Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rod D. Martin's avatar

An email commenter writes (helpfully):

THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, which I assume was the quivalent of the Congressional Record, of May 30, 1866, provides the debates and arguments in the Senate about the 14th Amendment. And – surprise! The Senators’ interpretation of “Under the Jurisdiction” is exactly what you wrote. See pages 2890 to2 897.

For only one example:

“ In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crimes against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the laws of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court, until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Sen. John Doolittle, The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866, p. 2897

Expand full comment
Eduardo Camargo's avatar

If a person is born in the United States, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States.

Section 1

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I don't see any ambiguity here.

Even people who weren't born here, even those who are undocumented and therefore "illegal", are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or else there would be no basis by which to label them "illegal."

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

It's clear as day. You don't even include this language in your article, except in the context of "persons born to foreign diplomats." You claim the "jurisdiction thereof," language has been misinterpreted as meaning "anyone within the borders of the United States," but you offer no reasonable alternative interpretation. If a person who is not a citizen, or a permanent resident, commits, let's say, a murder, they would be punished according to laws which prohibit murder. If they were to commit theft, they would be charged with theft. So what principles are they being accused of violating? The laws of this country. That subjects them to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It feels to me as though you avoid confronting these issues because to evade them is much more convenient to your argument.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts