logoalt Hacker News

HDThoreaunyesterday at 4:26 PM1 replyview on HN

Read Jackson’s opinion. The amendment was debated at the time and the history records show that at minimum it was intended to include all people living here who didn’t have permission to not follow laws like diplomats or invaders.


Replies

rayineryesterday at 4:31 PM

> who didn’t have permission to not follow laws like diplomats or invaders.

That doesn’t quite work, because diplomats and invaders do have to follow US laws and can be tried in U.S. courts. In Ex Parte Quirin, for example, nobody doubted that German saboteurs on U.S. soil could be prosecuted in civilian courts. And while diplomats have immunities in certain areas, they can be sued under U.S. law in U.S. courts for commercial activities conducted in the U.S.

If “subject to the jurisdiction” means the U.S. has some sort of jurisdiction over a foreign national, then children of ambassadors and foreign soldiers would have birthright citizenship. So there must be an additional step or wrinkle to get from the word “jurisdiction” to the exceptions that are recognized.

show 1 reply