Supreme Court denies birthright citizenship to American Samoans.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/politics/ ... eme-court/

Washington (CNN)American Samoans have no automatic claim to U.S. citizenship by birth despite living in a U.S. territory, according to a move by the Supreme Court on Monday.

The court declined to reconsider a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the Constitution does not confer citizenship on those born in American Samoa. The Supreme Court's move effectively preserves the appellate court's decision in the case as the last word.
In the case, an American Samoan, Leneuoti Fia Fia Tuaua, petitioned the U.S. courts for citizenship under the clause of the Constitution that confers citizenship at birth to those born in the United States. American Samoa has been a U.S. territory since 1900.
Those born in the other U.S. territories -- Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Marianas -- all get citizenship at birth, but that was determined by statute in Congress. No such statue exists for American Samoa.
Tuaua was opposed in his quest by the American Samoan government itself, which argued that recognizing a right to citizenship at birth could complicated the legal structure in the territory.
The appeals court, in an unanimous ruling, agreed with the American Samoan government, emphasizing that the resident population has also avoided automatic U.S. citizenship.
The opinion from a conservative panel of justices drew criticism for heavily drawing from a set of cases that have grown controversial. The so-called Insular Cases, a series of rulings at the turn of the 20th century, distinguished between U.S. territories destined for statehood, such as Hawaii and Alaska, and those that weren't, like Puerto Rico and American Samoa. Those residents in territories not likely to become states were entitled to only "fundamental" rights, the cases say.
But the cases have drawn criticism for being racially tinged and vestiges of colonialism, and the appellate court's decision relying on them likewise drew flak.
D.C. Circuit Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote in her opinion that under the Insular cases distinction, birthright citizenship is not a "fundamental" right owed to the "unincorporated" territories.
"Citizenship is not the sum of its benefits. It is no less than the adoption or ascription of an identity, that of 'citizen' to a particular sovereign state, and a ratification of those mores necessary and intrinsic to association as a full functioning component of that sovereignty," Brown wrote. "At base appellants ask that we forcibly impose a compact of citizenship ... on a distinct and unincorporated territory of people, in the absence of evidence that a majority of the territory's inhabitants endorse such a tie and where the territory's democratically elected representatives actively oppose such a compact."
But it's less the facts of the case than how the case was decided that matters, said Steve Vladeck, CNN contributor and professor of law at American University Washington College of Law.
"The real significance of this morning's denial of review has everything to do with the continuing relevance of the Insular cases," Vladeck said. "Despite wide-ranging criticisms that those rulings reflect an outdated, if not racist, approach to constitutional protections in the territories, the court of appeals extended their reasoning to also apply to birthright citizenship, and the Supreme Court today left that ruling intact."
Though the decision specifically only deals with the citizens of American Samoa, as the other U.S. territories have sorted out citizenship through statute, Vladeck says continuing the Insular Cases doctrine will have greater consequences.
"The longer-term impact will be felt not just among all of the U.S. territories, but also overseas -- as courts grapple with similar questions over how the Constitution protects citizens and non-citizens in foreign countries," Vladeck said.

A disgusting and dangerous decision that reinforces antiquated and outright racist law.

Edited to fix link.

[Terralthra]

My guess is that the Supreme Court is declining to review any case with which they can get away denying until they have a replacement Justice for Scalia.

[The Romulan Republic]

Probably, but its still infuriating, and the lower courts' decision is deeply disturbing, given the laws that were cited to justify it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Another concern I have, which the article doesn't discuss.

Could this be used as a legal precedent by, say, a hypothetical Trump administration to deny birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, for example?

[Elheru Aran]

Another concern I have, which the article doesn't discuss.

Could this be used as a legal precedent by, say, a hypothetical Trump administration to deny birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, for example?

IIRC Trumpkins is already against it.

I'm not sure how the two translate, though. They're from slightly different situations. People from the territories tend to have more rights than straight-up non-American citizens, IIRC. Like, a Samoan family could move to the States, and their kids would be American citizens without much issue, I think-- the parents don't have to apply for immigrant visas (I don't think).

[Simon_Jester]

Another concern I have, which the article doesn't discuss.

Could this be used as a legal precedent by, say, a hypothetical Trump administration to deny birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, for example?

I'd say... not really?

For one, declining to review a case doesn't set much of a precedent at the Supremes' level, and what one appellate court can declare, another appellate court can ignore if they feel they have reason.

For another, this applies specifically to a particular chunk of land where birthright citizenship simply does not apply, it is unique or nearly so in being a plot of American soil where being born on this soil does not confer citizenship.

The continental United States cannot be reverted to such status, as that would explicitly go against the Citizenship Clause of the constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The reason there's an issue with places like American Samoa is basically lawyering over what the definition of 'in the United States' is. You can't really lawyer that definition to exclude Arizona or Maryland.

