[indil]

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country:

"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."

Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born in America to tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side. Even the author of the 14th amendment said that was the point of that clause. Even in logical terms it makes sense: You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable.

However, this case wasn't about citizenship. It was about the broader issue of lower courts issuing restraining orders outside their jurisdictions. It's a recipe for chaos. There's a reason why there are multiple jurisdictions, and courts are limited to their jurisdictions. What happens when two lower courts issue conflicting nationwide orders? The only court in the US that has jurisdiction over the entire country is the Supreme Court. This was a losing battle.

There's a right way and a wrong way to go about addressing problems. Court cases are sometimes more about the core issues involved than the concrete circumstances. Sure, birthright citizenship was the reason for the suit, but the core issue was judicial overreach. Don't get mad because the way your side was "winning" was by cheating, and they were stopped. Try having an actual good argument, and doing things the right way by arguing the actual case in a court.

[BryantD]

There was lots of debate in the Senate during the passage of the 14th Amendment; much of it revolved around birthright citizenship. Both those who wanted the Amendment to exclude people who were born to those temporarily in the US and those who did not acknowledged that, in the form passed, it did not.

Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania said "I am really desirous to have a legal definition of ‘citizenship of the United States. Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?" He didn't think that child should be.

Sen. Conness of California said he thought it should cover "the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States." And let's remember, as Conness was certainly aware, that many of those Chinese laborers had been imported illegally.

They knew what they were passing, and they knew it included birthright citizenship. Senators who wanted to alter the Amendment to exclude some people failed.

[ejstronge]

> tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side

This ‘jurisdiction’ claim essentially only applied to people who had a diplomatic status while in the US. A traveler from Canada has no special right against being prosecuted (just like you would not were you to go to, say Britain).

A governmental figure from Canada would have protections - we would need to interact with another sovereign to hold them accountable.

This really has nothing to do with tourism, outside deceitful assertions on television.

Regarding Britain, here’s an example of someone not being subject to the jurisdiction of a country after committing a serious crime: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/harry-dunn-uk-anne-sacoolas...

I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding about the meaning of jurisdiction.

[cellis]

IANAL but this argument doesn't seem to be on firm footing due to the extradition laws on the books. Technically I can violate a UK law while in the US and indeed be subject to their jurisdiction.

[kelnos]

That's not really relevant though. Being a UK citizen and breaking a UK law while on US soil (where the US doesn't have a similar law), and then seeing consequences for it when you return to the UK doesn't change anything.

If a UK person is on US soil and breaks a US law, they will be prosecuted by the US. The US can choose to extradite to the UK, but that's not really relevant.

[cellis]

If you care to read some cases, this link is informative https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-01-23/debates/B8A.... You don’t have to be on “soil” to break these laws. The US certainly extradites loads of people from other countries who still reside there and only broke laws either “online” or through transactions involving the US

[ejstronge]

> The US certainly extradites loads of people from other countries who still reside there and only broke laws either “online” or through transactions involving the US

This further weakens the dishonest posture that tourists are not subject to US law

[acoustics]

The OP said that the courts were preventing the president from exercising his power under the constitution, I replied that he does not have this power under the constitution. That's all.

There's a right way and a wrong way to go about addressing problems. If the president wants to exclude natural-born children of illegal immigrants from citizenship, he can lead an effort to amend the constitution.

[EasyMark]

It's not valid. When you're in a country you are subject to it's laws, whether it's the USA or Somalia

[CamperBob2]

They have more guns than we do. It's valid.

[Jensson]

If you are an undocumented immigrant so the country doesn't know about you then its arguable.

[boothby]

If a foreign diplomat is pulled over by the cops after running over a pedestrian, they can flash an ID card and drive away. If an undocumented immigrant does the same, they go directly to jail and probably get deported in short order. That's what jurisdiction means.

In ordinary times, the notion of establishing precedent that immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the US would be met with sputtering indignance for all but the most idealistic anarchists. Because that goes way beyond open borders, it promotes foreigners to super-citizens untouchable by the law.

[sorcerer-mar]

No it's not. In fact the concept of "undocumented immigrant" or even just "immigrant" only makes sense in the context of an asserted jurisdiction.

[1659447091]

I mean they paid some $97 Billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022 [0], the country knows about them, and taxes them. They contribute so much to the economy Texas refuses to have business verify worker's work status for fear of the economic impact it would have.

[0] https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/

[nwallin]

No.

First of all, if an undocumented person commits a crime, they're not going to just let them go because they didn't have a birth certificate or passport or a documented name. They'll charge you, try you, and convict you same as anyone else. That's what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction.

The "subject to the jurisdiction" clause has two reasons. First and foremost is American Indians. American Indians, at the time, were explicitly not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Various tribes had treaties with the US government explicitly exempting their tribe members from federal, state, and local jurisdiction. At the same time, they were not considered US citizens. An American Indian could literally commit murder and the only legal recourse was to petition their tribe to bring justice to them. (there was also extra-legal recourse, which was a lot more common, but that's neither here nor there)

The other reason is diplomats. Diplomats have diplomatic immunity. They commit a murder? Not a lot you can do. (Hollywood overstates this, but not by as much as you might think) They didn't want to grant citizenship to the child if every diplomat.

This doesn't apply to illegal immigrants. There is no treaty or existing legal framework which grants them immunity to the law.

