"Coming here illegally is a crime so everyone who does it is a criminal."
The legal moralism people apply to immigration is absurd, especially in the United States. We have purposefully made it impossible to do the right thing, so we can rejoice in punishing those who do it "wrong". It's shameful, in my opinion.
Also a lot of people applying that legal moralism consider it not just acceptable, but laudable to try to cheat on your taxes, a pretty significant crime.
Combining qualities you oppose into theoretical groups is a common, very human fallacy, but it will poison your mind against humanity. It's the origin of tribalism.
For example, I'm a white non-religious straight liberal US man with a hippy upbringing that I value dearly, and I think the opportunity to immigrate should be as available as possible to all good people. But I also recognize that it must be responsibly controlled, and the native culture and quality of life must be prioritized (for all nations, not just the West), and one piece of that is stopping illegal immigration. And it's not unreasonable to have an opinion that we are, to some degree, failing at all the pieces.
It should be telling that a great portion of these people are young men, and young men from certain regions view women, minorities, and ideas like honesty and fairness much differently. Europe is facing this right now. What are you suggesting? All of India moves to the US? Are you even aware they'd do that if they could? That is _not_ practical.
There is no doubt that the country caps and quotas for immigrants from countries with large populations like India, Mexico, Philippenes and China are a huge problem.
I’m not sure that anyone can really agree on a solution, but there should be some stop loss where these things can’t be delayed beyond a certain fixed length of time and/or they shouldn’t issue the initial visas if the backlog to adjust is so long.
The reason that this and most immigration law hasn’t been fixed is that while most people agree that this is a problem, there is not really a compromise solution that everyone can really agree on.
I think they could at least offer some sort of reprieve for people waiting in line. Their status is tied to employer whims. If someone has lived in the country for 5 years and in line for citizenship perhaps give them some protection in case their employment gets taken away. Some grace period, perhaps access to healthcare.
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
It's an argument based on a value. The parent's position is ostensibly that the value does not currently survive contact with concrete reality in the US today.
This sneering oversimplification pushes people away from generosity. It's ok to see and have emotions about the very real negative side of immigration. Lumping all those people in with the theoretical "just racist with no other rationale" crowd is harmful.
It is not a right, for sure. However, there are historical reasons why they are county wide quotas. Before the 1965 INA (Hart-Celler Act, which JFK wanted), they had a national-origins quota system: each country's quota was based on the existing immigrant population of that national origin already in the United States, using data from the 1890 census. Because the U.S. population in 1890 was overwhelmingly from Northern and Western Europe (especially Protestants), this formula strongly favored those groups. Immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe was heavily restricted because most of them are Catholics. Once Catholics got political power, thanks to JFK, this is reformed in favor of what we see country based caps.
The national-origins formula was explicitly designed to maintain the existing ethnic composition of the U.S.--in other words, preserve what policymakers at the time considered the “traditional” American demographic makeup.
This is an impossible standard, and really just a word game. Calling the interaction between the concept of nations, cultures, rights, economies, and practical consequences complicated would be the understatement of the century. Despite that, you will never convince people to give up the larger idea of ownership/responsibility in the context of their "home", for many scales of the word "home".
Pragmatically: if you want to enforce the legality of a state-affirmed migration path, it has to be viable. Without a militarized border (which is impractical based on nation size and undesirable for fiscal and moral reasons) and a militarized interior (do you _like_ what ICE is becoming?), the best mitigation for illegal immigration is viable legal immigration.
Fiscally: immigrants have above-average entrepreneurial tendencies. It doesn't take a lot of enterprise creations and resulting tax payment and job creation to offset a _lot_ of social service consumption. Inbound migration also is what keeps the US from having a net-shrinking population, which until we can get away from late-stage capitalism is a death knell for the economy.
Morally and ethically: this is a nation of immigrants. If you claim to be a native, do you speak Navajo? Ute?
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
It's not a poem that _I_ wrote. That would be silly. You don't have to share _my_ feelings.
It's inscribed on a plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty and is taught in civics classes as a representation of American values. The idea is that, when you live in a society, you build upon a set of shared values and stories so that you can have something in common with your neighbor and something bigger than yourself to strive for.
All that said, there's a reason that comes last on my list of reasons. If you and I agree on the shared story, the other stuff doesn't matter so much. If we don't, having pragmatic and fiscal reasons to get on the same page lets us at least stay rational in our discourse.