[Joun_Lord]

One thing that people seem to be missing from the article is the fact this court decision was done so in agreement with the Samoan government's own position. Its not Americans saying the AS are lesser or anything, its upholding their own decisions just like they are letting Puerto Rico decide if it wants to be a state.

That to me doesn't sound like racism, that sounds like the opposite. That sounds like they are letting American territories decide their fate, have agency over themselves (probably within reason, I doubt people would be so accommodating if they decided they wanted to stop being a US territory).

It sucks for the guy who wants to be an American citizen from birth but he's in same position as they few idiots led by the even bigger idiot Chucklefuck Norris wanting to not be American citizens because the President is blac.....I mean Musli........I mean corrupt, yeah thats it corrupt. Clearly the majority of voters in those places don't want those things and usually the majority gets what they want.

That can be a good or bad thing following the majority but I think in this case allowing the government and presumably the majority of people in American Samoa to decide their own legal status is fine. I would think forcing it on people who may not want it would be a bad thing.

Of course I could be misreading the situation but I don't think so.

[The Romulan Republic]

The article does briefly mention the position of the government of American Samoa:

Tuaua was opposed in his quest by the American Samoan government itself, which argued that recognizing a right to citizenship at birth could complicated the legal structure in the territory.
The appeals court, in an unanimous ruling, agreed with the American Samoan government, emphasizing that the resident population has also avoided automatic U.S. citizenship.

So basically they don't want it because... its complicated?

Seems a pretty weak justification for rejecting legal equality, but maybe their are details we don't know about.

And sure, maybe for the average American Samoan, birthright citizenship isn't a big deal. But what about those who do want it, and are being denied this right based on racist, colonialist, antiquated legal precedent (the decision cited the "Insular Cases")?

Going to repost the John Oliver video on the status of the territories here. There's a bit on the Insular Cases and just what a racist sack of shit they are about one minute and ten seconds in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesHr99ezWE

They apparently argue that, to quote Oliver, ""alien races" can't understand "Anglo-Saxon principles"..."

Yeah...

Edited the last bit for clarity.

[The Romulan Republic]

Bottom line, it comes down to two basic principles, for me:

1. If you are living in American territory, you should automatically get the same rights as anyone else.

2. The Insular Cases' racist rationalization should be discarded as an embarrassing historical relic, just as much as Dred Scott or Plessy vs. Ferguson.

[Joun_Lord]

I think its pretty racist and colonialist to tell a group of people, a nation more or less, what to do. The American Samoans don't want to be citizens, even if the reason is kinda weird, and forcing the entire nation because some people want to be seems like it would be America saying they know whats best, saying that its better to be Americans even if they don't want to be. Nothing against the US but there are some pretty good reasons people might not want to be Americans.

Now I agree people in American territories should have the same rights as somebody living in Wisconsin.....if they want it. Which American Samoa doesn't. Even if the whole nation doesn't want it I think it should be stupidly simple for people there to get American citizenship but that should be only for anyone who wants it, not everyone.

Just because there was mistakes (if one can call the institutionalized racism and colonialism of that time period just "mistakes", the worst chapters of human history save slavery and the holocaust probably is a better description) in the past doesn't mean you go so far in the other direction trying to fix those mistakes by playing Colonial master all over again even if you think its for their benefit.

The option for American Samoa to be be full citizens, the 51st state, whatever, should be there if they want it.

But it should not be forced on them if they don't.

And I think I'll skip the John Oliver bit thankyouverymuch and just read up on the Insular Papers on wiki. I don't what it is about him but I just find him so goddamn annoying. Its not even because I disagree with him. I love John Stewart and disagreed with him quite a bit. he just really fucking annoys me, like super bad.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think its pretty racist and colonialist to tell a group of people, a nation more or less, what to do. The American Samoans don't want to be citizens, even if the reason is kinda weird, and forcing the entire nation because some people want to be seems like it would be America saying they know whats best, saying that its better to be Americans even if they don't want to be. Nothing against the US but there are some pretty good reasons people might not want to be Americans.

The article is fairly brief, and it doesn't really go into great depth on the feelings of the people of American Samoa on the subject.

Do most American Samoans actively object to being US citizens? Or is it simply not a major issue, met more with indifference or evasion than commitment to either side? This is not clear to me.

And frankly, if you're going to allege that someone is arguing for a "racist and colonialist" position, you should have something a bit more solid to back that charge up.

And again, what of those who do want birthright citizenship, and are being denied something any other person born on American territory would be entitled to? Do they count for nothing because the majority of their neighbours hold a different view?

But in any case, it seems to me very dangerous to set the precedent that some Americans have fewer rights than others. It seems to me that their are only two ways to resolve this issue- for American Samoa to cease to be American territory (which opens the whole secession pandora's box, plus I don't know that its necessarily in line with what most of its people want, especially given the high percentage that serve in the US military), or give them equality with other Americans.

