politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is the case that seems the most clear out of any in the past few years.
The text of the amendment isn't murky at all.
"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."
There's no way to interpret that being born in the US doesn't convey citizenship.
And that's why the GOP are reframing those deemed undesirable as illegals, invaders, and terrorists. These people by some definitions do not behave as bound to the law of the country they are in.
Any reason to justify what they are doing.
The funny thing about that is if they argue that they’re not under the jurisdiction of the United States, then we couldn’t even give them a parking ticket, let alone deport them. They’d effectively have diplomatic immunity.
That's not how it would work at all. They'd be nationless. You do not want to be nationless.
They would be without citizenship, yes, but they would also be legally outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. They could literally do anything and not get arrested. It would be like everywhere they go they’re standing on international waters.
That's not what happens. If you're nationless the fact is that any country may abuse you and no country will stand up for you. It's a very powerless position to be in. To say "aha, but your laws don't apply* is wrong (laws apply to everyone in the country except those with diplomatic immunity, which is the opposite of being stateless) and has a"sovereign citizen" flavor about it.
That’s the literal definition of jurisdiction.
ju·ris·dic·tion /ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSHən/ noun
the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
The United States can only enforce its laws on those that are within its jurisdiction. It’s exactly the same as entering a foreign consulate or pulling over a foreign diplomat. There is literally nothing they can legally do to them.
To your point, if they ever chose to leave, they would never be allowed re-entry.
Maybe you're technically and logically correct (I don't know enough to say) but they could and would still arrest them regardless and there's not much that can be done about that. A private citizen that's stateless is de-facto defenseless against the government while a diplomat is backed by an entire government.
The UN is supposed to help prevent citizens from being rendered stateless as well, but it happens in smaller countries regardless. If the US does it, unfortunately I don't see the UN doing enough to stop it.
My point isn’t about what the government would do to them regardless of the law. It’s that SCOTUS cannot interpret the 14th Amendment in that way without deeming those individuals to be outside the jurisdiction of the United States, making it an entirely problematic interpretation.
You are wrong
Compelling argument.
The other commenter already made compelling arguments, which you ignored
You’re both arguing citizenship. That’s a moot point if they’re already in the nation and not subject to its laws.
Being subject to US laws would give them slightly more protection, not less. We've seen plenty of recent examples of the US doing whatever it wants with "illegal immigrants", reality doesn't give a shit what you think.
I don’t think you understand my point. If they have their citizenship revoked because they are determined to be outside the jurisdiction of the United States, then the laws of the United States would not apply to them, because they’ve been determined to be outside the jurisdiction of the United States. It’s a problematic interpretation of the amendment.
I understand your point just fine, it's just that it's a stupid point that bears no resemblance to reality. In the real world the lack of legal jurisdiction will protect them from absolutely nothing, the US can and will imprison or kill them with impunity.
You are wrong. Plain and simple.
You're right that the USA can enforce laws only on those under its jurisdiction. But its jurisdiction extends to everyone in the USA, citizens or not. If I travel to the USA and commit a crime there, I can be arrested, tried and imprisoned in the USA unless the USA decides to deport me instead. If I'm imprisoned in the USA and my home country has an extradition treaty with the USA, my home country can decide whether it wants to go through a diplomatic process to get me returned. If I don't have a home country (being stateless), that chance doesn't exist. And if they don't try to get me returned and the USA doesn't deport me, I'm stuck in a US prison.
The same applies in other countries. When you are in a country you are under that country's jurisdiction, meaning that the laws of the country apply to you and you can be handled by the judicial system accordingly. Every sovereign nation has the legal authority to make and enforce laws within its territory, and this authority applies to everyone physically present, not just its citizens. This principle, that a country's laws apply to everyone in the country, is why "sovereign citizens" are basically mistaken when they claim to be beyond the law's reach, and it's why tourists don't have license to go on a crime spree.
That is correct. My point is if they argue that clause of the 14th Amendment about being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” they would effectively make them legally untouchable.
There’s no way to interpret the 14th Amendment to accomplish what they want to accomplish.
Yes, I have been misreading your argument, but I think it's a bit academic. You are arguing that if the government were to argue that these people were not subject to US law, in an attempt to give itself free rein to abuse them, it would undermine itself by leaving them legally untouchable so it couldn't do anything to them. Legally that may be true, but practically the government is showing its intention to take extrajudicial action against them (like kidnapping them and trafficking them to foreign prison camps) and the law of the USA is the only thing protecting people from this treatment. So if US law didn't apply to them they'd end up open to any kind of abuse by the US government.
In any case, illegals, invaders and terrorists are subject to US law when they're in the USA, and that confers rights on them. That's why the USA used Guantanamo Bay and black sites around the world to avoid having to bring people to the USA where they'd be under the protection of US law and the rights it confers. So if the US government attempted to make any legal argument that US law doesn't apply to these people while they're in the USA, it would be quite obviously wrong.
Right. The law is academic. I’m not saying they couldn’t shoot them dead in the street. We all know the government doesn’t always follow the law. I’m simply saying that’s the legal problem that would be created as a result of changing the interpretation of that clause, and therefore an unreasonable interpretation for a court to make.
You can not just do anything if your nationless. Where are you getting this absurd idea from? At best you get stuck in an ok jail somewhere for eternity. You have NO Rights, at all, if you are nationless.
You can if you are outside of the jurisdiction of the presiding government body. You’re untouchable by the law of the land. That’s literally what jurisdiction means.
Lmao ok sovcit, whatever you want to believe.
I think I heard a plan to argue the amendment intended "exclusively subject to the jurisdiction", though that requires a pretty huge "reading between the lines" to just invent that extra term. In such a scenario they would argue citizenship of a foreign nation by way of a parent being able to pass on that citizenship disqualifies then for US citizenship. This means that they couldn't be left nationless even if that sketchy interpreation prevails.
But the reading of the text pretty much seems clear cut, the only way someone born in US soil could be disqualified is if the US was invaded and it was occupied to the point where US government had no practical authority, like if Japan had kicked out all the US government, judges, and law enforcement to make it clearly obvious there no jurisdiction left...
If they aren't bound by the law, then they aren't illegal though. I agree that's what they're attempting, but the logical implication is the opposite. I would never accuse them of actually being logical though.
These people have no issues holding multiple conflicting opinions.
Then we should "discuss" the second amendment in another forum.
I wish we still lived in a country where legal arguments are still relevant.
When half the social networks, such as they were, have been decimated via illegal orders and people who don't have legal authority are allowed to do as they please, fire who they please, and confiscate funding as they please, laws mean nothing unless you're poor or in the "out" group.
I believe from listening to recent NPR that their lawyers aren't even arguing about that. They are arguing about whether national injunctions can really be national injunctions or not.
Yeah - they're trying REALLY hard to not argue the merits because it's extremely clear to anyone that what they're doing is illegal, so they're trying to make it a civil suit issue.
The next step after that is to claim Sovereign Immunity to keep civil suits from being heard.
And then they'll have their legal justification for disappearing US Citizens without due process.
So leaving it to the states where they can jerrymander the elections and win locally first then a few years later fuck up the entire country "legally".
No, they aren't arguing it should be at state level, their argument is much worse, they are arguing it needs to be at the individual level. So every single person harmed would need to get their own lawyer.
Darn! Thanks for clarifying. That sucks.
The argument I heard initially was that irregular migrants are not, somehow, subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
In that case, they can't be deported or be charged with any crime.