It’s not a bad thing per se, but democratic action can produce cultural shift to something that was previously considered outside of the scope of your country’s way of life. What matters is what you want to achieve as a country, a society, a community and so on. This is something groups of people have to decide for themselves, and the worst form of disagreement is violence.
I am of the view that more than 10 countries in the world should be built on enlightenment ideals, have a rule of law, have systems and processes for providing a good quality of life, and have centers of education and productivity.
I don’t think it’s reasonable that we should shift billions of people to live in a handful of nations via immigration. If that’s the overall plan, then nations where those people are immigrating from should just become vassal states.
It isn’t necessarily, but it’s currently used in the US to allow the wealthy to avoid investing in Americans.
Instead of investing in Americans by lowering costs of necessities (food, housing, education, children) they chase short term profits for the benefits of shareholders (which is by and large the ultra rich). It’s much cheaper to import labor where the above costs were paid for by somebody else.
I suspect that the amount of background legwork for each application is fairly limited. It should be possible to triage the vast majority of applications in a matter of days at most, at least the denials. It's wild that it takes years to do this.
You've clearly never seen someone go for citizenship. It's a relatively involved process that involves multiple interviews, character reference letters, lots of paperwork, etc.
Getting a greencard (or equivalent) is an entirely different thing and is even _more_ broken.
I've known several people who've done it. I wasn't trying to argue that there isn't a lot of manual labor going on. But I'm doubting how much of that labor extends beyond interfacing with the applicant.
Are they interviewing references outside the country? Doing deep background checks that are not basically instant electronically? That's what I'm talking about. The denial process can probably be made extremely fast, and then the tedious interview part can be focused only on the ones we are planning to accept otherwise.
The US is doing something right if so many people are ready to wait in limbo for decades of the one life they get on this planet.
For people on employment visas - they are one economic downturn away from everything being undone. They ll get 60/90 days to leave the life and relationships they have spent years building.
As someone who was in this limbo and eventually became a citizen... It's better than the other options. In particular, I could take my dollar savings back to my home country and I'd still be much ahead of my friends who never tried to come to the US.
All true but isn't our quality of life built on mines in Africa (car batteries and phone batteries) and sweatshops in China and co (much of our clothes)? To what degree does that reinforce that other countries have lower quality of life? Then again, this isn't specific to just the US.
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.
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.
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].
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.
> To anyone who happens to be born on its soil, it actually is.
This is actually debatable. The wording of the constitution indicates that this is only true if your parents were citizens. Like many other directives in the constitution, this has been simply ignored by legislators.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
> So long as you're a citizen. If you are not a citizen, the rights afforded by the constitution don't apply to you.
Wrong. The Constitution is very clear on which rights are limitations on the government no matter which people it is dealing with and which are particular to citizens, and there are very few of the latter. Exactly one, in fact: the right to vote, though its mentioned several times in terms of which things are prohibited as excuses for denying it.
I'm assuming good faith debate against my own judgment, but in case anyone is confused, here's your sign:
1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Read that carefully and note that the word "citizen" is nowhere to be found.
Next, some may argue that "the people" inherently represents only citizens. Jurisprudence has generally accepted that phrase to mean everyone, including illegal immigrants, but it depends on the surrounding context[1]. The idea that the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens, though, doesn't match any court interpretation of which I'm aware.
Again if you disagree, you'd better be prepared to produce birth certificates of all your ancestors to prove you're a "natural born citizen" born of citizens. That's where this leads.
But if you welcome immigrants so as not to run out of labor or stagnate culturally, rather than simply dislike immigrants, you'd want to improve the bureaucracy.
Is it a hideous insult because you think it's not true, or because the wording feels offensive? Is there a more polite way to express the same sentiment, if you think it's true, or is it either true or insulting?
"so as not to run out of labor"
Beloved by the extreme right economically and now Trump. Low ball the labor market. Destroy the middle class and especially the working class. But at least CEOs will get their performance bonuses, and shareholders will see shares rise due to lower costs.
And yet we still have the most people trying to get in, and we also let the most people in annually, so we must be doing something better than everyone else. Of course, everything can always be improved.
Because this thread is a little spicy, I just want to remind folks that their comments are potentially "discoverable" in a legal situation. So if you comment something disparaging about minorities or immigrants it may haunt you later. Let’s keep it civil.
"Just do it the right way."
"Coming here illegally is a crime so everyone who does it is a criminal."
The legal moralism people apply to immigration is absurd, especially in the United States. We have purposefully made it impossible to do the right thing, so we can rejoice in punishing those who do it "wrong". It's shameful, in my opinion.