Therefore, I support the latter as the best of all possible options, even if it isn't perfect. Though perhaps it might be best to put the citizenship issue to referendum.

Now I agree people in American territories should have the same rights as somebody living in Wisconsin.....if they want it. Which American Samoa doesn't. Even if the whole nation doesn't want it I think it should be stupidly simple for people there to get American citizenship but that should be only for anyone who wants it, not everyone.

If its as easy as you or your parents walking into an office and showing an American Samoan birth certificate, maybe.

Just because there was mistakes (if one can call the institutionalized racism and colonialism of that time period just "mistakes", the worst chapters of human history save slavery and the holocaust probably is a better description) in the past doesn't mean you go so far in the other direction trying to fix those mistakes by playing Colonial master all over again even if you think its for their benefit.

I object to the charge that I am "playing Colonial master", or that my position is in any way equivalent to "the institutionalized racism and colonialism" of the time in question, and find it offensive, ill-founded, and disingenuous. See above as to my actual reasoning.

The option for American Samoa to be be full citizens, the 51st state, whatever, should be there if they want it.

But it should not be forced on them if they don't.

Out of curiosity, would you apply the same to people born in other parts of America, where birthright citizenship is a right, who may not want to be citizens? What about Native Americans, victims of US colonialism and considered members of distinct nations? Would you suggest rescinding their right to birthright citizenship if the majority of a tribe wanted it?

And I think I'll skip the John Oliver bit thankyouverymuch and just read up on the Insular Papers on wiki. I don't what it is about him but I just find him so goddamn annoying. Its not even because I disagree with him. I love John Stewart and disagreed with him quite a bit. he just really fucking annoys me, like super bad.

Well, that is, of course, your prerogative.

[Joun_Lord]

The article is fairly brief, and it doesn't really go into great depth on the feelings of the people of American Samoa on the subject.

Do most American Samoans actively object to being US citizens? Or is it simply not a major issue, met more with indifference or evasion than commitment to either side? This is not clear to me.

The article says "the resident population has also avoided automatic U.S. citizenship" so more then likely either the people don't care enough to do anything about it or don't want it. Considering they have elected a government and non-voting representative that have both said American Samoans don't want to be American citizens I'm leaning towards the population itself not wanting to be citizens though I can't find any polls or whatever to confirm.

And frankly, if you're going to allege that someone is arguing for a "racist and colonialist" position, you should have something a bit more solid to back that charge up.

When the US Congresscritter calls it that I think I can safely say it is a colonialist position. When people are trying to impose something on a people without consulting them because they think they know better, thats pretty colonialistic and racist.
http://www.mvariety.com/regional-news/7 ... olonialism
http://www.pr51st.com/changing-american-samoa-top/

And that ain't me implying you are pro-racism and colonialism, because clearly you are not, but I think you are have an almost paternalistic viewpoint on this where you forget to think about the wants of the people in the case in your zeal for what you believe is right. That don't mean you are racist or anything and I'm certainly not trying to insult you by saying what I said, typed, but you did fail to think of the children.....I mean the American Samoans wants. Only what you wanted for them.

And again, what of those who do want birthright citizenship, and are being denied something any other person born on American territory would be entitled to? Do they count for nothing because the majority of their neighbours hold a different view?

Thats kinda how democracies work. Thats why I referenced Stumble the Texas Stranger Danger totally not racist, totally all about corruption I swear its not about having black Democrat president want to be have Texas secede from the US. Clearly a majority of people in Texas do not want to leave the country. And unlike Texas, or more precisely unlike what some Texans believe, Texas is not its own country. In many ways American Samoa is. Its not a state and while its part of the US its seperate too, so it has different rules. It has more of a right to determine its own destiny.

But in any case, it seems to me very dangerous to set the precedent that some Americans have fewer rights than others. It seems to me that their are only two ways to resolve this issue- for American Samoa to cease to be American territory (which opens the whole secession pandora's box, plus I don't know that its necessarily in line with what most of its people want, especially given the high percentage that serve in the US military), or give them equality with other Americans.

Therefore, I support the latter as the best of all possible options, even if it isn't perfect. Though perhaps it might be best to put the citizenship issue to referendum.

I think its best to go with the 3rd option, one you listed, let them decide their own fate. If they want to be American citizens or not they can vote. But what happens if its still the same as it is now, that there is still some people part of America but without equal rights?

Do you force rights on people that don't want it to satisfy few? Do you ignore the will of a people? I don't think there is an easy answer that will satisfy everyone.

If its as easy as you or your parents walking into an office and showing an American Samoan birth certificate, maybe.

Apparently for them to become US citizens they have to after three months of residency in the US pass a test in English and civics, and take an oath of allegiance to the United States.

I object to the charge that I am "playing Colonial master", or that my position is in any way equivalent to "the institutionalized racism and colonialism" of the time in question, and find it offensive, ill-founded, and disingenuous. See above as to my actual reasoning.

