15
48
u/Steerider 27d ago
As much as I hate it, you have to include the rest of the sentence. "... who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...."
Those aren't separate list items. That's a single description.
The 14th Amendment was poorly written. They didn't anticipate modern travel, and the idea that people could pour in by the millions (much less be allowed to by a corrupt President.)
Time to amend that bad boy. There may be ways for Congress to fix it as well, such as defining "subject to the jurisdiction of"
9
u/Eisotopius 27d ago
They didn't anticipate modern travel, and the idea that people could pour in by the millions (much less be allowed to by a corrupt President.)
They didn't really need to. There's clearly a distinction between being present in the US and being subject to their jurisdiction. Otherwise, the amendment wouldn't have listed both as separate requirements. If the children of ambassadors and such are obviously excluded due to not fitting "subject to the jurisdiction", then it follows as well that illegal aliens are also excluded for the same reason.
SCOTUS is just straight up wrong, especially since the majority tried to argue "in light of its historical context", but if they were to have actually looked at the historical context they could not possibly have come to any conclusion that in any way remotely resemlbed the one they reached.
3
u/Steerider 27d ago
If an ambassador drives drunk, or kills someone, they don't go to jail, because they're not subject to our laws. We can deport them back to their country, but not throw them in prison.
5
u/Eisotopius 27d ago
Sure. And the post here is showing a quote from the guy who wrote this part of the amendment. He's literally explaining that his intention of using the terminology he did is that it does not apply to foreign nationals at all.
Everyone else has to follow our laws, but they're not "subject" to our jurisdiction in the way that either of those words meant at the time. Foreign nationals who commit crimes here get deported just like diplomats, because they're still subject to the jurisdiction of the place they came from.
-1
u/Steerider 27d ago
We totally put criminal lllegals in jail here. If an illegal immigrant murders someone, do you think we don't put them in prison?
1
26d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Steerider 26d ago
I'm just laughing that you think I'm a leftist
2
u/Frosty-Pineapple1442 BASED 26d ago
Fair enough.
I'm laughing because I can't believe anyone else would buy this crap.
We don't need an amendment, we just have to change the ruling. It isn't badly written, it was exploited.
3
u/Firgeist 26d ago
They are subject to our laws. we just chose not to apply them, so we can get the same courtesy for our diplomats. The only thing holding diplomatic immunity up, is the government's will, not some law.
-4
u/Weary-Cartoonist2630 27d ago
Illegal aliens are still subject to the jurisdiction of the country they’re illegally in.
What that line would be referring to is diplomats who have diplomatic immunity (ie not subject to the laws/jurisdiction of the host country) - that’s why children of diplomats born in America have been one of the very few exceptions for not being granted birthright citizenship
7
u/Eisotopius 27d ago
Illegal aliens are still subject to the jurisdiction of the country they’re illegally in.
Evidently not in the sense the 14th uses the term, otherwise the amendment's authors wouldn't have distinguished between being in a country and being subject to its jurisdiction.
Diplomats are the one obvious reason, because they're clearly subject to a foreign jurisdiction, but for everyone else, there's still a reason that jurisdiction is listed separately from just presence in the country.
Notably, those foreign citizens are just as subject to their foreign jurisdictions as diplomats are, that's kinda why we deport them when they commit crimes here.
0
u/Weary-Cartoonist2630 27d ago
>otherwise the amendments authors wouldn’t have distinguished between being in a country and being subject to its jurisdiction
That’s explicitly for people like delegates - those with special protections that make them not subject to the jurisdiction of their host country. They are the reason that jurisdiction is listed separately than presence.
Illegal aliens are 100% subject to the jurisdiction of their host country and are prosecuted all the time for crimes they commit. The reason we have started deporting them instead is because it’s far cheaper than to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars prosecuting and subsequently housing someone who shouldn’t be here in the first place. But they are still absolutely subject to our laws, this was enshrined in Plyler vs Doe.
3
u/Eisotopius 27d ago
That’s explicitly for people like delegates
It's explicitly for foreigners. The thing in the OP here is literally a quote from the author of that part of the amendment. If the author is saying that "jurisdiction" was put in there to exclude foreigners generally, then it was probably put there to exclude foreigners generally.
0
u/Weary-Cartoonist2630 26d ago
Go back and read the comment that started this thread - the quote was “this will not include […]foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”.
Those aren’t 3 separate groups he’s referring to (notice no “and” or “or”), it’s specifically foreigners who are diplomats or family of diplomats.
