'Born in Jerusalem' passport case divides justices

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Middle Eastern politics infused the Supreme Court's arguments Monday over a disputed law that would allow Americans born in Jerusalem to list their birthplace as Israel on their U.S. passports.

The justices appeared divided over whether the law should be struck down as unconstitutional, as the Obama administration wants, or put into effect as a result of a lawsuit filed by the parents of Jerusalem-born Menachem Zivotofsky.

Twelve-year-old Menachem, a baby when the case began in 2003, and his parents sat through the hour-long argument that saw justices wrestle with questions of the president's primacy in matters of foreign affairs and the effect the court's eventual decision could have on simmering tensions between Israelis and Palestinians.

Justice Elena Kagan called Jerusalem a "tinderbox" at the moment and said the outcome of the case would be watched closely. "History suggests that everything is a big deal with respect to the status of Jerusalem," Kagan said.

FULL story at link.



FILE - In this Nov. 7, 2011 file photo, Ari Zivotofsky, right, stands with his nine-year-old son, Menachem, outside the Supreme Court in Washington. The first time Menachem's case was in front of the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer laid out several reasons why courts should stay out of a dispute between Congress and the president over whether Americans born in Jerusalem may list their place of birth on their passports as Israel. It is back at the high court for argument Monday, Nov. 3, 2014 at a time of acute Palestinian-Israeli tension over Jerusalem and significant strain in Israeli-American relations. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20141103/us-supreme-court-born-in-jerusalem-bb04dfa550.html

[Scootaloo]

1. Soon as we let Americans born in Crimea list "Russia" as their place of birth

[branford]

2. If Congress passes a law to that effect or the President doesn't object, it's certainly possible.

You should read more about the case and surrounding issues. For instance, a similar passport issue occurred concerning Taiwan, and it was discussed at oral argument.

Do you have an opinion about the constitutional separation of powers issue that is at play in the case, or are you simply taking an anti-Israel position because you saw an opportunity.

If Congress permitted U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem the option of indicating "Jerusalem, Palestine," in addition to "Jerusalem, Israel" or just "Jerusalem," on their passports, would that be acceptable? Do you believe it would change the constitutional questions?

[Thor_MN]

3. My passport says "Minnesota, U.S.A"

So why would "Jerusalem District, Israel" be a problem? I would thick that if they were born in Tel Aviv District, saying Jerusalem would not be appropriate, but the state and country should not be an issue from any country.

[enlightenment]

4. Because the question of which entity Jerusalem belongs to

is not settled. Most of the international community does not recognize Israel's claim to East Jerusalem.

[Thor_MN]

5. Were the people in question born in East Jerusalem?

If so, I can see a point. If not, then what's the problem?

[enlightenment]

6. I don't know.

I haven't read the brief.

The problem is that changing his passport to indicate he was born in Israel is a direct poke in the eye to Palestine.

This article gives a better picture of the complexities:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/us/politics/justices-consider-status-of-jerusalem-for-us-passports.html

[Thor_MN]

7. Looks to me that the problem is limited to disputed territories.

And the headlines are a bit misleading. Until I read the article you cited, I was under the assumption that they wanted the passport to indicate Jerusalem, rather than just Israel.

If the child was born in East Jerusalem and the parents want it to say Israel, then I understand the issue. If he was born in (non-East) Jerusalem, then it should not be an issue.

[branford]

8. The child was born in West Jerusalem.

However, that's not the primary issue.

If Congress has the power pass the law concerning place of birth on passports, it matters not at all what the diplomatic effects will be. The court is not making a determination about the wisdom of the law itself, only resolving a separation of powers dispute between the executive and legislative branches of government.

[Thor_MN]

9. In other words, a pissing match over who has power, while ignoring the obvious solution.

The case is a bad example, as if what you say is true, there is no one that argues that the child was not born in Israel.

Now if the parents of a child born in East Jerusalem wanted to include Israel in the birthplace, then they have something to argue about. But this case is just plain silly.

[branford]

10. It truly is a pissing contest between our executive and legislative branches of government.

President Bush actually issued a signing statement opposing the passport provision in the law, despite his otherwise very strong pro-Israel positions.

