And it can also be a burden. If you are born on US soil to non-US nationals and therefore become an accidental American you are subject to US tax laws on worldwide income.
In the UK at least banks will not sell you financial products with tax implications (pensions, tax exempt savings schemas (ISA's to the locals)) because of the US reporting requirements.
And getting your citizenship revoked requires lawyering so its a PITA.
I know some Americans will find it hard to believe but there are people who want out of this system and feel trapped in it.
Other people's right to a jury can actually invade YOUR freedoms when jury duty compels you to come hear their case under threats of fines/jail time, but we accept that right as a burden for others.
Hasn't the president signed an executive order that says birthright citizenship is not for children of non-citizens? I see that it's being challenged in court, but the order is currently valid, right?
Executive orders cannot overrule the Constitution.
14th Amendment:
"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 are rumblings about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" somehow excluding folks based on their immigration status, but frankly, the meaning is clear, and jurisprudence recognizes this. The jurisdiction carveout is for international diplomats, i.e. people who are literally not subject to US law. Immigrants, even illegal immigrants, are subject to US law. Stating otherwise would have vast repercussions.
> Executive orders cannot overrule the Constitution.
And I would hope this is a fairly universally held position, not so partisan. Today one side might cheer an executive order overriding the 14th amendment, but how will they feel if the next administration decides to pull the same stunt with the 2nd?
We don't want to go there. There are already some states experimenting with doing end-runs around the Constitution with their own civil laws, and for similar reasons I would expect rational people to want that effort to fail.
>> Executive orders cannot overrule the Constitution.
> I would hope this is a fairly universally held position, not so partisan.
I agree. I think the constitution limits both the executive and the legislative branches.
> how will they feel if the next administration decides to pull the same stunt with the 2nd?
The 2nd amendment has already been overridden by federal laws without a constutional amendment.
The 2nd used to mean that the states has a right to let their citizens arm themselves privately with military weapons. The federal government was forbidden by the 2nd to interfere with this.
I'm from Europe and fine with the very restrictive licensing we have here.
But it looks very shortsighted to wildly re-interpret the constitution far outside of the original meaning, instead of passing new amendments.
> The 2nd used to mean that the states has a right to let their citizens arm themselves privately with military weapons
In particular, at the time that it was written, it meant arm themselves with military weapons for the purposes of military action. That's what the contemporary use of the term "bear arms" was understood to mean. Try to find any mention of self-defense from back then. It wasn't what they were thinking about.
Or look at this earlier version: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
That conscientious objector clause at the end certainly gives some context to the discussion.
The modern interpretation of the second amendment is very different.
> In particular, at the time that it was written, it meant arm themselves with military weapons for the purposes of military action. That's what the contemporary use of the term "bear arms" was understood to mean. Try to find any mention of self-defense from back then. It wasn't what they were thinking about.
That's what I meant too. I didn't bring up self-defense, did I?
The 2nd amendment protects the states' right to build up their own state militias by allowing their citizens to arm themselves with military weapons. It forbids the federal government from interfering with this.
> The modern interpretation of the second amendment is very different.
Yes. The federal "assault weapons ban" is completely incompatible with the 2nd amendment.
This was pushed through without a new amendment. Instead people used linguistic acrobatics to re-interpret the meaning of the 2nd amendment.
It would have been a lot easier today to shut down any attempts to re-interpret the 14th amendment if we hadn't started down this path with the 2nd.
Thanks for the detailed answer, I think that'll be a relief for many. However, would you say this still is a volatile situation for people who are facing this issue? Are the rulings _final_ on this? Or is there chance of people getting stuck in limbo?
> Thanks for the detailed answer, I think that'll be a relief for many. However, would you say this still is a volatile situation for people who are facing this issue? Are the rulings _final_ on this? Or is there chance of people getting stuck in limbo?
No, rulings are not final. SCOTUS could and very well may disagree with more than a hundred years of jurisprudence and overrule e.g. US v. Wong Kim Ark[1], enabling much easier denaturalization by the federal government. Here's an example article from a right-wing think tank about why they believe SCOTUS should overrule Ark[2].
That seems like a very good demonstration of the pitfalls of originalist interpretations of the Constitution. Even then, the argument comes off as extremely weak. And it doesn't even begin to try and address the consequences of reinterpreting the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Are conservatives envisioning a new class of slaves? People born on US soil who have none of the protections of the Constitution? Even if that is not the goal, it's not hard to imagine that there would be far-reaching consequences from deciding that the Constitution was not a limit on the behavior of government, but in fact only applied to citizens. What a massive bump in power for the bureaucrats in DC.
Heck, we could just snatch people off the street and declare they cannot prove they are a citizen therefore they have no Constitutional protections. No right to due process so they can prove they're a citizen, nothing like that. Better plan on carrying your passport at all times (and hope it doesn't get ... lost).
> Heck, we could just snatch people off the street and declare they cannot prove they are a citizen therefore they have no Constitutional protections.
I'm not sure if you intended this as a joke, but this is happening now, even if you do have proof of citizenship on you[1]:
> Congressman Bennie Thompson, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, reported that “ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a “definitive” determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate” when the app says a person is undocumented.
> Hasn't the president signed an executive order that says birthright citizenship is not for children of non-citizens?
Executive orders have force to the extent that they exert powers that the President has directly under the Constitution or that are assigned to the President by Congress exercising the powers it has directly under the Constitution.
Amending the Constitution by altering the definition of citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment (or overruling the Supreme Court's consistent reading of the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, if you prefer that characterization) is neither a power granted to the President directly by the Constitution, nor a power Congress has granted the President by statute, nor even within the power granted to the Congress by the Constitution to grant to the President if it was inclined to do so.