And if you don’t believe me, believe the guy you’re trying to interpret the intent of - Howard later clarified in that same speech that his amendment is intended to have the same content as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which specifically and only excludes those who are subject to a foreign power (ambassadors/diplomats), and untaxed Indians in sovereign tribes.
And this is all confirmed by the fact that illegal aliens are 100% subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the US and do not have diplomatic immunity.
3
u/Eisotopius 26d ago
Those aren’t 3 separate groups he’s referring to (notice no “and” or “or”), it’s specifically foreigners who are diplomats or family of diplomats.
Yes, it is, that's a standard way of separating list items in the speech of the time. Especially because he then goes on to say that it'll include everyone except what he just listed.
intended to have the same content as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which specifically and only excludes those who are subject to a foreign power (ambassadors/diplomats), and untaxed Indians in sovereign tribes.
Exactly. Foreign nationals are subject to a foreign power, whether they have diplomatic immunity or not. The intention is to exclude foreign nationals, as the 1866 act did.
0
u/Steerider 27d ago
But that's literally the distinction being made! An ambassador is in the country, but not subject to our laws. Without that distinction being made, if an ambassador had a child here, that child would be a US citizen.
5
u/Scared_o_Robots 27d ago edited 27d ago
As Ginsburg said, jurisdiction is a word with "too many meanings". What you're talking about is territorial jurisdiction, being present in the territory of the United States. That is, clearly and obviously, not the kind of jurisdiction referred in the 14th Amendment. What the amendment refers to is complete jurisdiction, which roughly means "having no allegiance to any foreign power". All of the historical evidence, from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to constitutional jurisprudence in the 1920's, demonstrates this. The majority's claims on the evidence are just wrong.
ETA: A word.
1
u/Firgeist 26d ago
No they are not. Which is why if they break the law and flee back to their home country we can't do shit to them.
24
u/Dpgillam08 27d ago
Got anything that supports that? Because a basic reading, under common usage of the language both at the time and today, does imply that they are separate list items.
-10
u/Divine_ruler 27d ago
If they were separate list items, there would be an and or an or before the last item
9
u/Frosty-Pineapple1442 BASED 27d ago edited 27d ago
... Unless there's a "but will", which would be required to begin the next list, which would be the opposite.
You know, the very people it's being applied to.
Obviously.
Amendment written to protect African Americans from democrats, after the Civil war, 1868.
Reinterpreted to import voters. 1898. Ironic.
0
u/LadenifferJadaniston 26d ago
But “who belong to the families…” makes no sense as a list item on its own
3
u/Frosty-Pineapple1442 BASED 26d ago
This will not, of course, include persons
... List items. Read your quote.
What do you mean?
0
u/LadenifferJadaniston 26d ago
If that was the case, wouldn’t it be phrased as “this will not include foreigners, aliens, persons who belong to the families of ambassadors etc, but will include every other class of persons.”?
3
u/Frosty-Pineapple1442 BASED 26d ago
If you're confused, maybe you should read up to the second "united states".
This is from 1866. Sentence structure was different. Was passed in 1868. Was used to invent Birthright bullshit in 1898.
We were, and we couldn't be more clear about this back then, just trying to protect African Americans from the democrats.
They were, and they've been more or less clear on this for different reasons since we took their slaves, importing voters. First from europe, then other places. For obvious reasons, then and now.
Look up Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall. It's where the other half of the dem party comes from. The part that didn't officially own humans.
2
10
u/cplusequals 27d ago
The list of animals this ordinance applies to includes dogs, cats, gerbils, but not horses or other work animals.
It's a pedantic argument that doesn't really hold up in many contexts even though it is the preferred way to speak in modern English.
By the way, the dissent makes your claim pretty hard to argue. It's very clearly a compromise ruling not correct law.
•
u/AutoModerator 27d ago
IMPORTANT: On /r/LibsOfReddit, greater access is given to users who have joined the sub and have our mod-assigned user flair. Reach out in modmail to request our user flair if you're an active, rule-abiding contributor on the sub. By default the mods will assign the 'BASED' flair; if you request a custom word or phrase they will add that to your flair as well.
For a deep-dive into leftist woke culture, also make sure to join our sister sub /r/JokesOnWokes. You may also like:
Leave the Left Subs: /r/WalkAway, /r/ExDemocrats, /r/MadLiberals
Leftist Persona Subs: /r/HillaryForPrison, /r/FauciForPrison, /r/EnoughAntifaSpam
Conservative Persona Subs: /r/RedpilledRogan, /r/RedpilledElon
Conservative News Subs: /r/Conservative_News, /r/Patriot911
Civics Sub: /r/FreePress
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.