5 ms·

Eliminating birthright citizenship is cut and dry an attempt at unconstitutional rescindment of the 14th amendment of the constitution.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
That's unclear to me. The idea that someone can just cheat the naturalization process by smuggling their pregnant selves onto our soil long enough to give birth is absurd. The 14th amendment was added to solve a specific problem, the disenfranchisement of slaves who had truly been born here without their say or that of their parents, for generations, and with the leave of the United States government when that was occurring. Nor can an overly permissive reading be justified on moral grounds... most of Europe (and indeed, the world) does not honor the concept of jus soli. Besides all of that, there is the danger that if Democrats try to play the 14th card against him, Trump will declare the immigrants enemy combatants. At which point they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the United States at all, and he can do more than simply deport them. The left has been out-maneuvered at every step here, it's unlikely that this is the point at which they start winning.
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  > That's unclear to me. The idea that someone can just cheat the naturalization process by smuggling their pregnant selves onto our soil long enough to give birth is absurd. But that's not true. Only their offspring gains US citizenship, not them.
  - zombiwoof 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    And then the parents gain Permanent Residency because of the children. Birthright tourism is an actual business...
    - azernik 2y ago
      If you want to get rid of the Permanent Resident status for parents of citizens, go ahead; perfectly constitutional. But I suspect that isn't the limit anti-14th-amendment people's ambitions.
- ipython 2y ago
  Most of Europe and the world don’t have as wide ranging protections for free speech or bearing arms as we do, either. So using that as an argument is not relevant, regardless of any spiffy smart sounding Latin phrases. The text of the 14th amendment follows: 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. For better or for worse, the amendment does not make any exceptions for denying citizenship to persons born of late term pregnant women who just arrived on the shores. Marking lawful citizens as enemy combatants for simply being born in the US sounds like a very bad idea to me, and should be to you too. Why would I not be a potential enemy combatant for making this comment on hacker news right now?
  - lmm 2y ago
    > For better or for worse, the amendment does not make any exceptions for denying citizenship to persons born of late term pregnant women who just arrived on the shores. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" could easily be read to exclude those who are born to people present unlawfully and/or in violation of their visa. I think it's pretty plausible that the Supreme Court might overturn Wong Kim Ark. > Marking lawful citizens as enemy combatants for simply being born in the US sounds like a very bad idea to me, and should be to you too. Why would I not be a potential enemy combatant for making this comment on hacker news right now? Welcome to how it's always been for anyone who didn't have citizenship. The "enemy combatant" concept is some tinpot dictator bullshit, but at this point it's been well established in the US and supported by both sides of the aisle, the Dems wouldn't have a leg to stand on in campaigning against it. Talking about applying it to "lawful citizens" is purely circular logic - Trump will take the position that they aren't and were never lawful citizens.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      The debates on the amendment make it clear that Congress believed the 14th extended to the children of outright criminals. Indeed, one of the Senators (Cowan) against the amendment feared millions of invaders who settle as trespassers leading to a loss of control over immigration due to the amendment. It is simply impossible to read the debate and argue that Congress' understanding of the amendment didn't include exactly the group people today are trying to exclude. https://www.justfacts.com/document/1866_birthright_citizenship.pdf https://www.justfacts.com/document/1866_birthright_citizensh...
- bombcar 2y ago
  The jus soil argument is an interesting solution to a problem that even the Founders recognized, which is the tendency for a democracy/republic to create a second, lower class of "not-quite citizens" (famously, Rome). It means that even if your citizenship never gets worked out, your descendants will be handled. Having it so extreme as to be "anyone born on the soil (except diplomat kids)" is a novelty. Not necessarily a bad one, but also not obviously what the 14th was attempting.
- throwaway0123_5 2y ago
  > Nor can an overly permissive reading be justified on moral grounds... most of Europe (and indeed, the world) does not honor the concept of jus soli. It is extremely common in the Americas though. I think only Colombia and a few island countries don't have birthright citizenship here. I think it is a good concept for us, the US has historically been a nation of immigrants and our country has a culture that is shaped (and IMO strengthened) by people from all over the world.
  - I-M-S 2y ago
    The reason why it's common in the Americas has little to do with perceived virtues of immigration, but because they were colonized. Granting citizenship through jus sanguinis is not really possible in this case; granting it via principle of jus soli on the other hand legitimizes the conquest.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  The debate over the 14th amendment covered children of foreign countries. > Mr. Cowan: I am really desirous to have a legal definition of “citizenship of the United States.” What does it mean? ... Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? ... If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right, then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous. ... > Mr. Conness: If my friend from Pennsylvania, who professes to know all about Gypsies and little about Chinese, knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies ... he would not be alarmed in our behalf because of the operation of the [proposed amendment] ... so far as it involves the Chinese and us. The proposition before us ... relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. It is very hard to look at the debates and argue it was just done for ex-slaves and has no other effect given they very clearly debate the effect.
dinkumthinkum 2y ago
That is totally hyperbolic. I think it is true that birth-right citizenship is part of the 14th amendment and the Trump administration will fail in this challenge. However, there is some debate about it among legal scholars, though, again, I think the weight of the evidence is in favor of birth-right citizenship, However, disagreeing about the interpretation of the constitution when it is not actually that "plainly" clear, it has been supported by precedent is not the same as ignoring the constitution. In fact, it sets up a challenge for the Court to decide and it will almost certainly find in favor of this kind of citizenship. Many presidents, including Obama, have put forth orders and supported legislation that was ultimately found to be unconstitutional; it does not mean they were running a monarchy or whatever the left is implying.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

