. We are a nation of immigrants and we will be so until eternity.

[generalizations]

> American right-wing reeks of elitism

Common notion, but based in ignorance. I've found that the left wing is more idealistic, but in the sense that they have chosen not to learn from history and rely on immediate emotional values. The right wing sees second order effects and acts on them.

Thus, you get the left calling the right heartless/immoral/racist, and the right calling the left idiots.

[professor_x]

Learning from history and still ending up on the side of almost every issue that is considered unspeakably cruel a generation later.

Slavery, segregation, women’s suffrage, child labor protections, labor rights, Social Security, interracial marriage, homosexuality, civil rights legislation, same-sex marriage, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, prohibition, environmental protections, public education expansion, healthcare reform, voting rights expansion, immigration rights, disability rights, reproductive rights, minimum wage laws, workers’ compensation laws.

[generalizations]

>> rely on immediate emotional values....Thus, you get the left calling the right heartless/immoral/racist

> considered unspeakably cruel

You're not disagreeing on any pragmatic basis, just the emotional one. Like I said.

[usernomdeguerre]

They gave you a whole list of pragmatic policy differences, are you ignoring them or in agreement?

[Erem]

> The right wing sees second order effects and acts on them.

It’s hard to take this one at good faith. The right wing is very publicly melting down the CDC for glue while the second order effects of a preventable measles epidemic spreads through the country. Is there a more targeted claim you want to make?

[generalizations]

The right wing had a big problem with the role the CDC played in the authoritarianism of the COVID era. Now they're melting down a weapon of that authoritarianism. What's more important, preserving civil rights by preventing authoritarianism, or a single epidemic? Gotta think long term here.

I suspect that you merely dislike the authoritarian things the government is currently doing; I dislike that the government is authoritarian. We are not the same.

[kj4211cash]

"Not to learn from history"? We're in the twilight zone now. It's the right wing that is currently enacting tariffs, scapegoating immigrants, pushing for appeasement in Ukraine, etc.

The Republican party traded logic for populism long ago.

[DragonStrength]

The issue is some ability to fight. For instance, I don’t think the child of a US citizen should be deported without consent of their citizen parent or a ruling against that parent. I’d like some assurance my own child won’t be disappeared to another country without my consent.

[whimsicalism]

> I don’t think the child of a US citizen should be deported without consent of their citizen parent or a ruling against that parent.

Think it should depend on custody. US courts don't just always favor the custody of the citizen parent.

[FireBeyond]

If only custody and other issues could have been determined h a court, not ICE ignoring the court while it expedited a flight out of the country then said “sorry, too late”.

[nikanj]

The previous time the big mad that Obama was (supposedly) not born on the US soil, now the problem is that someone was born in the US.

Is there an acceptable way for POC to get citizenship anymore, if it's not by inheritance and it's not by being born in the US?

[tuan]

5mil for a gold card and expedited path to citizenship I’ve heard.

[chasd00]

Just like everywhere else.

[usernomdeguerre]

There are places that do not have pay-for-citizenship.

[tastyfreeze]

A quarter of US citizens are not white. Maybe POC isn't the best term to use here.

[exe34]

"what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people?"

A fair trial in court for a start.

[shadowgovt]

> also a complete slap in the face to the millions of people who try to migrate legally and are refused entry.

Yeah, it sounds like a completely unworkable situation.

If only there was some way to make it easier for people to stay in the United States with much relaxed concern about their citizenship status or documentation.

... Oh wait, we could just do that. Because it's our laws, which means it's rules for a game we made up for ourselves. The universe does not care about the lines drawn on a map. People do. If the lines drawn on a map and the separation of human beings across those lines is becoming painful... Maybe we stop hurting ourselves?

We could care less. We did care less in the past. It seemed to work pretty well.

[mayneack]

> That's not only completely unrealistic

I don't see how it's unrealistic.

[tomrod]

> what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent

There is a moral answer, the practical answer, and two popular answers, none of which are particularly satisfying.

The moral answer is open borders. Both capital, which is generally freer than people are, and people should be able to vote with their feet. However, this is unsustainable unless all or a large bloc of countries allow it in reciprocity, or at least countries with an EU-like agreement. It would make a lot of sense for all of North America to have an EU-like agreement, economically, militarily, and legally.

The practical answer: amnesty for parents of children who are born here, conditional on criminality aversion. Like a form of probation.

The right-wing propaganda answer: immigrants somehow took jobs they are unwilling to do and therefore, while we might crack a few eggs making the omelette, all immigrants must go. Authoritarians love this view.

The left-wing propaganda: all immigrants are noble victims of evil capitalist systems, and therefore any control over borders is inherently racist and fascist. This is clearly also unsustainable, and authoritarians love for their opponents to have this view.

[whimsicalism]

To what degree do we let the people decide how their republic is structured?

Voters have rejected this sort of cosmopolitanism at the ballot box, repeatedly. To suggest that governments should open borders over the wishes of their citizens seems to simply be an object-level misunderstanding over the goals of statecraft.

[tomrod]

Repeating a bit, but we already do this between states in the US and in the EU, so clearly it can work in practice.

[whimsicalism]

Because voters decided there was a common interest, cultural identity, etc. and mutually agreed on political integration. Voters clearly do not want a unified Americas.

The purpose of a Republic is to be a stable entity that ensures the welfare of its citizens. It is not to have a single-minded obsession with global welfare at the expense of its own sustainability or the desires of its citizens.

[tomrod]

> voters decided there was a common interest, cultural identity, etc. and mutually agreed on political integration.

I'm less confident that this was performed in either location due to direct democracy, and more because it made political sense and was expedient at the time that these locale enacted the governance structure.

In other words, it's not a one-and-done-forever type discussion, and things (clearly) evolve over time.

[UncleMeat]

We don't elect an all powerful leader. The people did vote for Trump. But "well they voted for Trump" is not an excuse for him to do literally anything. If the people want legislative changed then they elect people in Congress. If the people want to change the constitution itself then they can seek that too.

But "well Trump won so just have ICE kill them all" (this is what my aunt, a republican lobbyist, wants) is not a thing.

[yubblegum]

> The moral answer is open borders. Both capital, which is generally freer than people are, and people should be able to vote with their feet. However, this is unsustainable unless ..

A strong no on this being "the moral answer". If people are permitted to vote with their feet maybe people are also permitted to build pickets around communities. That sounds more "moral" to me than entirely ignoring the wishes of the chosen destination's "people". IFF the destination is happy to welcome people who think their community better than their own and want to move over, then fine, that is a much better candidate for "the moral answer".

[tomrod]

We already do this between states in the US and in the EU, so clearly it can work in practice. We don't normally look at it that way, but that is precisely how we structured things.

[yubblegum]

Someone moving from Virginia to California is moving within the same socio-political order and culture.

[tomrod]

Correct! It wasn't always that way, but isn't it wonderful that our laws and governance allowed such a flourishing!