I ain't saying you are a Colonial master or someone who just plays one on tv, just some of your reasoning is dangerously cheesy close to the same rational employed by them. You are acting as if you know better then the actual people of American Samoa. You know, the people who DO know what is best for American Samoa. And you are not even doing it because you are racist or really really love tricorne hats. You clearly aren't those things. But you also are clearly disregarding the wants of a people.

Out of curiosity, would you apply the same to people born in other parts of America, where birthright citizenship is a right, who may not want to be citizens? What about Native Americans, victims of US colonialism and considered members of distinct nations? Would you suggest rescinding their right to birthright citizenship if the majority of a tribe wanted it?

Its a different situation for individuals where they are already US citizens. But I'd be down with the possibility of those groups doing such though its not really my choice of course. They are part of a distinct nation and it seems like it should be their right to say "no fuck you US, you go to hell, you go to hell and you die" in their best Mr Garrison impression to say they no longer want to be US citizens, to just be US nationals or hwatever. I think those in the tribes who want to remain citizens should be allowed to do and I'd want it the same as I'd want it for American Samoa where it would be incredibly easy for people born later who do want to be American citizens to become so too.

Well, that is, of course, your prerogative.

Well I'm glad your respecting my choice to not watch some weird faced ninny.

Seriously dude, I ain't trying to insult your or imply you are a Colonialist or whatever. I can't stress that enough. I don't think you are that or racist or anything.

[The Romulan Republic]

The article says "the resident population has also avoided automatic U.S. citizenship" so more then likely either the people don't care enough to do anything about it or don't want it. Considering they have elected a government and non-voting representative that have both said American Samoans don't want to be American citizens I'm leaning towards the population itself not wanting to be citizens though I can't find any polls or whatever to confirm.

I'd like something a bit more definite to go on. Going off the article, the wording is somewhat ambiguous. And as to the representatives' position- maybe, but it wouldn't be the first time representatives failed to faithfully represent their constituents.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the majority of American Samoans are not merely indifferent to, but actively oppose birthright citizenship. Let's look at that, and I'll do my best to consider all sides fairly.

When the US Congresscritter calls it that I think I can safely say it is a colonialist position. When people are trying to impose something on a people without consulting them because they think they know better, thats pretty colonialistic and racist.
http://www.mvariety.com/regional-news/7 ... olonialism
http://www.pr51st.com/changing-american-samoa-top/

Well, it is obviously possible for people of any race or nationality to act against their own interests (see every voter, including every working class white man, voting for Donald Trump), but yes, of course, the average American Samoan has a much better understanding of what their needs and wishes are than I do. And if your argument is "respect the will of the people", I can't disagree with you.

However... there are definitely some American Samoans who do want birthright citizenship. A right they would have if they were born anywhere else in American territory. So, how far do you justify shafting a minority, to respect the wishes of a larger minority?

There's also the larger issue of the implications it has for America as a whole, and the rights of all Americans, if we retain outdated, racist laws that give some citizens fewer rights than others.

So, this is looking like a situation with no apparent good answer, unless the majority of American Samoans willingly choose statehood and birthright citizenship. Either we place some of our people above others based on birth, or we risk going against the wishes of the people of American Samoa, or American Samoa leaves the US (and I do not want to set precedents encouraging separatism, because the last time we played with that fire it ended really, really badly).

So we have three problematic options. I tend to lean towards birthright citizenship and statehood as the least shitty, as I said, but I would consider it reasonable to put the issue to a referendum. At least then all sides could campaign for their positions, and the peoples' voice could be heard in a less ambiguous manner.

And that ain't me implying you are pro-racism and colonialism, because clearly you are not, but I think you are have an almost paternalistic viewpoint on this where you forget to think about the wants of the people in the case in your zeal for what you believe is right. That don't mean you are racist or anything and I'm certainly not trying to insult you by saying what I said, typed, but you did fail to think of the children.....I mean the American Samoans wants. Only what you wanted for them.

You say you're not calling me racist and colonialist, yet you accuse me of arguing a racist and colonialist position and of, essentially, viewing myself as superior to/more mature than American Samoans.

The former we could argue back and forth all day, but the latter certainly is not the case. I might disagree with someone, or be baffled by their choices, but that does not mean that I believe myself to be smarter than or superior to them, and if I gave a different impression, I apologize.

Thats kinda how democracies work. Thats why I referenced Stumble the Texas Stranger Danger totally not racist, totally all about corruption I swear its not about having black Democrat president want to be have Texas secede from the US. Clearly a majority of people in Texas do not want to leave the country. And unlike Texas, or more precisely unlike what some Texans believe, Texas is not its own country. In many ways American Samoa is. Its not a state and while its part of the US its seperate too, so it has different rules. It has more of a right to determine its own destiny.

To a point, yes, democracy means that you don't always get your way, that the majority can override a minority. To a point.

