What does “subject to the jurisdiction of” mean, practically? I am not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but my understanding is that those with diplomatic immunity are immune from prosecution under the Vienna Convention and as a result they ignore parking fines in world capitals. They may also get away with crimes up to and including murder. So is that what we’re saying is the fate of those born in this country to undocumented parents? No punishment aside from expulsion?
IAANAL, but I think that one way you can be “subject to the jurisdiction” is if you are subject to US taxes. Diplomats are not subject to US taxes, but anyone else working in the US is - including those on student visas (who can work in certain circumstances) and undocumented aliens.
Well, wait a minute. Diplomats are subject to sales tax: do you mean federal income tax only? Even US citizens without income aren’t subject to that, except potentially.
Diplomats are indeed exempt from most sales taxes (Sales Tax Exemption - United States Department of State).
Everyone is subject to income tax, just if their income is zero they owe no tax and are exempt from filing a tax return. From https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/income_tax:
However, all residents and all citizens of the United States are subject to the federal income tax. Not everyone, however, must file a tax return.
Ignorance fought, thank you.
That will be their hope.
Whose hope? The administration’s?
They want to go even further: Trump’s executive order currently denies birthright citizenship documents to children of immigrants in the country who are in the country legally on temporary visas.
I don’t know how the Supreme Court will rule on this point. I would like to say I would be surprised if they go along with this, but the rulings this court has issued in recent years have been so egregious that nothing would surprise me.
Racist, bigots and xenophobes, aka MAGAs.
Not really.
I think the fix is in. If they wanted to retain birthright citizenship, they could have simply refused to hear the case just like they could have refused the presidential immunity case. The ruling will be announced on the very last day of the current term and will give the bigots a partial if not total victory.
Hearing it is also a way to squash it forever, But my prediction is that SCOTUS will allow a few fringe cases to be excluded if Congress passes a law.
What fringe cases do you have in mind?
Please dont mistake me for a reactionary MAGA here, I have no sympathies for their bigotry. I am just saying that if i had to call this- SCOTOS would leave the 14th 99.9% intact, but find some niche case that works with and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, for a minor loophole. I dont know what that might be. But it would keep the 14th intact, making the 6 sane members happy, and thro a bone to the two bought and paid for members.
I’m just trying to figure out what those edge cases could be - children of undocumented immigrants wouldn’t be an edge case, since there are millions of undocumented immigrants here. All I could think of is babies born during a layover or something, but that’s no victory for the bigots.
I don’t see how they can do that.
This case is on the validity of the EO Trump signed. You can read it here: Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship – The White House
They have to either uphold that EO or declare it invalid. The crux of it is very simple:
I am hard-pressed to figure out which of those two categories SCOTUS could leave intact. They either have to agree with the premise that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has some relation to the parent’s immigration/visa status or agree with what the drafters of the amendment clearly intended, and what SCOTUS has previously ruled (i.e. that immigration status has no relevance when determining whether a person born in the US is subject to its jurisdiction).
This particularly baby cannot be split.
They’ll find a way. Then throw the pieces out with the bathwater.
See I disagree (a bit). I think there could easily be a 5-4 majority (Comey joining the liberals, but Roberts siding with the conservative bloc) that says that the Executive has the power to interpret the amendment however they see fit as long as it doesn’t contradict the plain language of the amendment or any enabling legislation. They will point out that the amendment doesn’t say what “jurisdiction thereof” means, and neither does the enabling legislation. So the power to implement it, absent legislative definition, falls on the executive branch, including guidelines on the issuance of passports. Therefore the EO is valid, and Kim Ark overstepped in attempting to define “jurisdiction thereof” so broadly.
I don’t see any reason for them to take this case if there wasn’t at least a large minority that supports this view. I’m reasonably sure that Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch all do. I’m less sure about Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett (in fact if I had to bet I’d say she defers to precedent). But Roberts has not been afraid of throwing out long-term precedents before (see Dobbs).
This court also seems to, wherever possible, prefer that the interpretation of the Constitution be done by the legislature or the executive, not the judicial branch.
To be clear, I think there is a lot of things that would be wrong with a ruling of that sort, not least of which is that the enabling legislation from 1940 and 1952 clearly intended to codify the ruling made in Wong Kim Ark. Those voting for the legislation knew what “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant when they enacted it. But perhaps the conservatives will find a way to dance around this (perhaps by being textualist in their reading of legislation, but originalist in their reading of the amendment - a philosophy that perfectly matches how Alito and Gorsuch define themselves).
I hope I’m wrong, and I hope the decision puts this whole thing to bed, at least until this generation of anti-immigrant troglodytes dies off and the next generation starts talking about how Barbara is ancient and should be overturned.
I think that’s not a good interpretation of this court’s approach to the law. The repub majority on the court to the extent that it has any principles at all, has as it’s sole purpose to make it hard to impossible for any branch of government, legislative or executive, to regulate business. Everything else is secondary.
How that affects birthright citizenship is unclear to me, but I would expect that they are willing to throw a bone to the nativist faction if it makes their first priorities easier to achieve.
If the court finds that they can remove citizenship from anyone “when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth”
Then it logically follows that all of these people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So they can commit whatever crimes they want, and are not subject to any criminal enforcement. They do not have to follow any laws at all. The US has no jurisdiction over them.
(Yes, I realize this is not exactly accurate, but it’s fun to think of the unintended consequences)