[indil]

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country:

"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."

Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born in America to tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side. Even the author of the 14th amendment said that was the point of that clause. Even in logical terms it makes sense: You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable.

However, this case wasn't about citizenship. It was about the broader issue of lower courts issuing restraining orders outside their jurisdictions. It's a recipe for chaos. There's a reason why there are multiple jurisdictions, and courts are limited to their jurisdictions. What happens when two lower courts issue conflicting nationwide orders? The only court in the US that has jurisdiction over the entire country is the Supreme Court. This was a losing battle.

There's a right way and a wrong way to go about addressing problems. Court cases are sometimes more about the core issues involved than the concrete circumstances. Sure, birthright citizenship was the reason for the suit, but the core issue was judicial overreach. Don't get mad because the way your side was "winning" was by cheating, and they were stopped. Try having an actual good argument, and doing things the right way by arguing the actual case in a court.

[BryantD]

There was lots of debate in the Senate during the passage of the 14th Amendment; much of it revolved around birthright citizenship. Both those who wanted the Amendment to exclude people who were born to those temporarily in the US and those who did not acknowledged that, in the form passed, it did not.

Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania said "I am really desirous to have a legal definition of ‘citizenship of the United States. Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?" He didn't think that child should be.

Sen. Conness of California said he thought it should cover "the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States." And let's remember, as Conness was certainly aware, that many of those Chinese laborers had been imported illegally.

They knew what they were passing, and they knew it included birthright citizenship. Senators who wanted to alter the Amendment to exclude some people failed.

[ejstronge]

> tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side

This ‘jurisdiction’ claim essentially only applied to people who had a diplomatic status while in the US. A traveler from Canada has no special right against being prosecuted (just like you would not were you to go to, say Britain).

A governmental figure from Canada would have protections - we would need to interact with another sovereign to hold them accountable.

This really has nothing to do with tourism, outside deceitful assertions on television.

Regarding Britain, here’s an example of someone not being subject to the jurisdiction of a country after committing a serious crime: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/harry-dunn-uk-anne-sacoolas...

I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding about the meaning of jurisdiction.

[cellis]

IANAL but this argument doesn't seem to be on firm footing due to the extradition laws on the books. Technically I can violate a UK law while in the US and indeed be subject to their jurisdiction.

[acoustics]

The OP said that the courts were preventing the president from exercising his power under the constitution, I replied that he does not have this power under the constitution. That's all.

There's a right way and a wrong way to go about addressing problems. If the president wants to exclude natural-born children of illegal immigrants from citizenship, he can lead an effort to amend the constitution.

[EasyMark]

It's not valid. When you're in a country you are subject to it's laws, whether it's the USA or Somalia

[CamperBob2]

They have more guns than we do. It's valid.

[Jensson]

If you are an undocumented immigrant so the country doesn't know about you then its arguable.

[lelandbatey]

If you are born and live in the US, how could you possibly not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? Likewise, if you are born in the US to tourist parents who then leave the United States with you, how exactly are you supposed to "collect benefits"? And even if you are "collecting benefits", to be a citizen you'd have to also be paying your taxes, which should entitle you to said benefits.

Where exactly is the unsustainable part of this?

[speakfreely]

> And even if you are "collecting benefits", to be a citizen you'd have to also be paying your taxes, which should entitle you to said benefits.

According to the SF Chronicle, about 72 million US households (40% of the population) paid no federal income tax in 2022. I don't have exact numbers but I doubt anyone would dispute that public benefits flow disproportionately to those 72 million households for obvious reasons. So the cause and effect of being a citizen and paying taxes is very tenuous.

> Where exactly is the unsustainable part of this?

If it's unsustainable, then someone should propose a constitutional amendment to fix it.

[teachrdan]

> Even in logical terms it makes sense: You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. Government benefits were basically nonexistent at the time, and besides, with the US population at under 40 million people, we needed more citizens, not fewer. Your "logical" argument is completely anachronistic and irrelevant.

The conservative side of the Supreme Court claims to rule based on what the writers of the Constitution had in mind. This is another example of how they completely ignore what the writers/framers/etc. of the Constitution intended as soon as it interferes with the larger conservative agenda that they serve.

[thephyber]

> You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable.

You don’t seem to think the USA is very exceptional…

[Spooky23]

What benefits are you collecting?

The core premise of your racist rant is built around a the massive edge case. Reality is this policy will probably disenfranchise more children of American soldiers born abroad than prevent the alien invasion you’re scared of.

The notion that the sins of the father impact the child is repugnant. The interests of the nation as a whole not allowing a clear violation of the birthright of our fellow citizens have to be addressed in a lower court, as the Supreme Court isn’t even required to hear their case.

You’re allowing yourself to be manipulated into expanding the power of an executive who will never leave and a court whose power and individual avoidance of culpability for bribery and corruption. I suppose you’ll shrug when we decide that the electoral college can choose to follow the “silent majority” as opposed to the voters.

[throw10920]

> The core premise of your racist rant

As someone who has reading comprehension above the high-school level, it's blindingly obvious that there was no racism in GP's post. Your accusation is factually incorrect, logically fallacious, emotionally manipulative, and actively degrades the quality of HN (and, obviously, badly breaks the guidelines). Either your logical reasoning skills are deeply lacking, or you're aware that your claim false and maliciously making it anyway to deceive others, which is deeply immoral and disgusting. Regardless of which of those this is, never do this.

[ceejayoz]

> Trump's argument is that people born in America to tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make…

I suspect, if they commit a crime or overstay their visa, we'll suddenly decide we have a little jurisdiction after all.

[wizzwizz4]

That clause is about foreign ambassadors and such, not tourists.

[kelnos]

> Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country

And that argument is bullshit.

> Trump's argument is that people born in America to tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America

Yes they are. If they commit a crime on US soil, they will face charges in a US court, because they are subject to the jurisdiction of those courts. (They will also be deported, but that's another matter.)

The only people on US soil who are not subject to the US's jurisdiction are foreign nationals traveling on a diplomatic passport ("diplomatic immunity").

> Sure, birthright citizenship was the reason for the suit, but the core issue was judicial overreach. Don't get mad because the way your side was "winning" was by cheating, and they were stopped.

Er, what? Nationwide injunctions have been a thing since the 1970s. No judge is "cheating" by putting one in place. I'm mad because Trump thinks the constitution is toilet paper.

If you want to talk about chaos, this SCOTUS ruling will create chaos, and more lawlessness, and make it even more difficult for people to obtain justice in this country -- a place where it was already pretty damn difficult (regardless of the party in power).