The question, then, is where we draw that line. Personally, I consider the fundamental legal equality of those who are born on US territory to be one of the points that should not be compromised, both on principle and because when we've compromised on that point in the past, really bad shit has happened.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that this court decision means we're about to go back to segregation or something. But it is, on some level, reinforcing some very dangerous and damaging ideas, and every step down that road, however small, is one that we'll have to fight to undo some day.

I think its best to go with the 3rd option, one you listed, let them decide their own fate. If they want to be American citizens or not they can vote. But what happens if its still the same as it is now, that there is still some people part of America but without equal rights?

Do you force rights on people that don't want it to satisfy few? Do you ignore the will of a people? I don't think there is an easy answer that will satisfy everyone.

No, probably not.

I'm not without sympathy for arguments of self-determination, certainly.

But I think that the status quo is intolerable for a number of reasons, which I hope I have made clear.

Apparently for them to become US citizens they have to after three months of residency in the US pass a test in English and civics, and take an oath of allegiance to the United States.

That's... not too bad, but still, in my opinion, an undue burden considering the circumstances.

And at the end of the day, you have equal rights or you don't.

I ain't saying you are a Colonial master or someone who just plays one on tv, just some of your reasoning is dangerously cheesy close to the same rational employed by them. You are acting as if you know better then the actual people of American Samoa. You know, the people who DO know what is best for American Samoa. And you are not even doing it because you are racist or really really love tricorne hats. You clearly aren't those things. But you also are clearly disregarding the wants of a people.

My initial posts were rather one-sided and not well-explained, I'll acknowledge, but I'm not indifferent to the complexities of the issue. I hope that by elaborating, I have made the reasons for my position more clear.

Its a different situation for individuals where they are already US citizens. But I'd be down with the possibility of those groups doing such though its not really my choice of course. They are part of a distinct nation and it seems like it should be their right to say "no fuck you US, you go to hell, you go to hell and you die" in their best Mr Garrison impression to say they no longer want to be US citizens, to just be US nationals or hwatever. I think those in the tribes who want to remain citizens should be allowed to do and I'd want it the same as I'd want it for American Samoa where it would be incredibly easy for people born later who do want to be American citizens to become so too.

Well, at least you're being consistent here.

One thing I will say- if you want to make a self-determination argument against birthright citizenship, fine. But that is, at best, only part of the reasoning behind this court decision. While I'm not saying that the judges are racist, or that their specific arguments are racist, I am nonetheless deeply skeptical of any decision that cites the Insular Cases, much as I would be of a ruling that cited Dred Scott or Plessy vs Ferguson.

If you want to make a self-determination argument, then the appropriate course of action, it seems to me, would be to put the issue to a referendum, unless their is unambiguous proof that the majority opposes even considering the issue.

[Joun_Lord]

I'd like something a bit more definite to go on. Going off the article, the wording is somewhat ambiguous. And as to the representatives' position- maybe, but it wouldn't be the first time representatives failed to faithfully represent their constituents.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the majority of American Samoans are not merely indifferent to, but actively oppose birthright citizenship. Let's look at that, and I'll do my best to consider all sides fairly.

I'll admit I cannot find anything on the views of the America Samoan people itself. Its all media outlet talking heads saying its wrong that the suit was dropped, the government of AS saying citizenship is bad, and the mainland America based Samoan Federation of America saying Samoans should be citizens.

A bit of research tells me part of the reason for the government's reluctance to become citizens is changes in law that go beyond "its complicated". Apparently there are some laws on land ownership that require anyone owning land to be atleast 50% native ancestry and becoming citizens would make them beholden to the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment. Land space is apparently quite limited and they have traditions based on land ownership apparently (though an argument can be made that the tradition is kinda racist but I dunno). The increased scrutiny under the Constitution and judicial recognition of birthright citizenship would “undermine the American Samoan way of life and interfere with American Samoan cultural autonomy and sovereignty by effectively removing the resolution of American Samoa’s status from the democratic process.”

Well, it is obviously possible for people of any race or nationality to act against their own interests (see every voter, including every working class white man, voting for Donald Trump), but yes, of course, the average American Samoan has a much better understanding of what their needs and wishes are than I do. And if your argument is "respect the will of the people", I can't disagree with you.

More or less my position is "will of the people", yes. While at times, in my own paternalistic "for their own good" moment, it is okay to override people's will on rights such as telling people to fuck off over gay marriage in the US other times not so much. This is especially true with the kinda own country status of American Samoa, imposing our will on them is different from telling Kentucky and that cunt........emptible person Kim Davis to let the gays get hitched and enjoys all the "joys" of marriage.

However... there are definitely some American Samoans who do want birthright citizenship. A right they would have if they were born anywhere else in American territory. So, how far do you justify shafting a minority, to respect the wishes of a larger minority?

Well we do it all the time like we legalizing gay marriage despite a minority being against it. But as above in their case its even more different considering they as a more or less nation have to decide their fate collectively. And the only way to really do it is by popular will. And and unfortunately not everyone is going to be happy like that. And and and unlike the pissed of Republicunts whiny that they can now legally get married to their bathroom handy j buddies I do feel terrible for the American Samoans that want to be American citizens but as far as I can tell the majority of the people don't want what they want.

There's also the larger issue of the implications it has for America as a whole, and the rights of all Americans, if we retain outdated, racist laws that give some citizens fewer rights than others.

I agree which is why the decision of American Samoa citizenship should not be based on horribly outdated horrible court opinions that were just horrible but modern legal mumbo jumbo and most importantly what the people of the kinda country in question want.

So, this is looking like a situation with no apparent good answer, unless the majority of American Samoans willingly choose statehood and birthright citizenship. Either we place some of our people above others based on birth, or we risk going against the wishes of the people of American Samoa, or American Samoa leaves the US (and I do not want to set precedents encouraging separatism, because the last time we played with that fire it ended really, really badly).

So we have three problematic options. I tend to lean towards birthright citizenship and statehood as the least shitty, as I said, but I would consider it reasonable to put the issue to a referendum. At least then all sides could campaign for their positions, and the peoples' voice could be heard in a less ambiguous manner.

No, like this coming US election and the answer to the question "when's a new good Star Wars game going to be made" there are no good answers. Any way it goes some people are going to not get what they want.

I do think that putting it to a vote for the people of AS would be the best possible outcome.

You say you're not calling me racist and colonialist, yet you accuse me of arguing a racist and colonialist position and of, essentially, viewing myself as superior to/more mature than American Samoans.

The former we could argue back and forth all day, but the latter certainly is not the case. I might disagree with someone, or be baffled by their choices, but that does not mean that I believe myself to be smarter than or superior to them, and if I gave a different impression, I apologize.

I might have been misreading you. It seemed like you were implying that the possible majority opinion of the AS people should be disregarded for what you believe is right, that they should be given something they may not want because of racist bullshit in the past.

Its entirely possible I'm just not understanding your opinion correctly and falsely assigning motive where there is none. For that I do apologize, I like you in a purely platonic way so I don't want to be a cock to you.

To a point, yes, democracy means that you don't always get your way, that the majority can override a minority. To a point.

The question, then, is where we draw that line. Personally, I consider the fundamental legal equality of those who are born on US territory to be one of the points that should not be compromised, both on principle and because when we've compromised on that point in the past, really bad shit has happened.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that this court decision means we're about to go back to segregation or something. But it is, on some level, reinforcing some very dangerous and damaging ideas, and every step down that road, however small, is one that we'll have to fight to undo some day.

I agree in principle about fundamental inalienable legal equality for those in US territory but in practice I tend to err on the side of what the people want. Most territories are like their own little mini nation, far more autonomy then even the already ridiculously legally autonomous US states (yeah I'm no fan of "states rights" and even less so most of its champions, not a fan of gray). They do and should have more options to decide their own fates compared to states. I'd love for a compromise to be reached to give people in places like AS full US citizenship while maintaining their autonomy but that makes it unfair to everyone else, gives them exceptions to rules and stuff.

And thats seems to be part of the reason atleast the government doesn't want to be the 51st state more or less, giving up that autonomy.

No, probably not.

I'm not without sympathy for arguments of self-determination, certainly.

But I think that the status quo is intolerable for a number of reasons, which I hope I have made clear.

You have made it clear and like I said I understand those reasons. However while you think the status quo is intolerable the people affected by it might not, which is my concern. Self determination is not a malfunction. People have a right to decide their fates even if we may not agree with it.

That's... not too bad, but still, in my opinion, an undue burden considering the circumstances.

We are in agreement on this.

And at the end of the day, you have equal rights or you don't.

Unfortunately its just not that simple. One cannot force rights on people that don't want them when they technically kinda really ambiguously aren't your people. The American Samoan is kinda like the various Indian Nations, American but kinda not American. Its up to them to decide some of their rights.

My initial posts were rather one-sided and not well-explained, I'll acknowledge, but I'm not indifferent to the complexities of the issue. I hope that by elaborating, I have made the reasons for my position more clear.

I believe you have.

Well, at least you're being consistent here.

One thing I will say- if you want to make a self-determination argument against birthright citizenship, fine. But that is, at best, only part of the reasoning behind this court decision. While I'm not saying that the judges are racist, or that their specific arguments are racist, I am nonetheless deeply skeptical of any decision that cites the Insular Cases, much as I would be of a ruling that cited Dred Scott or Plessy vs Ferguson.

If you want to make a self-determination argument, then the appropriate course of action, it seems to me, would be to put the issue to a referendum, unless their is unambiguous proof that the majority opposes even considering the issue.

Well I'm nothing if not consistent. Probably too much or too little fiber in my diet.

But I do agree the decision should not at all cite the Insular Cases and its frankly fucked up that any of that shit still holds legal precedence. The situation at hand needs to be decided with updated legalese not based on 100 year old racist garbage and the will of the people in question and the Insular Cases need flushed down like my daily 5 o'clock meeting with the porcelain throne.

[Civil War Man]

One question to consider is whether there are any benefits for American Samoans if they not being granted automatic citizenship. I personally do not know of any benefits, but I can see a lot of problems, including making it harder for Samoans to get jobs elsewhere in the US if they decide to move to, for instance, Hawaii or the mainland US. Since they are not full citizens, they'd either be rejected outright (if the position requires citizenship) or would only be considered for the position if no qualified citizens apply (which is a legal requirement for employers in some areas). I can also see possible issues stemming from the fact that Samoans who don't go through the citizenship process are required to have a "This person is not an American citizen" disclaimer stamped on their passports, which can potentially cause hassles when traveling abroad.

Unless there is some major benefit to not being automatically granted citizenship, there really is no reason to deny automatic citizenship to Samoans so long as they are otherwise under US jurisdiction. People from Puerto Rico and DC are automatically citizens, and while both places are rife with problems, none of those problems stem from its residents being citizens. Their problems are largely due to being denied either statehood or proper home rule.

There have been a few mentions of same-sex marriage in this thread, and I think some of the arguments for it apply here as well. For a long time, people were pushing the idea of civil unions as a compromise, but ran into the problem of the differences between said civil unions and regular marriages. If civil unions did not grant the same rights as marriage, then it relegated gay people to second-class status and was therefore a discriminatory practice. If they did grant all the same rights, then the distinction was unnecessary and only had the effect of requiring separate sets of paperwork for what was essentially the same thing.

Maybe many Samoans don't want to be citizens, but a lot of gay people don't want to get married. From my personal, admittedly limited, viewpoint, it makes more sense that as long as American Samoa is considered under American jurisdiction, its residents are considered citizens. If someone from American Samoa chooses not to exercise those rights, then that's fine, because there are a lot of American citizens who don't, either. But granting automatic citizenship makes it easier for the Samoans who want those rights to exercise them.

While I'm not saying that the judges are racist, or that their specific arguments are racist, I am nonetheless deeply skeptical of any decision that cites the Insular Cases, much as I would be of a ruling that cited Dred Scott or Plessy vs Ferguson.

Fun fact and slight tangent: Plessy v. Ferguson was actually used as an argument for integrating the NFL (though I don't think it ever went to court, so it wasn't a legal decision). When the Rams moved to LA in 1946, people argued that the Plessy case required them to integrate the team since their stadium was built with public funds, and no funds were being used to build a separate but equal stadium for black players. So the Rams signed Kenny Washington and Woody Strode as a result.

As a side note, the Washington Redskins were the last NFL team to sign any black players, and only grudgingly did so because the government threatened to evict them if they continued to discriminate. So the Washington Redskins and accusations of racism is not a new thing (though the race has changed over time).

Anyway, enough of that aside. Back to the topic at hand.

[Joun_Lord]

The fact they have more trouble working in the US is one of the reasons the group doing the case brought it. Samoan people living in the US have to jump through hoops, cannot vote, have trouble buying firearms, and all kinds of other stuff despite being Americans.

This seems to hint at a divide between people living on the islands and Samoans living in the continental US. There is more Samoans in the US then on the islands, infact just California has more Samoans then Samoa according to the 2010 census. The ones in the US proper brought the suit, the ones in AS blocked it.

And like my car most of the time, comparing citizenship to marriage rights does not work.

Marriage is a right that if you never use it, it does not affect you. Citizenship does. To be a citizen makes you beholden to all the laws, rules, regulations, and other shit every other citizen of the US has to do.

The American Samoans don't want to do that for reasons. One is they want a degree of autonomy that being American citizens would not grant them. Two having to follow the Constitution means problems adhering to the Fa'a Samoa or Samoan Way. Things like a communal land system where only someone with 50% Samoan ancestry can buy land (which would be all kinds of illegal) along with other local customs and traditions that the people of American Samoa feel would be disrupted or destroyed by automatic American citizenship.

http://www.pireport.org/articles/2016/0 ... an-culture

Both sides have good points. Its retarded that people part of the US aren't really part of the US but people want to protect their culture.

There has to be a compromise if it is a divide between people in America Samoa and in the US itself like I dunno......automatic citizenship for an American Samoans immigrating to the US proper maybe?

[Elheru Aran]

There has to be a compromise if it is a divide between people in America Samoa and in the US itself like I dunno......automatic citizenship for an American Samoans immigrating to the US proper maybe?

This would seem to be a sensible solution. If a Samoan chooses to stay in Samoa, they can practice their own code; if they move to the States, they are submitting to *that* code.

[Beowulf]

American Samoa leaves the US (and I do not want to set precedents encouraging separatism, because the last time we played with that fire it ended really, really badly).

