Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (13) |
Author: ptheland 🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 84364 
Subject: Birthright citizenship
Date: 01/21/25 3:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 3
Let's take a quick look at this EO.

whitehouse.gov - Protecting the meaning and value of american citizenship

The first think I want to point out is that it applies only to births 30 days after the date of the order. (February 19, 2025, if I've counted days correctly.) So there is no retroactive revocation of citizenship.

My lay reading of this order is that Trump is taking a novel interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. Historically, this has generally excepted foreign diplomats, as they are not subject to US and State laws. The claim in this order is that this lack of jurisdiction extends to mothers who are not lawfully present in the US at the time of birth and to mothers that are present lawfully but temporarily.

I suspect this is going to completely fail. For the first part, all you have to do is find a mother present in the US illegally and in jail before, at, or just after birth. If they are in jail, they are apparently subject to the jurisdiction of the US or a State. If they are not subject, why are they in jail?

For the second test - here lawfully on a visa or similar - again, find someone in jail. That would seem to be evidence of jurisdiction. There might even be some agreement to be subject to jurisdiction buried in the visa application or a treaty.

Diplomats - who are not subject to US jurisdiction - are not jailed. They are asked to leave. I seem to recall some formal process to revoke their status as diplomats, so if they don't leave they can be jailed.

--Peter
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to ptheland here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (13) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community