Kinoite
2mo ago
To raise a question for the "Pro-Birthright Citizenship" camp: Why aren't the children of lower-ranked diplomatic personnel covered?
The standard answer would be that diplomatic immunity means that a person isn't subject to US law. That problem with this is that most consulate employees do NOT get diplomatic immunity.
The Canadian Ambassador (and his immediate family) has diplomatic immunity; he can start bar fights safe in the knowledge that he's immune to prosecution, not matter how blatantly he breaks the rules. But the Canadian Ambassador is just one guy. His staff DO NOT get personal immunity; they only get immunity when it comes to official acts. And their spouses don't even get that protection.
So, let's imagine that a Canadian Consulate has a computer guy to help the Consulate with Tech Support. This computer guy is married and his wife (also a Canadian Citizen) lives with him in the US. They have a child in the US hospital. This child gets no diplomatic immunity and is born to a woman who has no diplomatic immunity and a father who's mostly not entitled to diplomatic immunity except as it relates to his work.
(
There are all kinds of reasons why the child wouldn't, in practice, get a US passport. But if the claim is that the US government is required to treat the children of all persons subject to the US jurisdiction as US Citizens, then I'd expect that the large majority of the children of consulate staff would be US Citizens, which seems to be obviously not the intent of the text.
Kinoite
2mo ago
I'd lean towards "wrongly decided" but might do a cowardly dodge and say that in 1897 the difference between temporary and permanent immigration statuses was less well defined and that modern decisions should rely on nuances that probably didn't exist in 1897.
Using the 2024 system, I'd say that someone is subject to the jurisdiction of the US in-as-far as they've assented to giving the US a worldwide interest in their behavior. This is the case with Green Card holders, who have to pay US taxes wherever they live. But it isn't the case with more temporary visas.
Kinoite
2mo ago
I'd read "Subject to the Jurisdiction" to mean that the person - regardless of where they happen to be living in the world at that particular instant - is morally obliged to follow the US's rules.
I'm an American so, regardless of where I live in the world, I have to file US taxes, follow some US laws, and if there was a war, I'd be subject to a draft.
Contrast this with my relationship to the English. The English Monarch could - in theory - send me a letter informing me that I'm in violation of his laws regarding proper speech and respect for the crown. The correct response would be to laugh and frame the paper; I have no moral obligation to follow English law because I'm not currently in England and - more importantly - am not a subject of the English Monarch.
It's true that the English King could - in theory - exercise some authority over me. The SAS is pretty competent, so I'm sure they could (if they wanted) find me in the US, put a bag over my head, and drag me to England. Or the King's prosecutors could grab me when I passed through Heathrow Airport on my way to some third country. But, that kind of action feels less morally legitimate than the King seeking to control one of his proper subjects.
It's also true that if I visited England on vacation, I'd become subject to British law on a temporary basis; I'd get arrested if I started stealing things or vandalizing pubs. But that authority only lasts as long as I'm on British soil. I wouldn't become a Royal Subject just because I took a vacation.
Kinoite
4mo ago
-Okay how much of healthcare spending is doctor’s salaries?
About 8%. If you cut physician salaries by half you get 4% savings. That’s not a little but it is also not a lot.
This seems like a super-important number. I'd like to see the rest of healthcare broken out this way. Who, ultimately, are the people getting paid? Health insurance has a profit margin of 3.4%. So, stylizing a little, if I put $1 into the healthcare system, I have:
- $0.08 goes to doctors via salary and benefits
- $0.03 goes to teachers, engineers, and other retail investors via dividends
- Remaining $0.89 goes to [???]
All the breakdowns I see look at institutions; but institutions are just placeholders. When we say "Drug Companies" got paid $1M, is that $800k in researcher salaries, $100k in admin, and $100k in marketer salaries? Or is that $500k in corporate dividends, $100k in researcher salaries, and $400k in marketer salaries?
The difference matters a lot, since - like you're saying - cutting healthcare means that someone is going to stop getting paid for work they're currently doing. And who it is / how much they're getting paid now matters a lot.
This seems like a non-story because Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez was released the same day as his court hearing.
Here's an article that includes timelines: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-born-american-citizen-ice-hold-florida-released-rcna201854
It looks like Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez was arrested on Wednesday (possibly Thursday, very early AM). He saw a judge on Thursday afternoon. He was held for a few hours after the hearing because of an ICE request, before being released on Thursday evening.
I don't want to say that an incorrect arrest is ever good; but if the cops were acting in good faith, then nothing here seems to shock the conscience. It feels like the equivalent of the police seeing someone breaking into a car at 3AM, getting an explanation of "But officer! That's my car! I just misplaced my keys!" and then releasing the person the next day when it's proven that they do - in fact - own the car.
Even the "Immigrations and Customs Enforcement" hold (which was apparently a few hours) doesn't seem that stunning. Federal law requires everyone - citizens included - to cross the border at an authorized checkpoints. So, if the police believed that Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez crossed the border illegally then ICE could want to talk to him about not complying with customs rules, even if he's a citizen.
More options
Context Copy link