Hacker News Reader

Comment by Amezarak | Hacker News Reader

The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me.

> Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"[30]—a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.[32]

View on HN

> The author of the clause…

That'd be a deeply ironic thing to cite as evidence for this court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism

"Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is based exclusively on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law."

Legislative intent didn't save the Voting Rights Act, or the EPA.

> He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"

yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction.

Meanwhile:

> The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. 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. . . . Here is a simple declaration that a score or a few score of human beings born in the United States shall be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment for crime with other citizens; and that such a provision should be deprecated by any person having or claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension.

(the "declared that by law" is referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that Howard used as the basis of the 14th amendment: "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States")

> yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction.

What? Absolutely you are. Are you trying to claim there's some strange diplomatic immunity here?

Not entirely sure what you're asking, but yes:

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-...

> Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

(page is substantially unchanged since the last administration)

I stand corrected. My understanding of diplomatic immunity was that it didn't extend to the families of diplomats or consular employees (but looking at the WP page, it does for diplomatic families, but not consular employees or their families, or is a lot more limited, rather).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#In_the_Uni...

I don't think that's quite right... It sounds to me like clarification of a specific example, rather than anything to do with diplomatic immunity.

I don't like going to dictionaries for arguments, but look at "subject" adjective definition 1 here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subject

> owing obedience or allegiance to the power or dominion of another

Merriam-Webster orders their dictionary "oldest known meaning first", and as I understand it the "allegiance" part of this definition is what's been forgotten about, but is what the citizenship argument is about. The first noun definition has a similar mix of meanings.

Think of it more like a kingly "these are my subjects (and not someone else's)" rather than a simple "they must obey the law because they're here".

The Supreme Court explicitly rejected this reasoning in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

> This Court's prior cases... cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 457 U. S. 210-216.

It’s curious you don’t link to a source even though you pasted something that contains references - I suspect you know that you are misinterpreting this willfully.

> The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me. >> Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"[30]—a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.[32]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com