Us Laws: Exempting Americans Or Equal Enforcement Needed?

US laws and regulations can be complex, especially when considering their applicability to US citizens living or working abroad, or to non-US citizens seeking to enter the country. In terms of employment, US laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, protect US citizens working for US companies or subsidiaries abroad from discrimination. However, other laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the National Labor Relations Act do not have extraterritorial application. For non-US citizens, the situation is even more nuanced. Foreign employees working within the US must have more than minimal work for US anti-discrimination laws to apply, and in some cases, these laws may also apply to non-US citizens based in a foreign country. Immigration laws have evolved over time, and today, the legal framework for immigration is complex, with eligibility criteria based on family relationships, asylum, and work-sponsored residency.

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the US military from enforcing domestic policies

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law that prohibits the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. Signed into law on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes, the act limits the power of the federal government in deploying federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement. The act was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the American Civil War and the Reconstruction era.

The Posse Comitatus Act was a response to the military occupation of the former Confederate States by the United States Army during Reconstruction (1865-1877). It was also a reaction to the abuses committed by the British Army against American colonists. The act originally applied only to the United States Army, but amendments over the years have expanded its scope to include the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force. The act does not cover the Army National Guard, Air National Guard, or the United States Coast Guard under specific circumstances.

The act prohibits the use of active-duty military personnel to "execute the laws," but there is ambiguity regarding advisory, support, disaster response, or homeland defense roles. The law generally prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force, except when expressly authorized by law. The Posse Comitatus Act embodies an American tradition that views military interference in civilian affairs as a threat to democracy and personal liberty.

The Posse Comitatus Act has been updated several times since its enactment, with the most recent update in 2021, to address changing circumstances and challenges, such as the growing drug problem and demands for greater military involvement in law enforcement. However, the act has also revealed dangerous gaps and loopholes, such as the deployment of the National Guard for law enforcement purposes, that require continuous legislative attention and reform.

The US military has authorised itself to use lethal force on US civilians

The idea that the US military has authorised itself to use lethal force on US citizens is a damaging myth. This myth was spread by far-right influencers and conspiracy theorists on social media in the lead-up to the 2024 election.

The myth centres on Department of Defense Directive 5240.01, a 22-page document outlining procedures for military intelligence activities. The directive was updated in September 2024, which conspiracy theorists claimed was timed to coincide with the election. They alleged that the directive's mention of "lethal force" meant that the US military had been granted the power to kill civilians in the event of post-election unrest.

However, this is categorically untrue. The directive does not grant the military any new powers and is subject to US law. The mention of "lethal force" refers to a requirement that the Secretary of Defense authorises military intelligence assistance to civilian law enforcement when lethal force may be involved. This is an administrative safeguard and does not authorise the use of lethal force against US citizens.

The spread of misinformation about the military can be highly damaging to the public's trust in the armed forces. It is important to fact-check and not spread misinformation.

Birthright citizenship is not extended to those born to undocumented immigrants

Birthright citizenship in the United States is a contentious issue, with some arguing that it should not be extended to children born to undocumented immigrants. This interpretation of the law has never been endorsed by federal courts.

The 14th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, guarantees birthright citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This amendment overrode the Supreme Court's Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, which denied citizenship to African Americans, and ensured that people born within US territory are citizens.

The Debate

The debate surrounding birthright citizenship centres on the interpretation of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". While some argue that this excludes children born to undocumented immigrants, others contend that it refers to mutual consent between parents and the US government, which is not present when parents are in the country illegally.

Political Context

The issue of birthright citizenship has become increasingly politicised, with former President Trump proposing to revoke it for children of undocumented immigrants. However, this proposal has not been implemented, and bills to restrict birthright citizenship have repeatedly failed to pass in Congress.

Impact of Revoking Birthright Citizenship

Revoking birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants would instantly increase the number of undocumented people in the US, adding millions to the current rolls. It would also contradict the US's historical commitment to birthright citizenship and move away from the ideal of expanding rights and freedoms.

The US President cannot unilaterally change US citizenship laws

> No Person except a natural-born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The Fourteenth Amendment further defines citizenship, stating:

> 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 Supreme Court has interpreted these provisions to mean that citizens born "within the dominions and allegiance of the United States" are citizens regardless of parental citizenship. This interpretation has been reaffirmed by various courts and legal scholars over the years.

While the President does have some power to enact laws through executive orders, they cannot override the Constitution. Changing the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the states.

The US Constitution does not define natural-born citizen

The US Constitution does not define the term "natural-born citizen", which is one of the eligibility requirements to hold the office of the President or Vice President of the United States. The consensus among 21st-century constitutional and legal scholars is that natural-born citizens include those born in the United States, as well as those born elsewhere who meet the legal requirements for birthright citizenship.

The US Constitution states that:

> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The Fourteenth Amendment further states that:

> 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.

However, the term "natural-born citizen" is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has never directly ruled on its precise meaning. This has led to various opinions and interpretations over time. While there is a consensus that natural-born citizens include those born in the United States, there is some uncertainty regarding individuals born outside the US but who acquire citizenship at birth through their parents' citizenship.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, passed by the First Congress, provided some clarification by stating that:

> [T]he children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...

This Act was later replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which omitted the term "natural-born citizen" and simply declared that such children "shall be considered as citizens of the United States".

The eligibility of certain presidential candidates, such as John McCain, Barack Obama, and Ted Cruz, has been questioned due to their place of birth or the citizenship status of their parents. These debates highlight the ongoing discussions and lack of a definitive interpretation of the term "natural-born citizen" in the US Constitution.

Frequently asked questions