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 -
The reason the native American matter is important is that foreigns also belong to a sovereign polity that is not the USA .
The phrasing in 14A is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Think about it this way: if a Native American killed another in some reservation in 1840, it seems very likely that US officials would have considered that to be a matter for the tribal authorities to deal with. Likewise, if the French ambassador murdered another Frenchman in the embassy, it seems possible that the US would decide to let the French justice system deal with it rather than figure out if they can arrest him without causing a diplomatic incident.
By contrast, if a German tourist stabs another German tourist in NYC, the state of NY will very likely claim jurisdiction over the matter. Same if one undocumented immigrant murders another one.
By your standard, an Irish migrant could have decide to take his family back to Ireland, and would likely have gained the Irish citizenship for any US-born children, so all of his family "belong[ed] to a sovereign polity that is not the USA" -- but that is simply not the text which was ratified as the 14th.
The German Tourist doesn’t pay US taxes. So US lacks full jurisdiction. The undocumented migrant isn’t paying taxes on their savings account in Mexico. If you manufacture cocaine in Colombia the US claims jurisdiction.
This is why the 14th just meant slaves is a plausible argument on the meaning of jurisdiction. There are powers the US had over slaves that any of the other proposed groups the US does not have on them. The US is only going to have less jurisdiction over any of these groups than they had over blacks.
I don’t think there is a right answer here. Some of the people in the legislature voting on it with a broad understanding or jurisdiction. Some people voted on it believing the amendment was specifically referring to slaves.
They pay sales taxes, of course. Oh, you mean income taxes? Well, 40% of American households pay $0 in income tax.
Maybe, but they are in fact required to do so, and I don't think your view would change if they did (or if they didn't have a savings account).
If you’re not able to enforce jurisdiction……you do not have jurisdiction!!!!!
This may be the key point in this debate. The US does not have the ability to enforce jurisdiction. Slaves we had enforcement jurisdiction.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We are talking about what happened on US territory (because that's where the births in question occur). If in 1866 an Indian stabs an American or another Indian in Iowa City, they would have faced the Iowa criminal courts. Thus they are at least somewhat under the jurisdiction of Iowa and the US.
However we know that does not mean they are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as stated in the 14th because if that same Indian gave birth in Iowa City the kid would not be a citizen.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link