The word "subject" in the text is also critical to the conversation. Over time, words take on new meaning, but I understand "subject" in this context to have meant "belonging to" in the way England's people were subjects of the crown. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was fully understood in the 1800s and has lost meaning today. A visitor to the U.S. remains a subject of the country from which they came as do their offspring. The whole system is built around this concept or we would not need legal immigration, diplomatic immunity, etc.
I would agree if the fourteenth amendment said "subject to the United States" but less so when it's "*born* subject to the *jurisdiction of* the United States".
I’ve always been fine with (and mostly supportive of) birthright citizenship. But now I feel like the law is not so hard and fast as I thought.
Maybe we do just need to send this to the States for an amendment?
Side note about the example of the Canadian soldier shoplifting during an invasion. For what it is worth, that is a violation of the Geneva Convention’s prohibitions against looting. And most western armies have internal rules against it too, and they would prosecute this soldier.
Can we create a “Corrupt Judge” category where we bribe you $250 for a gavel? Or maybe we bid and sell the one or two Judgeships to the highest bidders?
My inclination on this issue is to say that if there was to be a change on citizenship rules, it should come from the congress, not from the president or the courts. I suppose that shows my bias towards congress as the policy setting branch.
On the interpretation of "jurisdiction". I maintain that it's meant to refer simply to "subject to US laws".
The "allegiance" definition doesn't make sense to me. Because I don't know why eg a newborn child of former slaves (the principle person that is supposed to benefit from birthright citizenship) would have allegiance to the United States.
...except for the fact that she is a citizen of the United States. Because it makes more sense that allegiance derives from citizenship than it is to say that citizenship derives from allegiance. And if course it can't be both at the same time because that would be circular
Your argument that visitors, tourists, and other people not citizens of the USA are charged with crimes they commit is not the full consideration of that example. Often citizens of other countries are tried and sentenced of crimes committed in the USA but depending on the charges, sentence, and agreements with the other country, those people are sometimes transferred back to their own country of citizenship. We extradite USA citizens from other countries often.
That’s true, but you’re referencing the sentence—not the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is indisputably America. If someone commits arson in America, we don’t say “Greece! You most try this man for arson.” We try them, and in some instances, ship them back
Listening to Andrew Zevon sing Lawyers Guns and Money at 2x:🤌
Is the album of Heaton cover songs a paid subscriber perk, or is this something we need to wish into existence?
Lawyers, Guns and Money always winds me up. It also brings to mind The Bagman’s Gambit as a companion piece.
The word "subject" in the text is also critical to the conversation. Over time, words take on new meaning, but I understand "subject" in this context to have meant "belonging to" in the way England's people were subjects of the crown. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was fully understood in the 1800s and has lost meaning today. A visitor to the U.S. remains a subject of the country from which they came as do their offspring. The whole system is built around this concept or we would not need legal immigration, diplomatic immunity, etc.
I would agree if the fourteenth amendment said "subject to the United States" but less so when it's "*born* subject to the *jurisdiction of* the United States".
I’ve always been fine with (and mostly supportive of) birthright citizenship. But now I feel like the law is not so hard and fast as I thought.
Maybe we do just need to send this to the States for an amendment?
Side note about the example of the Canadian soldier shoplifting during an invasion. For what it is worth, that is a violation of the Geneva Convention’s prohibitions against looting. And most western armies have internal rules against it too, and they would prosecute this soldier.
I would love to kick this to a constitutional convention
Serious suggestion:
Can we create a “Corrupt Judge” category where we bribe you $250 for a gavel? Or maybe we bid and sell the one or two Judgeships to the highest bidders?
My inclination on this issue is to say that if there was to be a change on citizenship rules, it should come from the congress, not from the president or the courts. I suppose that shows my bias towards congress as the policy setting branch.
On the interpretation of "jurisdiction". I maintain that it's meant to refer simply to "subject to US laws".
The "allegiance" definition doesn't make sense to me. Because I don't know why eg a newborn child of former slaves (the principle person that is supposed to benefit from birthright citizenship) would have allegiance to the United States.
...except for the fact that she is a citizen of the United States. Because it makes more sense that allegiance derives from citizenship than it is to say that citizenship derives from allegiance. And if course it can't be both at the same time because that would be circular
Your argument that visitors, tourists, and other people not citizens of the USA are charged with crimes they commit is not the full consideration of that example. Often citizens of other countries are tried and sentenced of crimes committed in the USA but depending on the charges, sentence, and agreements with the other country, those people are sometimes transferred back to their own country of citizenship. We extradite USA citizens from other countries often.
That’s true, but you’re referencing the sentence—not the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is indisputably America. If someone commits arson in America, we don’t say “Greece! You most try this man for arson.” We try them, and in some instances, ship them back