8 ms·

Well, it doesn't matter. If the SCOTUS decides that some people, in certain circumstances, are not in jurisdiction of US law, then they have to apply that notio

by fmobus 3mo ago

Well, it doesn't matter. If the SCOTUS decides that some people, in certain circumstances, are not in jurisdiction of US law, then they have to apply that notion everywhere. They can't pick and choose "oh no they are in jurisdiction of law A but not in law B". Jurisdiction is a fundamental concept, there's no middle ground. As for whether people are really doing birth tourism: sure, there might be some cases, but well, they are using something that the legal system allows. If the country feels like it doesn't want that happening, it needs to amend the Constitution. (Also, let's not kid ourselves that the birth tourism thing is what conservatives care about... People doing that kind of thing are usually rich. The real target are poor illegal immigrants giving birth in the country.)

rayiner 3mo ago
Jurisdiction is not some singular concept that means the same thing in every context. You can have jurisdiction over some things in some contexts and not have jurisdiction over other things in other contexts.
- rootusrootus 3mo ago
  In that case, the use of the word jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment is meaningless, too ambiguous to rely on. Unless we think the Constitution should be living, breathing, and adapt to the current political environment. Is that the current conservative viewpoint?
  - rayiner 3mo ago
    Well, a word can have different meanings in different contexts but still have a clear meanings in each particular context. But I agree that “jurisdiction” doesn’t have a well defined meaning in the context of individuals being subject to the jurisdiction of a nation. In that case, the proper approach is to look at other evidence of what the drafters meant, which is what both the majority and dissents did.
    - sanderjd 3mo ago
      This is not the only "proper approach" and what approach is proper is a hotly contested question. But it doesn't even matter, because in this case it is very clear what the drafters intended.
      - rayiner 3mo ago
        It’s not seriously contested anymore. Originalism won and now we are just fighting about how to apply it.
        sanderjd 3mo ago
        This is obviously not true. Everyone always wants to say "my ideology is right and this is not contested anymore" and everyone is always wrong about that.
        TimorousBestie 3mo ago
        Insofar as originalism did “win,” it was only as a convenient signal to Mitch Mcconnell that a potential appointee would play ball. As an academic legal theory it’s entirely sterile. There’s little actual content within it and it demonstrates almost no consistent application of its supposed principles. When it ceases to deliver conservatives relatively painless victories, they’ll move on to something else.
  - zamadatix 3mo ago
    Not all originalists will hold the same views on how to deal with ambiguity in the same way not all on the living constitution side agree how ambiguity should be resolved. The takes are usually more on the "how to think about resolving the meaning" side than a "is there any meaning to resolve" side. That said, the originalist viewpoint is usually more along the lines of "we should seek to resolve that ambiguity in context of when, why, and with which references the framers who wrote it had in mind". Most originalists are unlikely to care what an argument about the current political environment implies.
- sanderjd 3mo ago
  Surely "subject to the jurisdiction" must mean subject to any jurisdiction, or it is completely meaningless.
  - rayiner 3mo ago
    That’s a plausible meaning but it erases the exceptions for diplomats and Indians that everyone agrees exist.
    - sanderjd 3mo ago
      I don't think it does.
    - Breza 3mo ago
      If you do crime, can you be arrested by the local police? "I have diplomatic immunity! Also I live on a reservation with their own police force. So no." It's pretty clear that's what the amendment means. The only ambiguous situation I've found is if you're born just inside American waters on your way between foreign countries, but that's a really narrow case.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
Telemakhos 3mo ago
The fourteenth amendment doesn't say "within the jurisdiction" but "subject to the jurisdiction": if you break a window as a tourist, you expect to be prosecuted because you committed a crime within that jurisdiction, but you do not expect to be conscripted into military service or to pay income tax, because you are not subject to the jurisdiction. Birth tourism is definitely an issue for conservatives worried about China. Here's a 2019 ICE press release on prosecuting someone who was running a birth tourism ring to benefit Chinese government officials: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/chinese-national-pleads-guilty-running-birth-tourism-scheme-helped-aliens-give-birth https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/chinese-national-pleads-gu... The right is concerned that Chinese-American dual citizens born in the US but raised in China might, upon reaching adulthood, act with impunity as US-citizen agents of the Chinese Communist Party.
- overfeed 3mo ago
  > The right is concerned that Chinese-American dual citizens born in the US but raised in China might, upon reaching adulthood, act with impunity as US-citizen agents of the Chinese Communist Party. The US seems fully committed not to learn from its past. I suppose the expectations are for expulsions and/or west-coast internment camps for Chinese-Americans should there be a hot war between the US and China. It figures, since the MAGA is all for turning back the clock.
- derdi 3mo ago
  What if you're in the US on a work visa, so you do expect to pay income tax but don't expect to be conscripted into military service? What's the correct preposition for that case?
  - TheCoelacanth 3mo ago
    Still "subject to the jurisdiction of". US law doesn't currently have a law allowing them to be conscripted, and it would be very ill-advised to do so and it would cause a lot of diplomatic backlash, but it certainly could pass such a law if it chose to.
    - 3mo ago
JeremyNT 3mo ago
> They can't pick and choose "oh no they are in jurisdiction of law A but not in law B". Jurisdiction is a fundamental concept, there's no middle ground. I mean, they shouldn't do this but clearly they can rule however they want with any pretext they want, because they answer to nobody but themselves. Who's going to tell them they can't do something? Who is left to appeal to? It's a deeply corrupt and undemocratic institution, with virtually unchecked power to rewrite legislation and even the Constitution at a whim.
- everforward 3mo ago
  They can be impeached, though the efficacy of that is questionable these days.
- Breza 3mo ago
  I'll point out how many cases are decided unanimously. It's quite rare for a case to be decided 6-3 on ideological lines.