Also a lot of people applying that legal moralism consider it not just acceptable, but laudable to try to cheat on your taxes, a pretty significant crime.
Combining qualities you oppose into theoretical groups is a common, very human fallacy, but it will poison your mind against humanity. It's the origin of tribalism.
For example, I'm a white non-religious straight liberal US man with a hippy upbringing that I value dearly, and I think the opportunity to immigrate should be as available as possible to all good people. But I also recognize that it must be responsibly controlled, and the native culture and quality of life must be prioritized (for all nations, not just the West), and one piece of that is stopping illegal immigration. And it's not unreasonable to have an opinion that we are, to some degree, failing at all the pieces.
It should be telling that a great portion of these people are young men, and young men from certain regions view women, minorities, and ideas like honesty and fairness much differently. Europe is facing this right now. What are you suggesting? All of India moves to the US? Are you even aware they'd do that if they could? That is _not_ practical.
There is no doubt that the country caps and quotas for immigrants from countries with large populations like India, Mexico, Philippenes and China are a huge problem.
I’m not sure that anyone can really agree on a solution, but there should be some stop loss where these things can’t be delayed beyond a certain fixed length of time and/or they shouldn’t issue the initial visas if the backlog to adjust is so long.
The reason that this and most immigration law hasn’t been fixed is that while most people agree that this is a problem, there is not really a compromise solution that everyone can really agree on.
I think they could at least offer some sort of reprieve for people waiting in line. Their status is tied to employer whims. If someone has lived in the country for 5 years and in line for citizenship perhaps give them some protection in case their employment gets taken away. Some grace period, perhaps access to healthcare.
Citizenship in this country is not a right. Why is it important that we allow more people in from these other nations? Why is that a good thing?
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
This is just a tired old emotional argument. It won't phase anyone who sees the results of modern immigration practices.
It’s not an argument, it’s a value.
It's an argument based on a value. The parent's position is ostensibly that the value does not currently survive contact with concrete reality in the US today.
We get it, you don't like immigrants.
This sneering oversimplification pushes people away from generosity. It's ok to see and have emotions about the very real negative side of immigration. Lumping all those people in with the theoretical "just racist with no other rationale" crowd is harmful.
> generosity
we tried being nice, reaching across the aisle, etc. and that got us Orange Man 2.0
It is not a right, for sure. However, there are historical reasons why they are county wide quotas. Before the 1965 INA (Hart-Celler Act, which JFK wanted), they had a national-origins quota system: each country's quota was based on the existing immigrant population of that national origin already in the United States, using data from the 1890 census. Because the U.S. population in 1890 was overwhelmingly from Northern and Western Europe (especially Protestants), this formula strongly favored those groups. Immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe was heavily restricted because most of them are Catholics. Once Catholics got political power, thanks to JFK, this is reformed in favor of what we see country based caps.
The national-origins formula was explicitly designed to maintain the existing ethnic composition of the U.S.--in other words, preserve what policymakers at the time considered the “traditional” American demographic makeup.
In the long run it seems likely enough that it will become mainstream that people don't have the right to enforce borders against others.
Like the real long run, try to use your imagination.
> In the long run it seems likely enough...
Does it seem more likely than the alternative? If so, what is your argument that that is more likely?
What did you do to earn your citizenship?
This is an impossible standard, and really just a word game. Calling the interaction between the concept of nations, cultures, rights, economies, and practical consequences complicated would be the understatement of the century. Despite that, you will never convince people to give up the larger idea of ownership/responsibility in the context of their "home", for many scales of the word "home".
[dead]
Pragmatically: if you want to enforce the legality of a state-affirmed migration path, it has to be viable. Without a militarized border (which is impractical based on nation size and undesirable for fiscal and moral reasons) and a militarized interior (do you _like_ what ICE is becoming?), the best mitigation for illegal immigration is viable legal immigration.
Fiscally: immigrants have above-average entrepreneurial tendencies. It doesn't take a lot of enterprise creations and resulting tax payment and job creation to offset a _lot_ of social service consumption. Inbound migration also is what keeps the US from having a net-shrinking population, which until we can get away from late-stage capitalism is a death knell for the economy.
Morally and ethically: this is a nation of immigrants. If you claim to be a native, do you speak Navajo? Ute?
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
So your argument is... a poem?
I'm convinced. I change my mind! I take back everything I said before!
It's not a poem that _I_ wrote. That would be silly. You don't have to share _my_ feelings.
It's inscribed on a plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty and is taught in civics classes as a representation of American values. The idea is that, when you live in a society, you build upon a set of shared values and stories so that you can have something in common with your neighbor and something bigger than yourself to strive for.
All that said, there's a reason that comes last on my list of reasons. If you and I agree on the shared story, the other stuff doesn't matter so much. If we don't, having pragmatic and fiscal reasons to get on the same page lets us at least stay rational in our discourse.
[dead]
Why not? Why is a bad thing?
It’s not a bad thing per se, but democratic action can produce cultural shift to something that was previously considered outside of the scope of your country’s way of life. What matters is what you want to achieve as a country, a society, a community and so on. This is something groups of people have to decide for themselves, and the worst form of disagreement is violence.
I am of the view that more than 10 countries in the world should be built on enlightenment ideals, have a rule of law, have systems and processes for providing a good quality of life, and have centers of education and productivity.
I don’t think it’s reasonable that we should shift billions of people to live in a handful of nations via immigration. If that’s the overall plan, then nations where those people are immigrating from should just become vassal states.
It isn’t necessarily, but it’s currently used in the US to allow the wealthy to avoid investing in Americans.
Instead of investing in Americans by lowering costs of necessities (food, housing, education, children) they chase short term profits for the benefits of shareholders (which is by and large the ultra rich). It’s much cheaper to import labor where the above costs were paid for by somebody else.
Fully, fully disagree. The process should be better, but caps are not one of the problems that needs significant rework.
I suspect that the amount of background legwork for each application is fairly limited. It should be possible to triage the vast majority of applications in a matter of days at most, at least the denials. It's wild that it takes years to do this.
I assume it's intentional. And/or profitable.
You've clearly never seen someone go for citizenship. It's a relatively involved process that involves multiple interviews, character reference letters, lots of paperwork, etc.
Getting a greencard (or equivalent) is an entirely different thing and is even _more_ broken.
I've known several people who've done it. I wasn't trying to argue that there isn't a lot of manual labor going on. But I'm doubting how much of that labor extends beyond interfacing with the applicant.
Are they interviewing references outside the country? Doing deep background checks that are not basically instant electronically? That's what I'm talking about. The denial process can probably be made extremely fast, and then the tedious interview part can be focused only on the ones we are planning to accept otherwise.
The US is doing something right if so many people are ready to wait in limbo for decades of the one life they get on this planet.
For people on employment visas - they are one economic downturn away from everything being undone. They ll get 60/90 days to leave the life and relationships they have spent years building.
Billions of people around the world live in poverty without running water or power, let alone economic opportunities.
Saying the US is doing something right because people want to immigrate there is setting the bar very low.
Those billions would happily go to any Developed country, and per capita, the US doesn’t have particularly high immigration (Australia is the highest)
As someone who was in this limbo and eventually became a citizen... It's better than the other options. In particular, I could take my dollar savings back to my home country and I'd still be much ahead of my friends who never tried to come to the US.
Well, in it's favor the US is one place where the CIA probably won't overthrow the government (the 1963 coup notwithstanding).
All true but isn't our quality of life built on mines in Africa (car batteries and phone batteries) and sweatshops in China and co (much of our clothes)? To what degree does that reinforce that other countries have lower quality of life? Then again, this isn't specific to just the US.
Speaking of the US, how are TN visas nowadays? Are companies allergic to their paperwork like other visas that are harder to get?
Immigration to the US takes so long, a large percentage of the applicants die of natural causes while waiting. It's Kafkaesque. https://www.cato.org/blog/16-million-family-sponsored-immigr... https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/immigration/400000-ind...
Citizenship in the United States is not a right.
To anyone who happens to be born on its soil, it actually is. And leaving people on bureaucratic limbo for decades is abusive.
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.
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.
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].
1. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649
2. https://americanmind.org/features/the-case-against-birthrigh...
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.
It is not valid.
[dead]
> To anyone who happens to be born on its soil, it actually is.
This is actually debatable. The wording of the constitution indicates that this is only true if your parents were citizens. Like many other directives in the constitution, this has been simply ignored by legislators.
Effectively no legal scholars or judges of merit support that belief: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/how-birthright-citizenshi...
> Effectively no legal scholars or judges of merit support that belief
And how did the "legal scholars or judges of merit" interpret the 2nd amendment in 1800?
The same way as today?
The constitution seems to have become a lot more flexible today than people should be comfortable with.
No True Scotsman fallacy at work. Nice!
