I agree we should do absolutely everything we can to insist upon no widening of the exclusion based on jurisdiction. The Court already has come up with justifications like the sky isn’t blue, several times now. US v Trump and Trump v Anderson both qualify. We collectively shrugged.
i don’t disagree. but i think this Supreme Court might. it might separate the obligations of jurisdiction (which come automatically as you say) from benefits thereof, which require some affirmative submission. i think this is bad! that suggests this Court might well do it. 1/
to get even more dystopian, the Court could claim people here on the sly lack other benefits of ordinary jurisdiction, have weaker due process rights in criminal cases, etc. this Court might find this an appealing frontier of law to explore. /fin
maybe! but these are arguable questions, malleable definitions. we have a Supreme Court that’s very capable of finding ways to justify the conclusions it prefers, and this question of jurisdiction which has already admitted exceptions is quite a wedge for them to play upon.
i mean, i hope you are right. i just think it’s no more of a stretch than other things this Court has done to read those who have concealed themselves from the US as not meeting the bar of being subject to jurisdiction in this sense. again, what the court did with 14A sec 3 was at least as farcical.
i agree this is absolutely horrifying.
that’s the status quo interpretation, i agree. 1/
the Court could revise it, and say that if you are in the US on the sly, you have rendered yourself not subject to US law by evading it. even though you would be so subject if discovered, you have withheld yourself from the obligations of jurisdiction, so are not entitled to its benefits. /fin
we really want black-letter Constitutional support. the more invocation of legislation+precedent are required to make our case, the bigger an invitation to a Supreme Court which has given massive middle fingers to stare decisis when they think they know better (even though they are the very worst).
it’s a good question, but it’s already interpreted as excluding children of diplomats from automatic citizenship. the parents have diplomatic immunity, so the child is deemed not subject to the jurisdiction.
i hope you are right + something would be a bridge too far here. but a Supreme Court that inverted the plain meaning of Section 3 of the 14th A (requiring Congressional action to disable, when the text requires Congressional action to remove the disability) strikes me as willing to make new history.
The Constitution is a stronger bulwark than Congress’ laws. If you think Congress can end birthright citizenship, because the Constitution leaves to Congress the right to define the jurisdiction of the United States, then birthright citizenship can be narrowed anytime by an act of Congress. 1/
I think most commentators believe the Constitution protects birthright citizenship *from* Congress, though. (I think so as well. I just think it doesn’t protect it from our rogue Supreme Court, who has done much worse to the plain meaning of the Constitution already.) /fin
we are just confabulating at this point. perhaps invading argument is not the analogy they’d use. a relatively optimistic outcome would include asylum-seekers inside of US jurisdiction, because they have announced and regularized themselves. 1/
the point is, there is wiggle room. the Constitution includes a hint enough of textual ambiguity, and US practice has hung at least one exception to plain birthright citizenship upon that. it’s enough that lawyers can lawyer about it. 2/
lawyers can be very clever and creative! 3/
and judges can be so creative as to enshrine the power of a king to stand above the law in a document born in the wake of a revolution against monarchy. just ask John Roberts! /fin
he’s a rather clever bad man, you know. 1/
i think the play would be that people who conceal their entry from officials of the United States are evading its jurisdiction. their status is not unlike an invading army. 2/
they are not immune from American state coercion, but nor are they orderly subject to US jurisdiction unless they affirmatively render themselves so by declaring themselves to US officialdom. /fin
ask John Roberts, the very worst man in the United States.
this is the Constitution of the United States. anything dependent on other laws to interpret can be reinterpreted by Congress. if Congress gets to decide by virtue of the laws it writes which classes of aliens are subject to US jurisdiction, then Congress can narrow birthright citizenship.
it shows the language is not as plain or unambiguous as it seems. there is already one loophole interpreted into “within the jurisdiction of the United States”. there can be others. 1/
@mtsw.bsky.social suggests a simple, two-pronged test: “1) Are you a person? (Automatic Yes) 2) Were you born in the US?” that is simply not the case under status quo law. 2/
and, contra @fujoshi.bsky.social, “jurisdiction of the United States” does not in plain language narrowly exclude only children with diplomatic immunity. there is more than enough wiggle room in the phrase for a sympathetic Supreme Court to declare other classes not subject. /fin
(i want to be clear i say all this with the very opposite of glee. my preference would be to strip the subject-to-the-jurisdiction qualifier entirely and render @mtsw.bsky.social 2-pronged test true without exception.)
Children of Diplomats | Scott Legal, P.C.
Link Preview: Children of Diplomats | Scott Legal, P.C.: I was born in the United States as the child of a foreign diplomatic officer. Do I get U.S. citizenship at birth? If not, how can I become a U.S. citizen?
📌
elon’s gonna send us all an oath where we all have to agree to be “hardcore” as citizens or be expatriated.
“we emphasize trust and accountability, your trust and our lack of accountability.”
it’s gonna be unreal when shit gets real.