This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
A few weeks ago, Trump signed an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship; it is currently working its way through the courts. Some users here claimed that the 14th amendment "obviously" implies birthright citizenship. I disagree, but wanted to take the time for a long from explanation. First, the relevant text:
The question, now, is who is subject to jurisdiction. It cant just be everyone, because then why would they write it, and besides there are known exceptions made on this basis, notably foreign diplomats, invading armies, and (formerly) indians. Of these, I want to look at invading armies in particular. Why are they not subject to jurisdiction?
The common answer seems to be that, since they control the territory, they have the jurisdiction rather than the US. But does the US accept that it doesnt have jurisdiction? No. After the invader is expelled, they likely have the right collect the outstanding tax from the time they were unable to collect. Crimes under US law that occured during that time can also be prosecuted (though it may be an extenuating circumstance where relevant).
Now, you might try to solve this by requiring defacto jurisdiction. The problem is that you then have to explain how the defacto failure to immediately reoccupy territory is different from the defacto failure to immediately apprehend any criminal whatsoever. This sounds quite weird and not like something they would have meant, and also every illegal immigrant is a fugitive criminal, because he violates immigration law. And it also seems that the invasion exception applies to the invaders, rather than every non-citizen in the territory.
A more promising approach might be to notice that the way the government treats illegal immigrants is a lot like how it treats enemy soldiers: Where safely possible, they are caught alive. They can then be prosecuted for any crimes committed in the US (unless responsibility goes up the command chain), and are eventually sent back home (when there is no danger that this will help the enemy anymore). This suggests that jurisdiction applies to them in a similar way, and reasoning for an exemption is likely to transfer. Indeed, one of the simplest descriptions of an invasion is "People coming into the country that the government doesnt want to". Subjecting people to jurisdiction requires activity of the government, and it seems quite sensible that someone refused entry is also refused jurisdiction. I think thats more plausible than such a refusal requiring jurisdiction, but even if you disagree, its at least a binary choice rather than having to find some complicated new distinction.
Is this a motivated reading? While it has some complexity to it, I dont see a way to accommodate the invasion exception without that. I think this is the most plausible way to resolve that. A reading which doesnt make the invasion exception may also be reasonable, depending on judicial philosophy, but if thats what the people calling it "obvious" meant, they should indicate that theyre defending something other than the status quo. In conclusion, I think children of illegal immigrants do not necessarily have citizenship, those of temporary residents (also targeted in the EO) do.
...is what I would have written, if I didnt remember that the US actually claims universal jurisdiction for some of its laws. This doesnt make everyone a US citizen, because there is the territory requirement in the text, but it potentially outflanks the exceptions, and under my above reading all of them would be invalid. Admittedly I dont think SCOTUS will take this line seriously - theyre too practical for that, and if they just really want to keep children of illegals theres plenty of bad arguments to use that sound more normal. And actually, theres a wrinkle in the wrinkle, because one of the laws with universal jurisdiction was passed before the 14th ammendment, and so actually maybe you should make the traditional exceptions work even under universal jurisdiction (depending on judicial philosophy). I think the universal reading of that law is bullshit, but it has precedent.
EDIT: Since noone seems to take into account the last paragraph: My final conclusion is that all the exceptions are gone.
You and @Gillitrut and whoever else can go on with comparisons, analogies, and philosophical lucrubations involving the meaning of "under the jurisdiction thereof", but a close reading of Wong Kim Ark makes it crystal clear that there is no universe where this is necessary. When the court mentions the classes that are exempt under the jurisdiction clause, they aren't listing examples of possible exemptions; they're listing the exemptions themselves. That's it. You don't get to add to the list. The opinion makes it clear that the goal of the amendment was to confirm that freed slaves were citizens. Hence, all persons means all persons. The jurisdiction clause was only put in because the government had already recognized certain exemptions prior to the amendment's passing: Diplomats and invading armies were already excepted under common law, and uncivilized Indians were exempted based on their peculiar status in the United States.
This wouldn't be so infuriating if conservatives hadn't spent the past several decades advocating for the kind of minimalist judicial standards that we see in Wong Kim Ark. There's no equivocation, no balancing test, no attempts to shoehorn contemporary ideas into archaic concepts by broadening their scope, just clear, bright-line rules. The fact that we've since restricted immigration to the point that there are 500 different kinds of visas and some aliens who can travel without visas and a whole underclass of illegals below that doesn't change what the 14th Amendment says. It's the same logic as in Bruen, just because the world has changed doesn't mean we change the meaning of the law along with it. And that argument is much stronger here; states had been restricting firearms since the 1800s, but our definition of a natural born citizen has remained consistent until this past month.
That is a court opinion, which must be justified. If Ark has a justification of the invasion exemption that neither justifies an exemption for illegal immigrants nor falls afoul of my criticims, then lets hear it.
This is what Im attempting to do. Where do I equivocate, or balance, or...? As I said, I agree this is not the simplest reading: that would be one which doesnt make the invasion exemption. As is, the legislators have chosen to include their desired exemptions with a concept of "jurisdiction" that was complicated by previous common law practice, and thats going to take some investigation even if you aim to be straightforward. Again, if you consider these intended exemptions relevant, which I do.
Also, I do wonder why everyone so far has ignored my last paragraph. I mean, my ultimate conclusion is that all the exemptions are gone - shouldnt this maybe dampen your accusations of partisan activism?
To wit:
In other words, the exceptions are justified because the framers of the amendment sought to preserve those that were recognized at the time of ratification. There's nothing in the opinion that suggests the amendment allows for every conceivable exception under common law. I think people lose the plot after the part that says:
The opinion then goes on to discuss those principles, but at no point does it suggest that those principles can be used to craft exceptions other than those that the court recognizes in opinion. Further on, it closes the door:
That's it; here's the rule, here are the exceptions. It couldn't be any clearer.
Interesting. I havent read enough of the legislative debates to say if they meant to enshrine common law generally or a fixed version of it, but I dont think it matters to me. This would catch the guys in this thread who argue about "allegiance" and such, but my argument is about the problems of distinguishing illegal immigration from invasions legally. It sounds like you didnt read the branch with Gillitrut, but it goes into this. I dont need general common law reasoning, because I dont think what Im suggesting is actually a distinct novel exception.
Whatever the legislative debates say doesn't matter at this point, because the exceptions have already been enshrined in law by the Wong Kim Ark decision. I did read the branch you refer to, but I didn't address it because what you guys were arguing was edge cases that, as far as I can tell, don't apply to any known persons. I'm unaware of any extraterritorial raids by natives, let alone whether any of these had children while they were here. Interestingly enough, you actually would need common law reasoning in this case, because the court specifically recognized the exception based on common law, and that's where you'd therefore go to test the bounds of it. That's assuming, of course, that there are no intervening court opinions that have already addressed the issue.
I think this comes down to judicial philosophy then. Stare decisis in the US seems to follow no rule whatsoever in when its used vs ignored, by judges of all camps. As far as Im concerned it exists mostly rethorically.
I think you should have good answers to cases that never happen. The constitution is to some extent a paranoid document, it is meant to make people follow rules even against their will, and when youre "being reasonable about it", you act without an explanation of what youre actually doing. When the weird case actually happens, do you then reverse the thing you already judged, or do something blatantly inconsistent? And if the weird case happened first, then you would have done the right thing? In either case, clearly you were doing the wrong thing in the here and now. To me, this is an integral part of literal interpretation.
I think extraterritorial natives dont fall under the natives exception, but if they do, imagine some other nomadic society raiding.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link