• FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 days ago

      You don’t need to be a citizen to be subject to law enforcement, the only exceptions are people with diplomatic immunity.

      I think there should be bare minimum human rights for all, not just citizens, but that’s not the case currently.

      • brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 days ago

        That’s basically the point. If you are subject to law enforcement and you have a kid here, the kid is a citizen.

        “Subject to the jurisdiction” was essentially to keep diplomats kids from becoming citizens.

        • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          Ah, okay, sorry. I thought you were implying that a person is immune to laws unless they’re a citizen, like those sovereign citizen types, I failed to realize you were quoting a passage from the order lol.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          I thought it was more about if a foreign nation say, invaded and controlled a state, then we wouldn’t be granting citizenship while it was under a foreign power.

          Either way, no reading of that would apply to what the administration wants to see. I believe the argument I saw them attempting was to imagine another word was intended, “exclusively subject to the jurisdiction”, meaning an otherwise stateless child becomes a citizen, but if they have birthright citizenship claim anywhere else, that is what the administration would want to use as an excuse to deny citizenship.