[happyslug]

14. Here are the briefs:

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/13-628.html

In short the Federal Government has no problem with listing the city of birth as Jerusalem, but objects to stating the country is Israel. The reason is simple the US does NOT recognize Jerusalem as belonging to Israel and that has been the position of the US since the Administration of Truman.

[enlightenment]

18. Thank you!

I appreciate the link.

[shaayecanaan]

11. Because they want the passport to say "Jerusalem" not just

Western Jerusalem. Just "Jerusalem, Israel" implies that Israel is entitled to all of Jerusalem.

[Thor_MN]

13. That's a different pissing match

And only makes a difference if people born in East Jerusalem are allowed the same option. The birthplace is the State and country, not City and Country.

East Jerusalem is a problem that I don't have an answer for, but West Jerusalem is, to my knowledge, not disputed.

[shaayecanaan]

24. They're not allowed the same option

Israel was extremely aggressive in pressuring the US to refuse to reissue, and in some cases, even accept passports which bore the phrase "Jerusalem, Palestine". This resulted in a statement of position from the Johnson administration that the US would cease renewing or issuing passports that listed a person's birth as being in Palestine, despite the fact that that may have been an uncontroversial statement of fact at the time that the person was born:-

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/frus031464a.html

This is a simple double standard - the same people who would scream blue murder if an American passport listed a place of birth as "Palestine" are the same people who seem to think that they have a natural entitlement to have the US government recognise all of Jerusalem as belonging to Israel - despite the US government's own contrary position on the issue.

By way of background:-

Jerusalem was supposed to be a corpus separatem pursuant to the 1947 Partition Plan, belonging neither to the Israelis nor the Palestinians.

Israel annexed West Jerusalem, and the Jordanians East Jerusalem. Later Israel annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 war.

By and large, the international community did not recognise either Israeli, Palestinian or Jordanian claims to Jerusalem itself. Technically, the last statement of position of most of the international community on Jerusalem is that it remain a corpus separatem.

The United States is not about to allow Palestinians to list their birthplace as "Jerusalem, Palestine" or even "East Jerusalem, Palestine". The US, as explained above, will not allow an individual to list their place of birth as "Palestine" in any circumstance.

[happyslug]

15. Actually I have read the Briefs, no problems with Jerusalem, it is adding Israel.

See above

Here are the briefs in this case:

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/13-628.html

[shaayecanaan]

21. You don't follow...

"Jerusalem, Israel" implies that all of Jerusalem is in Israel.

[happyslug]

16. Under the US rule, Jerusalem was to be an open city

i.e. NOT part of Israel OR Palestine.

That same year, the United Nations General Assembly, with United States support, passed a resolution stating that Jerusalem “should be accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine.”

i.e. it is NOT part of Israel OR Palestine by UN Rule and the US must follow the UN rule on this issue for the US supported that rule.

[Thor_MN]

20. That's the first thing that has made sense in this for me.

In essence, the UN considers Jerusalem to be a separate country, so having just Jerusalem as the birthplace makes sense.

[branford]

22. The issue is separation of powers and the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress.

Stating the "US position," is not entirely accurate if Congress has certain powers.

It would be more accurate to state that the foreign policy of the US is that the final status of Jerusalem should be the subject of negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. Without the nuance, the court case would not be necessary. The current and recent foreign policy position of the US, however, is not that Jerusalem should be an open city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem

[sendero]

12. The fact....

..... that our supreme court would even bother to consider this ridiculous case is cold comfort for Americans seeking any sort of sincere guidance for the country.

Complete and utter bullshit.

[davidpdx]

19. True

It does seem like there are so many other pressing issues they could fuck up.

[freshwest]

25. I'm grateful they're confining their dumbfuckery to something that doesn't affect most of us. n/t

[branford]

23. What makes the case ridiculous?

The court will resolve a constitutional separation of powers dispute concerning the extent of Congress' ability to influence certain aspects of foreign policy. The fact that the background of the case involves Israel does not affect the strength or importance of either side's arguments, and any decisions will not concern the nature or wisdom of America's relationship with Israel, for good or ill.

The SC is also capable of deciding this case without neglecting other purportedly more important matters.

[sendero]

26. There are literally..

... hundreds of years of precedent here. No, there is no reason to revisit this bullshit at all.

[quadrature]

17. defund the State Department?

would seem to be the way out
of this dispute