> I see that it's being challenged in court, but the order is currently valid, right?
“Currently valid” is a tricky concept. In one sense, its is valid only to the extent it is actually compliant with the Constitution and laws which have higher priority than executive orders. Or you can read the question as really being about whether it can currently be applied, in which case the answer is a more simple “no”, because after the Supreme Court made the usual recent route to a simple single interim resolution pending the full litigation by simply deciding that nationwide injunctions were not within the power of district courts, they could only issue orders against government actions applicable to the litigants before them, a class action was certified covering everyone who might be affected by the order [0], and a preliminary injunction in that case has blocked the order.
No, it is held up in court. The SCOTUS tried to make it valid by ruling against universal injunctions, but within days the challenges were refiled as class actions.
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." NY Governor Charles Evans Hughes, 1907.
No English sentence is without ambiguity in its meaning. If a controversy over meaning arises on a matter as important as law, we cannot function as a nation on the basis of, "Aw, everyone knows what they meant...".
Whether the courts are currently too flexible is a matter of opinion, and unless you get nominated personally to the SCOTUS, an inconsequential one.
> The wording of the constitution indicates that this is only true if your parents were citizens.
The Constitution doesn't define it at all, first off. The Fourteenth Amendment does. All the original Constitution says is that a "natural-born Citizen" is a requirement for President; and that per Article I, Section 8 congress has the power to define the mechanics of citizenship.
The Fourteenth by contrast says plain text:
> 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.
Amendments are amendments to the Constitution. They have the force of law.
The person I was responding to was discussing the "wording of the constitution" so the location of the wording absolutely matters. In this case the "wording of the [original] constitution" is ambiguous, but the wording of the 14th is clear. Thus my reply.
For reference, amendments are part of the constitution. This is specified in TITLE 1 CHAPTER 2 Sec. 106b. Of the US Code[1] which reads
> Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.
Amendments have the same force as the Constitution because they are a part of the constitution. They are not simply laws. Thank you for allowing me to clarify.
You either misread or were trying to mischaracterize something with your first reply. When the original comment was further clarified for you, instead of acknowledging your misread, you've decided to double down with this artificial "clarification" of essentially nothing. It isn't a good look.
Right, when you said, "The Constitution doesn't define it at all, first off. The Fourteenth Amendment does," is wrong. The Constitution does define it, in the 14th amendment.
Thank you again for allowing me to clarify so that you can correct your understanding of the constitution.
Well, the constitution didn't make any statements about who was a citizen, just the 14th ammendment has this:
> 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.
Of course, being part of the Constitution, few of the terms are defined. But, as I read it, if you're born here outside of diplomatic immunity, you're a citizen. And I'd need a well referenced argument to understand why 'subject to the jurisdiction therof' means something other than how I interpret it.
That is a total lie, the 14th amendment is absolutely clear and it was passed after the Civil War with the explicit point of granting citizenship to black slaves who, you'll notice, did not have citizen parents:
> 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.
If illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," it's not possible to arrest them for a crime--that's what the phrase means.
The language excludes diplomats, foreign soldiers on US soil while they're fighting a war with the US, and (given the context of when the amendment was passed) Native Americans who hadn't yet been told that they were subjects of the US.
Yes, under current law, almost every baby born in the United States or its territories automatically becomes a US citizen at birth, regardless of the parents’ immigration status, except for certain children of foreign diplomats or enemy forces in hostile occupation.
Even if you're here without permission, you can be tried in our courts, and are subject to our jurisdiction. I'm willing to be swayed, but it has to be compelling. Diplomatic immunity or maybe recognized tribal member on recognized reservation when they were being disenfranchised are the only times I'm aware of where people are physically within the States and DC and not subject to the jurrisdiction thereof. Perhaps if a child is born in an internation vessel at port, or in a duty free shop or a customs free trade zone. Territories and such get squishy, it's usually not clearly stated when the term United States is meant to include those portions of the country that are not a State; but the 14th ammendment is understood not to apply to territories. Citizenship at birth is granted in some territories (at least Puerto Rico) by federal legislation.
That said, upthread you claimed:
> this is only true if your parents were citizens
And now you claim something about illegal aliens. There's a whole range of circumstances, some of which would have been uncontemplatable at the time of the 14th ammendment. If you are born in the US. You claim citizenship only if parentS are citizens. But if only one parent is a citizen, or both parents are permanent residents, or the parents are authorized visitors. For the historically impossible situation, what if the child is carried by a surrogate with authorized presence and the parents are non-citizens not present at birth ... that child is a US citizen by birth, and not included in your statement above.
Fantastic point, I assume you’re equally annoyed about how the right to bear arms has been removed from the contextual requirement that the armed be part of a well organized militia?
Something has been ignored by legislators for over a hundred years and just now you have discovered it’s true meaning which happens to perfectly align with your policy preferences.
Please, just be honest and say you want to enact a policy and use the US Supreme Court to do it, rather than gaslighting us into believing that words don’t mean what they do.
"No True Scotsman" is not accurate here. This would actually be an appeal to authority.
But the fact that it is one doesn't mean it has no merit. My implication is that the person I am responding to is ignorant of the state of the law, not that they must be wrong because others say they are.
There was no reply button. No it's definitely a True Scotsman. When you cherry pick what authority to quote, and therefore imply it's the only true position to have, it's a true Scotsman. Your next line affirms this.
"My implication is that the person I am responding to is ignorant of the state of the law, "
And now you've moved onto the Courtier's reply.