That's unclear to me. The idea that someone can just cheat the naturalization process by smuggling their pregnant selves onto our soil long enough to give birth is absurd. The 14th amendment was added to solve a specific problem, the disenfranchisement of slaves who had truly been born here without their say or that of their parents, for generations, and with the leave of the United States government when that was occurring. Nor can an overly permissive reading be justified on moral grounds... most of Europe (and indeed, the world) does not honor the concept of jus soli. Besides all of that, there is the danger that if Democrats try to play the 14th card against him, Trump will declare the immigrants enemy combatants. At which point they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the United States at all, and he can do more than simply deport them. The left has been out-maneuvered at every step here, it's unlikely that this is the point at which they start winning.

philipwhiuk 2y ago
> That's unclear to me. The idea that someone can just cheat the naturalization process by smuggling their pregnant selves onto our soil long enough to give birth is absurd. But that's not true. Only their offspring gains US citizenship, not them.
- zombiwoof 2y ago
  [flagged]
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  And then the parents gain Permanent Residency because of the children. Birthright tourism is an actual business...
  - azernik 2y ago
    If you want to get rid of the Permanent Resident status for parents of citizens, go ahead; perfectly constitutional. But I suspect that isn't the limit anti-14th-amendment people's ambitions.
ipython 2y ago
Most of Europe and the world don’t have as wide ranging protections for free speech or bearing arms as we do, either. So using that as an argument is not relevant, regardless of any spiffy smart sounding Latin phrases. The text of the 14th amendment follows: 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. For better or for worse, the amendment does not make any exceptions for denying citizenship to persons born of late term pregnant women who just arrived on the shores. Marking lawful citizens as enemy combatants for simply being born in the US sounds like a very bad idea to me, and should be to you too. Why would I not be a potential enemy combatant for making this comment on hacker news right now?
- lmm 2y ago
  > For better or for worse, the amendment does not make any exceptions for denying citizenship to persons born of late term pregnant women who just arrived on the shores. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" could easily be read to exclude those who are born to people present unlawfully and/or in violation of their visa. I think it's pretty plausible that the Supreme Court might overturn Wong Kim Ark. > Marking lawful citizens as enemy combatants for simply being born in the US sounds like a very bad idea to me, and should be to you too. Why would I not be a potential enemy combatant for making this comment on hacker news right now? Welcome to how it's always been for anyone who didn't have citizenship. The "enemy combatant" concept is some tinpot dictator bullshit, but at this point it's been well established in the US and supported by both sides of the aisle, the Dems wouldn't have a leg to stand on in campaigning against it. Talking about applying it to "lawful citizens" is purely circular logic - Trump will take the position that they aren't and were never lawful citizens.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    The debates on the amendment make it clear that Congress believed the 14th extended to the children of outright criminals. Indeed, one of the Senators (Cowan) against the amendment feared millions of invaders who settle as trespassers leading to a loss of control over immigration due to the amendment. It is simply impossible to read the debate and argue that Congress' understanding of the amendment didn't include exactly the group people today are trying to exclude. https://www.justfacts.com/document/1866_birthright_citizenship.pdf https://www.justfacts.com/document/1866_birthright_citizensh...
bombcar 2y ago
The jus soil argument is an interesting solution to a problem that even the Founders recognized, which is the tendency for a democracy/republic to create a second, lower class of "not-quite citizens" (famously, Rome). It means that even if your citizenship never gets worked out, your descendants will be handled. Having it so extreme as to be "anyone born on the soil (except diplomat kids)" is a novelty. Not necessarily a bad one, but also not obviously what the 14th was attempting.
throwaway0123_5 2y ago
> Nor can an overly permissive reading be justified on moral grounds... most of Europe (and indeed, the world) does not honor the concept of jus soli. It is extremely common in the Americas though. I think only Colombia and a few island countries don't have birthright citizenship here. I think it is a good concept for us, the US has historically been a nation of immigrants and our country has a culture that is shaped (and IMO strengthened) by people from all over the world.
- I-M-S 2y ago
  The reason why it's common in the Americas has little to do with perceived virtues of immigration, but because they were colonized. Granting citizenship through jus sanguinis is not really possible in this case; granting it via principle of jus soli on the other hand legitimizes the conquest.
Aloisius 2y ago
The debate over the 14th amendment covered children of foreign countries. > Mr. Cowan: I am really desirous to have a legal definition of “citizenship of the United States.” What does it mean? ... Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? ... If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right, then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous. ... > Mr. Conness: If my friend from Pennsylvania, who professes to know all about Gypsies and little about Chinese, knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies ... he would not be alarmed in our behalf because of the operation of the [proposed amendment] ... so far as it involves the Chinese and us. The proposition before us ... relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. It is very hard to look at the debates and argue it was just done for ex-slaves and has no other effect given they very clearly debate the effect.

dinkumthinkum 2y ago

That is totally hyperbolic. I think it is true that birth-right citizenship is part of the 14th amendment and the Trump administration will fail in this challenge. However, there is some debate about it among legal scholars, though, again, I think the weight of the evidence is in favor of birth-right citizenship, However, disagreeing about the interpretation of the constitution when it is not actually that "plainly" clear, it has been supported by precedent is not the same as ignoring the constitution. In fact, it sets up a challenge for the Court to decide and it will almost certainly find in favor of this kind of citizenship. Many presidents, including Obama, have put forth orders and supported legislation that was ultimately found to be unconstitutional; it does not mean they were running a monarchy or whatever the left is implying.