tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post525067407047839175..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Three ominous developmentsRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-64869008283833592832018-07-23T18:18:10.021-07:002018-07-23T18:18:10.021-07:00> I long ago gave up any hope of being able to...> I long ago gave up any hope of being able to make that assumption.<br /><br />Do you have any evidence that "jurisdiction" means anything other than the dictionary definition?<br /><br />> Ok, but now this is yet another argument, that the basis for the children born here of illegal immigrants being citizens is that the US government claims the power to enforce its laws on themRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-2338459959652888822018-07-23T17:03:58.856-07:002018-07-23T17:03:58.856-07:00@Ron:
It's not in the Constitution, it's i...@Ron:<br /><i>It's not in the Constitution, it's in the dictionary.</i><br /><br />It would be really nice if I could assume that every word used in the Constitution, or in any law, or in any Supreme Court decision, had its standard dictionary meaning. But I long ago gave up any hope of being able to make that assumption.<br /><br /><i>If you claim the power to enforce your laws on Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-42471941028813081692018-07-23T15:13:15.860-07:002018-07-23T15:13:15.860-07:00@Peter:
> the Constitution nowhere says anythi...@Peter:<br /><br />> the Constitution nowhere says anything like this<br /><br />It's not in the Constitution, it's in the dictionary. The word "jurisdiction" means "the official power to make legal decisions and judgments." If someone is not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. then the U.S. has no official power to make legal decisions and judgements about them. Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1748259149914432652018-07-23T13:57:11.093-07:002018-07-23T13:57:11.093-07:00@Ron:
Everyone in the U.S. is under its jurisdicti...@Ron:<br /><i>Everyone in the U.S. is under its jurisdiction unless specifically exempted by law.</i><br /><br />This is just another way of stating your position. It's not an argument for it. It's certainly not an argument for this proposition being "plainly stated" in the Constitution, since the Constitution nowhere says anything like this.Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-9910502955093771572018-07-23T10:13:34.501-07:002018-07-23T10:13:34.501-07:00@Ron:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_America...@Ron:<br /><i>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights</i><br /><br />Hm, so this article (and the one on the Indian Citizenship Act linked to) leaves open the question of whether native Americans who live on tribal lands but are traveling outside tribal lands are subject to US civil law. If they're citizens it would seem that they would be, which would take them out of Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-17741928547613243142018-07-23T10:01:55.698-07:002018-07-23T10:01:55.698-07:00> I agree native Americans can't be made to...> I agree native Americans can't be made to leave the country, but AFAIK if they are subject to tribal jurisdiction (instead of US civil law) and found outside of tribal lands, they can be forcibly returned to tribal lands.<br /><br />Nope. It used to be that way, but it changed in 1924.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-14279901686968301632018-07-23T09:58:15.837-07:002018-07-23T09:58:15.837-07:00> That would make the second premise right.
No...> That would make the second premise right.<br /><br />No. The state of not-being-under-the-jurisdiction is hereditary not because this state is hereditary in general, but because the law that establishes the state of not-being-under-the-jurisdiction for two specific groups of people (native americans, diplomats and their children) says it's hereditary in those cases.<br /><br />Everyone Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-50144362509548708692018-07-23T09:55:02.723-07:002018-07-23T09:55:02.723-07:00@Ron:
in which case they are in the same category ...@Ron:<br /><i>in which case they are in the same category as diplomats and native Americans and you can't deport them.</i><br /><br />Diplomats can't be deported, but they can be declared persona non grata and made to leave the country (along with their families) and return to their home country.<br /><br />I agree native Americans can't be made to leave the country, but AFAIK if theyPeter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-30159162172281331342018-07-23T09:49:49.512-07:002018-07-23T09:49:49.512-07:00@Ron:
It *can* be hereditary. In fact, it *is* her...@Ron:<br /><i>It *can* be hereditary. In fact, it *is* hereditary in the two cases which actually apply: children of diplomats, and native Americans.<br /><br />But these two cases are *completely different* from illegal immigrants...</i><br /><br />Ok, but the argument you're making here is aimed at the first premise you said was wrong, not your second one: it's an argument that illegal Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-24229129797025530512018-07-23T09:34:30.932-07:002018-07-23T09:34:30.932-07:00@Peter:
> the people who wrote the 14th Amendm...@Peter:<br /><br />> the people who wrote the 14th Amendment said "subject to the jurisdiction of" meant something stronger: owing allegiance to no other country<br /><br />The ABC (Anti-Birthright-Citizenship) argument fails on that criterion too. A newborn baby doesn't owe allegiance to anyone or anything.<br /><br />Also, if owing allegiance to no other country were a Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-83006979970194158842018-07-23T09:14:46.441-07:002018-07-23T09:14:46.441-07:00@Ron:
*Both* of these premises are wrong
What spe...@Ron:<br /><i>*Both* of these premises are wrong</i><br /><br />What specifically in the Constitution makes the second premise (that "not being subject to the jurisdiction of the US" can be hereditary) wrong?Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-69963824135598074872018-07-23T09:13:29.695-07:002018-07-23T09:13:29.695-07:00@Ron:
*Everyone* inside U.S. territory is "su...@Ron:<br /><i>*Everyone* inside U.S. territory is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" unless specifically exempted. If this were not the case, you could not even say that someone was here illegally! For someone to be doing something contrary to U.S. law they must -- by definition! -- be under the jurisdiction of the U.S.</i><br /><br />If "subject to the jurisdiction of" Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-25133225769548191212018-07-23T09:09:51.072-07:002018-07-23T09:09:51.072-07:00@Peter:
> This seems to be a different argumen...@Peter:<br /><br />> This seems to be a different argument from the one you were making<br /><br />The argument against birthright citizenship is so muddled that it is hard to re-state it without caricaturing it. The argument goes something like (AFAICT): if someone is here illegally, then they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. (notwithstanding that if this were the case, they Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-33793328017266440552018-07-23T09:01:53.330-07:002018-07-23T09:01:53.330-07:00@Peter:
> Ellis Island didn't even open un...@Peter:<br /><br />> Ellis Island didn't even open until 1892.<br /><br />> the category of "illegal immigrant" didn't exist at the time the 14th Amendment was proposed, debated, and adopted in the 1860s<br /><br />> the Federal government had begun to impose immigration restrictions by the time of the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision in 1898<br /><br />First, let&#Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-47214349299351085492018-07-23T09:00:47.044-07:002018-07-23T09:00:47.044-07:00@Ron:
What bothers me is arguing that the Constitu...@Ron:<br /><i>What bothers me is arguing that the Constitution *as currently written* allows someone born in the U.S. to be denied citizenship because of something their parents did. The Constitution *plainly* does *not* allow that as currently written</i><br /><br />This seems to be a different argument from the one you were making (or at least referring to) before. The earlier argument was thatPeter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-4104430569029202452018-07-23T08:42:53.153-07:002018-07-23T08:42:53.153-07:00@Publius:
> hysterical
Possibly. The holocau...@Publius:<br /><br />> hysterical<br /><br />Possibly. The holocaust was a powerful selector against optimism.<br /><br />> strip people of their citizenship beyond all historical precedent<br /><br />You don't have to stray beyond historical precedent to come up with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans" rel="nofollow">some pretty unpleasant Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-89723059778561879352018-07-23T01:05:46.824-07:002018-07-23T01:05:46.824-07:00Primed for Fear
@Ron:
>Ominous development #1:...<b>Primed for Fear</b><br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>Ominous development #1: Bank of America (and, apparently, only BofA) has started asking its customers whether or not they hold a dual citizenship.</i><br /><br />Non-hysterical interpretation:<br />Certain countries have <a href="https://goo.gl/Qx7SQx" rel="nofollow">embargoes and other special controls</a> for economic trade. Bank of America isPubliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-24860533208550668382018-07-22T11:22:33.335-07:002018-07-22T11:22:33.335-07:00@me:
the Supreme Court opinion doesn't mention...@me:<br /><i>the Supreme Court opinion doesn't mention that at all, so it appears that it was not considered significant in judging the case</i><br /><br />Actually, a somewhat stronger statement is true. The Supreme Court opinion specifically says that the question it is judging is:<br /><br />"whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-51104977898443568632018-07-21T23:35:29.278-07:002018-07-21T23:35:29.278-07:00@Ron:
That doesn't mean that there has not bee...@Ron:<br /><i>That doesn't mean that there has not been an effective consensus.</i><br /><br />Then your standard for what counts as "effective consensus" is apparently much looser than mine. More generally, it seems like people's standards for that in the US as a whole vary widely. Which is part of the problem.<br /><br /><i>If this new interpretation were to take hold the Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-88449401198006730252018-07-21T23:09:54.579-07:002018-07-21T23:09:54.579-07:00> That's not evidence that "everyone h...> That's not evidence that "everyone has agreed for 150 years".<br /><br />Oh, come on. There's not a single statement for which you cannot find one nutcase who will disagree with it. That doesn't mean that there has not been an effective consensus.<br /><br />> The claim you are making is basically that your favored interpretation is so obvious that anyone who Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-53244349007296723722018-07-21T18:58:49.029-07:002018-07-21T18:58:49.029-07:00@Ron:
that there is not a single instance of a per...@Ron:<br /><i>that there is not a single instance of a person born in the U.S. in the last 150 years whose citizenship has ever been successfully challenged in court?</i><br /><br />That's not evidence that "everyone has agreed for 150 years". Many people might disagree without being able to successfully challenge that interpretation in court.<br /><br /><i>The "subject to the Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-79100152387750046632018-07-21T17:21:57.204-07:002018-07-21T17:21:57.204-07:00> What evidence do you have to support this ext...> What evidence do you have to support this extremely strong claim?<br /><br />Um, that there is not a single instance of a person born in the U.S. in the last 150 years whose citizenship has ever been successfully challenged in court?<br /><br />But it turns out that it is not the case that "everyone" has agreed for 150 years. The dissent apparently does <a href="https://Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-87531328369946335162018-07-20T15:41:45.399-07:002018-07-20T15:41:45.399-07:00@Ron:
To defend this position he has to argue, of ...@Ron:<br /><i>To defend this position he has to argue, of course, that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't actually mean what it plainly says</i><br /><br />It plainly says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". What does that mean? I don't think that's as plain as you seem to think it is.<br /><br /><i>what the people who wrote it said it says,</i><br /><br />As the very Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.com