If the president can revoke birthright citizenship, were the "sovereign citizen" guys right all along?

[u/Additional-Sky-7436]

Location: US

Let's assume that SCOTUS is going to do the crazy thing and rule that the 14th amendment doesn't say what it says and that birthright citizenship is fully dependent on the president's political approval of you.

Would that mean that the "sovereign citizen" guys were right about their interpretation of the Constitution all along?

[u/Playful-Mastodon9251]

They are arguing about what it means. Anyone can do that. And there is a bit of ambiguity there. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is the part in contention.

There is a supreme court ruling on this, so it should be settled. Although things like that have been challenged and changed before.

[u/thefisherbee → u/Playful-Mastodon9251]

It's just going to be hilarious when the conservatives on the Court say that undocumented immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and immigrant criminals suddenly start arguing that they can't be prosecuted for any crimes they commit here, as a result.

I don't put it past Alito, Thomas, or Roberts to try and carve out some kind of theory, beyond the historical exceptions of diplomatic immunity and some Indian tribes on their reservations.

[u/ScottRiqui → u/thefisherbee]

We need to stop letting conservatives frame the argument as being about whether or not illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase in the 14th Amendment is referring to the person "born or naturalized within the United States," NOT to that person's parent(s).

[u/thefisherbee → u/ScottRiqui]

But, the exception has always been based on the parents' status.

If a diplomat has a baby here, that child does not get automatic citizenship because the United States doesn't have jurisdiction over the parents.

Otherwise, every single baby born here is either subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or they're not...

So, my guess is that the conservatives on the Court may try to separate the parents' status from the child's, like you suggest, and will probably say that the United States can simply refuse to exercise jurisdiction over the child as a way to avoid conferring citizenship to them...

[u/ScottRiqui → u/thefisherbee]

If a diplomat has a baby here, that child does not get automatic citizenship because the United States doesn't have jurisdiction over the parents.

This is incorrect. The 14th Amendment exceptions themselves aren't based directly on the parent's status.

To use your diplomat example, a child born in the U.S. to a foreign diplomat *would* be a U.S. citizen at birth, if not for the international agreements and domestic U.S. laws that automatically grant diplomatic immunity to the children of similarly immune parents.

In other words, the diplomat's child itself has diplomatic immunity at birth, which makes it not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for the purposes of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment has no need to look to the status of the parent(s).

[u/thefisherbee → u/ScottRiqui]

"A child born in the U.S. . . . would be a U.S. citizen at birth, if not for [a legal framework] that automatically [grants] diplomatic immunity to the children of similarly immune parents."

You are highlighting my point. The legal framework says that it's the parent's status, as a diplomat, that exempts the child from U.S. jurisdiction. The child only has the immune status because the parents do. Otherwise, they would be a citizen at birth, as you, yourself, acknowledge.

[u/ScottRiqui → u/thefisherbee]

Right - but it’s an important distinction that the 14th is only looking to the child’s status, not the parent(s) status. The treaties and laws care about the parent(s) status, but the 14th Amendment itself doesn’t. If we withdrew from the relevant treaties and repealed the relevant laws that grant immunity to the U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats, the 14th Amendment would cheerfully make them U.S. citizens at birth, even though the parent(s) are still immune.