Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship

[JudgeRightly]

I don't need coaching, thanks.

Then make the argument yourself.

I said "the plain words of the ruling." I've read the ruling. Have you?

Held: Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

Yes.

I am not denying what the Court held.

I am denying that what the Court held is constitutionally sound.

Those are not the same thing. Courts can be wrong. A ruling can be binding under current law and still be wrong as a matter of constitutional meaning, let alone at an ethical level.

Your rejection of the legal interpretation of the law by the Supreme Court majority is duly noted.

Correct.

I reject the majority’s interpretation.

If your argument is simply “the Supreme Court said it, therefore it is correct,” then that is judicial supremacy, not constitutional reasoning.

when the Supreme Court says clearly, above, "The Citizenship Clause must be understood in light of its historical context."

Fine.

But saying “historical context” does not end the debate. The question is whether the Court applied that history correctly.

The first-principles issue remains the same: citizenship is political membership. It is not merely the legal consequence of being born in the right geographic location.

Here's some history. U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark (1898) makes it clear that it's further supporting the already existing historical context:

"So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes…have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents."

That doesn't answer the core question.

What does it mean to be born not merely within American territory, but “subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

If “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means nothing more than “American law applies to you while you are physically present,” then the phrase adds almost nothing. Illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, enemy spies, and invading soldiers are all subject to American law in various ways while here. That does NOT make them members of the American political community.

And that's exactly the problem.

Your position, and the Court’s position, makes geography decisive. My position is that citizenship should follow political jurisdiction in the full sense: allegiance, membership, and subjection to the American political order (ie, assimilation).

So let's start there.

Fine. Let’s start there.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

So what does this ruling do?

It turns unlawful or temporary presence into a citizenship-producing event.

A foreigner can enter unlawfully, or come temporarily, have a child on American soil, leave, raise that child entirely under another nation, another culture, another moral framework, and another allegiance, and that child is still treated as an American citizen for life.

Again, that's not a serious understanding of citizenship.

The ruling incentivizes birth tourism. It incentivizes illegal entry by pregnant aliens. It incentivizes visa abuse. It creates future immigration leverage for the parents. And it treats people with no real attachment to the American nation as Americans simply because American police had authority over the hospital room at the moment of birth.

That is what the system does.

Do you deny that the ruling creates those incentives and effects? Or do you admit that it does, but believe those consequences are required because you think the 14th Amendment demands them?

 

[annabenedetti]

If “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means nothing more than “American law applies to you while you are physically present,” then the phrase adds almost nothing. Illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, enemy spies, and invading soldiers are all subject to American law in various ways while here. That does NOT make them members of the American political community.

Categorical error there, tossing invading soldiers into the group.

Your position, and the Court’s position

I like that.

, makes geography decisive. My position is that citizenship should follow political jurisdiction in the full sense: allegiance, membership, and subjection to the American political order (ie, assimilation).

You're wrong. Citizenship was never about assimilation. You want to make it so, but then you've got a whole thread (with many words!) hashing out an idea of monarchy that was never and will never be the United States.

Again, that's not a serious understanding of citizenship.

It doesn't get more serious than the Supreme Court. Maybe don't forget we're not the experts here.

The ruling incentivizes birth tourism

No official source even has numbers for this idea. It's the pet project of people who are anti-immigration. The only number out there is from a questionable source. It's not enough to put a dent in established law.

And it treats people with no real attachment to the American nation

That's your value judgment.

as Americans simply because American police had authority over the hospital room at the moment of birth.

Do you deny that the ruling creates those incentives and effects? Or do you admit that it does, but believe those consequences are required because you think the 14th Amendment demands them?

Why have rightists abandoned the Constitution?

The ruling affirms what is already Constitutional law. I'm for the Constitution.