There's no problem with American Samoa leaving the US. We've had territories leave before. The requirement is that they be unincorporated. Examples include the Philippines, Cuba, and the Panama Canal Zone. These were areas not considered by the US to be part of the US. Once a territory is incorporated, that triggers fun times with separatism.

[Flagg]

American Samoa leaves the US (and I do not want to set precedents encouraging separatism, because the last time we played with that fire it ended really, really badly).

There's no problem with American Samoa leaving the US. We've had territories leave before. The requirement is that they be unincorporated. Examples include the Philippines, Cuba, and the Panama Canal Zone. These were areas not considered by the US to be part of the US. Once a territory is incorporated, that triggers fun times with separatism.

Fun times spent educating TRR! (Get paid, full time job).

[The Romulan Republic]

As to Beowulf's point (since he bothered to actually have one), I concede the point that, legally, there is precedent for such a territory leaving, and will add that if American Samoa is not considered part of the US (as ridiculous as I find that), a strong case could be made that it should be permitted to leave if its people wish. However, I'm not convinced that that is what the majority of its people want- I simply haven't seen any definitive evidence either way.

Again, the issue should really probably be put to a referendum, if there is support in American Samoa for holding one.

I do still feel, in any case, that the status quo (controlled by the US but not given full rights as Americans) is intolerable.

[Patroklos]

Is TRR ever going to tell us exactly why this decision was racists?

[The Romulan Republic]

I have, repeatedly.

I will say this one more time only:

It is racist (or at the very least, arguably so) because a) it denies a right all others under American rule receive to a predominantly non-white population, and b) it is based, in part, on the Insular Cases, which argued for denying full rights to the residents of territories on the basis that they were from "alien races" who potentially could not comprehend "Anglo-Saxon principles". Which to me seem the very definition of racism.

But reading my posts is harder than posting a snide one-liner, so I understand your ignorance.

[Patroklos]

It is racist (or at the very least, arguably so) because a) it denies a right all others under American rule receive to a predominantly non-white population,

Which is not racist. The effects of the decision are based on method of aquisition (war), and were specifically made to address territories aquired by the Spanish American War. They impacted no other area. Not unsurprisingly, the territories not being located in Europe, they were not populated primarily by Europeans (though there were plenty of Europeans who lived there after the war, treated exactly the same as other inhabitants). You seem to think that because the US had to make accomodations for these new territories, and that they had non-white populations, any decision concerning them must be racist. Its par for the course for your level of intellect.

Do you have any evidence that the laws were targeted based on race? Or that those living in the territories who were formally Spanish subjects and remained there were treated differently based on race? Were say, those of Spansih dissent treated differently throughout any of them or Filipinos differently from Cubans of Samoans?

and b) it is based, in part, on the Insular Cases, which argued for denying full rights to the residents of territories on the basis that they were from "alien races" who potentially could not comprehend "Anglo-Saxon principles". Which to me seem the very definition of racism.

Hardly, while couched in language we find problematic now (like everythig back then) the obvious meaning of them is not controversial. Noting that the peoples of these new territories are different than the rest of the country in regards to custom, laws, attitudes on taxation and religion (all things the John Oliver piece left out though the are in the EXACT SAME LINE HIS GUEST WAS QUOTING! When someone takes a half dozen disconnected words out of a paragraph alarm bells should sound) to name a few is just a statement of fact. One of the the things that brought down the colonial empires was the incompatability of cultures between most colonialists powers and their colonial populations. One of the biggest and most accurate critisisms of the Iraq War is that you can not just immediately impose western values and government wholesale into another people and cuture fore the exact same reasons the Insular Cases noted. Yet that is now the height of progressive foreign policy thinking, despite you calling it obviously rascist.

Furthermore, that portion of the decision is not about whether they should have rights or not, but rather whether we should consider those territories state bound or not. The Phillipines shows us that their desire to maintain a difference was entirely practical and appropriate.

But reading my posts is harder than posting a snide one-liner, so I understand your ignorance.

You are an idiot. There is nothing racist about determining a territorial possecion is likely to be temporary and thus not extending full benefits of national status. You may think its unconstitutional, colonialist and/or despotic, but thats not the same thing as racist. Not only that, you seem to think it a good idea to just annex to full national status any randome war claimed territorial tidbit the US picks up. That would have been just wonderful for the Philippines wouldn't it. I am SURE they would have gotten independance had we considered them an integral part of US territory with every one of them being US citizens enjoying the full protections of US military power. Would have turned out great I am sure.

You have shown no link between race and how these territories are treated.

Also, John Oliver is an entertainier. The fact that you are relying on not even just him but one of his random guests for your world view explains why you are so far out there on so many things. You ddidn't bother to look at the source they incorrrectly and dishonestly butchered, or to even read the snipit they included in the video. You just drank it up, like a good little unthinking zelot.