I'm sure you know better than them due to your many years serving on courts of note.
> 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.
So your claim is incorrect.
Am I to understand that your claim is, "amendments aren't part of the constitution"?
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.
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.
> "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
This language directly excludes illegal aliens.
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.
From the same site as the article:
Does a baby born in the US get citizenship?
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.
You know very well it basically only applies to diplomats, but you good faith debate was never your plan here.
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?
We're talking about immigration. Stay on topic. :)
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.
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.
It was debated in 1898 and this argument lost.
And I'm reviving it.
It's not debatable. Though it is being debated by people who want that to be the case because racism.
@ivraatiems is effectively using a no True Scotsman argument.
You can just reply to me directly, you know :)
"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.
Freedom of speech is though. You're allowed to complain about the process as much as you want.
[flagged]
False.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/about/initiatives/ci... https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8... https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/297/ https://www.accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/post/undocumented-im...
> So long as you're a citizen. If you are not a citizen, the rights afforded by the constitution don't apply to you.
Wrong. The Constitution is very clear on which rights are limitations on the government no matter which people it is dealing with and which are particular to citizens, and there are very few of the latter. Exactly one, in fact: the right to vote, though its mentioned several times in terms of which things are prohibited as excuses for denying it.
1. You don't know if OP is a citizen or not.
2. They apply to everyone subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Otherwise it would be real easy to just say "you're not a citizen, you have no rights". Don't be so sure you're safe.
2. Bridges v. Wixon (1945)
A First Amendment case involving an Australian immigrant.
Key holding: Non-citizens inside the U.S. have First Amendment rights.
Quote:
“Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”
> “Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”
Unless this quote is directly from the constitution, it's totally worthless to support your argument.
I'm assuming good faith debate against my own judgment, but in case anyone is confused, here's your sign:
1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Read that carefully and note that the word "citizen" is nowhere to be found.
Next, some may argue that "the people" inherently represents only citizens. Jurisprudence has generally accepted that phrase to mean everyone, including illegal immigrants, but it depends on the surrounding context[1]. The idea that the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens, though, doesn't match any court interpretation of which I'm aware.
1. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/
Somehow Supreme Court ruling vs rando internet post carries a bit more weight.
This is the constitutional equivalent of being a flat earther.
Sick burn. Now, do you have any ~good~ arguments that prove me wrong?
This is factually wrong. Freedom of speech (1st am.) is for all.
Because you feel like it should apply?
Yes. And also the century of case law.
Again if you disagree, you'd better be prepared to produce birth certificates of all your ancestors to prove you're a "natural born citizen" born of citizens. That's where this leads.
But if you welcome immigrants so as not to run out of labor or stagnate culturally, rather than simply dislike immigrants, you'd want to improve the bureaucracy.
Implying that homogenous cultures are "stagnant" is a hideous insult to people all around the world.
Is it a hideous insult because you think it's not true, or because the wording feels offensive? Is there a more polite way to express the same sentiment, if you think it's true, or is it either true or insulting?
"so as not to run out of labor" Beloved by the extreme right economically and now Trump. Low ball the labor market. Destroy the middle class and especially the working class. But at least CEOs will get their performance bonuses, and shareholders will see shares rise due to lower costs.
Not if your reelection campaign is reliant on the votes of racists
No one said anything about race. We could be talking about White immigrants from Europe. You are making this about race.
> We could be talking about White immigrants from Europe
Or ... white immigrants from South Africa?
Yeah, it is about race.
https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/ice-detention-statistics...
According to the stats on this page, there’s literally not a single white immigrant from Europe who has been detained.
The page leaves whites out in the table of ethnicities, from which you jump to the conclusion that there are none.
There is at least one: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/documents-shed-light-ba...
But the point still stands, they're out here rounding up people who don't look white enough.
If your argument has nothing more than squealing rAsCiStS and fAsCiStS, then you don't have an argument.
> nothing more than squealing rAsCiStS and fAsCiStS
Luckily, that's not my argument.
What exactly does "stagnate culturally" mean?
As far as I can tell, America has rapidly become a cultural cesspit, and yet immigration has never been higher.
Not sure I follow...
And yet we still have the most people trying to get in, and we also let the most people in annually, so we must be doing something better than everyone else. Of course, everything can always be improved.
Because this thread is a little spicy, I just want to remind folks that their comments are potentially "discoverable" in a legal situation. So if you comment something disparaging about minorities or immigrants it may haunt you later. Let’s keep it civil.
[flagged]
[flagged]