by fmobus 3mo ago

rayiner 3mo ago

Jurisdiction is not some singular concept that means the same thing in every context. You can have jurisdiction over some things in some contexts and not have jurisdiction over other things in other contexts.

rootusrootus 3mo ago
In that case, the use of the word jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment is meaningless, too ambiguous to rely on. Unless we think the Constitution should be living, breathing, and adapt to the current political environment. Is that the current conservative viewpoint?
- rayiner 3mo ago
  Well, a word can have different meanings in different contexts but still have a clear meanings in each particular context. But I agree that “jurisdiction” doesn’t have a well defined meaning in the context of individuals being subject to the jurisdiction of a nation. In that case, the proper approach is to look at other evidence of what the drafters meant, which is what both the majority and dissents did.
  - sanderjd 3mo ago
    This is not the only "proper approach" and what approach is proper is a hotly contested question. But it doesn't even matter, because in this case it is very clear what the drafters intended.
    - rayiner 3mo ago
      It’s not seriously contested anymore. Originalism won and now we are just fighting about how to apply it.
      - sanderjd 3mo ago
        This is obviously not true. Everyone always wants to say "my ideology is right and this is not contested anymore" and everyone is always wrong about that.
        TimorousBestie 3mo ago
        Insofar as originalism did “win,” it was only as a convenient signal to Mitch Mcconnell that a potential appointee would play ball. As an academic legal theory it’s entirely sterile. There’s little actual content within it and it demonstrates almost no consistent application of its supposed principles. When it ceases to deliver conservatives relatively painless victories, they’ll move on to something else.
- zamadatix 3mo ago
  Not all originalists will hold the same views on how to deal with ambiguity in the same way not all on the living constitution side agree how ambiguity should be resolved. The takes are usually more on the "how to think about resolving the meaning" side than a "is there any meaning to resolve" side. That said, the originalist viewpoint is usually more along the lines of "we should seek to resolve that ambiguity in context of when, why, and with which references the framers who wrote it had in mind". Most originalists are unlikely to care what an argument about the current political environment implies.
sanderjd 3mo ago
Surely "subject to the jurisdiction" must mean subject to any jurisdiction, or it is completely meaningless.
- rayiner 3mo ago
  That’s a plausible meaning but it erases the exceptions for diplomats and Indians that everyone agrees exist.
  - sanderjd 3mo ago
    I don't think it does.
  - Breza 3mo ago
    If you do crime, can you be arrested by the local police? "I have diplomatic immunity! Also I live on a reservation with their own police force. So no." It's pretty clear that's what the amendment means. The only ambiguous situation I've found is if you're born just inside American waters on your way between foreign countries, but that's a really narrow case.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

Telemakhos 3mo ago

The fourteenth amendment doesn't say "within the jurisdiction" but "subject to the jurisdiction": if you break a window as a tourist, you expect to be prosecuted because you committed a crime within that jurisdiction, but you do not expect to be conscripted into military service or to pay income tax, because you are not subject to the jurisdiction. Birth tourism is definitely an issue for conservatives worried about China. Here's a 2019 ICE press release on prosecuting someone who was running a birth tourism ring to benefit Chinese government officials: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/chinese-national-pleads-guilty-running-birth-tourism-scheme-helped-aliens-give-birth https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/chinese-national-pleads-gu... The right is concerned that Chinese-American dual citizens born in the US but raised in China might, upon reaching adulthood, act with impunity as US-citizen agents of the Chinese Communist Party.

overfeed 3mo ago
> The right is concerned that Chinese-American dual citizens born in the US but raised in China might, upon reaching adulthood, act with impunity as US-citizen agents of the Chinese Communist Party. The US seems fully committed not to learn from its past. I suppose the expectations are for expulsions and/or west-coast internment camps for Chinese-Americans should there be a hot war between the US and China. It figures, since the MAGA is all for turning back the clock.
derdi 3mo ago
What if you're in the US on a work visa, so you do expect to pay income tax but don't expect to be conscripted into military service? What's the correct preposition for that case?
- TheCoelacanth 3mo ago
  Still "subject to the jurisdiction of". US law doesn't currently have a law allowing them to be conscripted, and it would be very ill-advised to do so and it would cause a lot of diplomatic backlash, but it certainly could pass such a law if it chose to.
  - 3mo ago

JeremyNT 3mo ago

> They can't pick and choose "oh no they are in jurisdiction of law A but not in law B". Jurisdiction is a fundamental concept, there's no middle ground. I mean, they shouldn't do this but clearly they can rule however they want with any pretext they want, because they answer to nobody but themselves. Who's going to tell them they can't do something? Who is left to appeal to? It's a deeply corrupt and undemocratic institution, with virtually unchecked power to rewrite legislation and even the Constitution at a whim.

everforward 3mo ago
They can be impeached, though the efficacy of that is questionable these days.
Breza 3mo ago
I'll point out how many cases are decided unanimously. It's quite rare for a case to be decided 6-3 on ideological lines.