[freen]

They are not subject to the law of the land and can act with full legal immunity?

[etchalon]

Undocumented or not, you are always subject to our laws.

[lelandbatey]

If you are born and live in the US, how could you possibly not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? Likewise, if you are born in the US to tourist parents who then leave the United States with you, how exactly are you supposed to "collect benefits"? And even if you are "collecting benefits", to be a citizen you'd have to also be paying your taxes, which should entitle you to said benefits.

Where exactly is the unsustainable part of this?

[speakfreely]

> And even if you are "collecting benefits", to be a citizen you'd have to also be paying your taxes, which should entitle you to said benefits.

According to the SF Chronicle, about 72 million US households (40% of the population) paid no federal income tax in 2022. I don't have exact numbers but I doubt anyone would dispute that public benefits flow disproportionately to those 72 million households for obvious reasons. So the cause and effect of being a citizen and paying taxes is very tenuous.

> Where exactly is the unsustainable part of this?

If it's unsustainable, then someone should propose a constitutional amendment to fix it.

[anonymars]

Is federal income tax the only tax?

[speakfreely]

It eclipses the others, so it's the most relevant one to talk about.

[greeneggs]

> I doubt anyone would dispute that public benefits flow disproportionately to those 72 million households for obvious reasons.

I would dispute it. One of the main public benefits, if not the main benefit, is protection of property rights. Those with the most property disproportionately take advantage of this protection.

Are you deliberately confusing taxes with federal income tax?

[speakfreely]

Yes, you can twist public benefits to mean whatever you want. The commonly accepted definition, also the first result on Google, reads "Public benefits are forms of assistance provided by the government to individuals and families, often based on need, to help with various aspects of life, such as food, housing, healthcare, and financial stability. These benefits are typically funded through taxpayer dollars and aim to alleviate financial burdens and promote well-being." I think it's pretty clear that's what everyone is talking about here.

Are you trying to imply that the people who don't pay federal income tax have heavy state tax burdens? Or you think they're making a dent with their sales tax contributions? The only thing that everyone pays indirectly or directly is property taxes, which averages to about 1-2% of income. Again, nothing close to federal income taxes (for those that pay them).

[anonymars]

You mention healthcare and "financial stability" (which we can perhaps call "Social Security") both of which are separate federal taxes

Also this completely handwaves the regressive nature of sales tax, which hits much harder when you spend a large percentage of your income

[teachrdan]

> Even in logical terms it makes sense: You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. Government benefits were basically nonexistent at the time, and besides, with the US population at under 40 million people, we needed more citizens, not fewer. Your "logical" argument is completely anachronistic and irrelevant.

The conservative side of the Supreme Court claims to rule based on what the writers of the Constitution had in mind. This is another example of how they completely ignore what the writers/framers/etc. of the Constitution intended as soon as it interferes with the larger conservative agenda that they serve.

[thephyber]

> You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable.

You don’t seem to think the USA is very exceptional…

[Spooky23]

What benefits are you collecting?

The core premise of your racist rant is built around a the massive edge case. Reality is this policy will probably disenfranchise more children of American soldiers born abroad than prevent the alien invasion you’re scared of.

The notion that the sins of the father impact the child is repugnant. The interests of the nation as a whole not allowing a clear violation of the birthright of our fellow citizens have to be addressed in a lower court, as the Supreme Court isn’t even required to hear their case.

You’re allowing yourself to be manipulated into expanding the power of an executive who will never leave and a court whose power and individual avoidance of culpability for bribery and corruption. I suppose you’ll shrug when we decide that the electoral college can choose to follow the “silent majority” as opposed to the voters.

[throw10920]

> The core premise of your racist rant

As someone who has reading comprehension above the high-school level, it's blindingly obvious that there was no racism in GP's post. Your accusation is factually incorrect, logically fallacious, emotionally manipulative, and actively degrades the quality of HN (and, obviously, badly breaks the guidelines). Either your logical reasoning skills are deeply lacking, or you're aware that your claim false and maliciously making it anyway to deceive others, which is deeply immoral and disgusting. Regardless of which of those this is, never do this.

[ceejayoz]

> Trump's argument is that people born in America to tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make…

I suspect, if they commit a crime or overstay their visa, we'll suddenly decide we have a little jurisdiction after all.

[wizzwizz4]

That clause is about foreign ambassadors and such, not tourists.

[kelnos]

> Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country

And that argument is bullshit.

> Trump's argument is that people born in America to tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America

Yes they are. If they commit a crime on US soil, they will face charges in a US court, because they are subject to the jurisdiction of those courts. (They will also be deported, but that's another matter.)

The only people on US soil who are not subject to the US's jurisdiction are foreign nationals traveling on a diplomatic passport ("diplomatic immunity").

> Sure, birthright citizenship was the reason for the suit, but the core issue was judicial overreach. Don't get mad because the way your side was "winning" was by cheating, and they were stopped.

Er, what? Nationwide injunctions have been a thing since the 1970s. No judge is "cheating" by putting one in place. I'm mad because Trump thinks the constitution is toilet paper.

If you want to talk about chaos, this SCOTUS ruling will create chaos, and more lawlessness, and make it even more difficult for people to obtain justice in this country -- a place where it was already pretty damn difficult (regardless of the party in power).