Birthright citizenship

[1032004]

Figured this deserved its own thread.

What do we think the Supreme Court will decide on this?

I’m not sure.

I’m no legal expert, but the  “BuT iT wAs OnLy InTeNdEd FoR sLaVeS!” argument doesn’t seem very credible to me, as the actual amendment says nothing about slaves and the way it is written is very broad:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
 

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 

However, the main case considered to set the precedent for this is probably where Trump has a better argument:  Wong Kim Ark.   People that think the overturning of birthright citizenship is going to go through seem to be hanging onto the fact that Ark’s parents were “permanently domiciled,” even if not citizens.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/

 

Any predictions?

[ionel]

12 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

 

Figured this deserved its own thread.

What do we think the Supreme Court will decide on this?

I’m not sure.

I’m no legal expert, but the  “BuT iT wAs OnLy InTeNdEd FoR sLaVeS!”
Any predictions?

Where,  when or who said "only?"

[Tripnsweep]

I'm curious because this could affect me since I wasn't born in this country. Hopefully sanity prevails and the supreme court realizes what kind of a mess it would create if they ruled against it. 

[1032004]

Just now, Tripnsweep said:

I'm curious because this could affect me since I wasn't born in this country. Hopefully sanity prevails and the supreme court realizes what kind of a mess it would create if they ruled against it. 

I mean I see zero chance they try to make it retroactive other than the February date in the EO, but I guess you never know 

Edited Saturday at 02:24 PM by 1032004

[Tripnsweep]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

I mean I see zero chance they try to make it retroactive other than the February date in the EO, but I guess you never know 

I've given up on expectations of rational behavior from the current vehicle house occupant and his minions. I'd have a mountain of paperwork to fill out and some explaining to do though. 

[1032004]

8 minutes ago, ionel said:

Where,  when or who said "only?"

Lol that seems awfully nitpicky.  Or does that mean you think it should apply to anyone then?

 

Edited Saturday at 02:29 PM by 1032004

[Scouts Honor]

58 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

I'm curious because this could affect me since I wasn't born in this country. Hopefully sanity prevails and the supreme court realizes what kind of a mess it would create if they ruled against it. 

how could birthright citizenship apply somehow to someone who wasn't

wait for it

BORN IN THIS COUNTRY? 

[Scouts Honor]

if you became a citizen later

then birthright citizenship doesn't apply...

[ionel]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Lol that seems awfully nitpicky.  Or does that mean you think it should apply to anyone then?

 

You put it in quotes so who said it?   Yes it applied to others after civil war believe including kids of those fighting in the war.

[1032004]

12 minutes ago, ionel said:

You put it in quotes so who said it?   Yes it applied to others after civil war believe including kids of those fighting in the war.

A pretty important guy said “in fact it was the same date, the exact same date the end of the civil war, it was meant for the babies of slaves, so clean and so obvious”

…is it your contention that the word “only” is not implied there?

But if we’re going to be that literal here, then you might want to take a look at the word “all” in the actual amendment…

[red viking]

Pretty clear he'll push the envelope as far as possible.  If he could get away w deporting anybody he wanted, he'd do that too. Just for burning a flag or protesting against him. 

 

[jross]

Be serious.  It would have a new date and not be retroactive.  

This could be a big win to reduce anchor babies.

[Offthemat]

52 minutes ago, red viking said:

Just for burning a flag or protesting against him. 

 

Exile to Sudan for flag burning?  Hmmm…

[Scouts Honor]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Pretty clear he'll push the envelope as far as possible.  If he could get away w deporting anybody he wanted, he'd do that too. Just for burning a flag or protesting against him. 

 

you could just self deport... you have thought about it

[fishbane]

2 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

how could birthright citizenship apply somehow to someone who wasn't

wait for it

BORN IN THIS COUNTRY? 

Not a difficult question.  All it would take is for one of the person's parents to be a US citizen at the time of the child's birth.  The child would be a US citizen by birthright.

[Scouts Honor]

of course.

but that's not what he is claiming to be afraid of

[Offthemat]

The logical resolution will be that children born of illegal aliens will not be given citizenship. 

[red viking]

Taking away citizenship for naturslized citizens. Makes me sick. 

[1032004]

27 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The logical resolution will be that children born of illegal aliens will not be given citizenship. 

Based on the wording of the 14th amendment, one could certainly argue that is in fact not the “logical resolution”

[Scouts Honor]

where does it say naturalized citizens will have their citizenship taken away.

it says BIRTHRIGHT

not naturalized...

[red viking]

1 minute ago, Scouts Honor said:

where does it say naturalized citizens will have their citizenship taken away.

it says BIRTHRIGHT

not naturalized...

https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/trump-citizenship-justice-department-denaturalization/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLWUiJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHvg6ygFRGxKq9tHEvhx6T1EKcZYhVlbXNyY5H309iesxIAHN8Qs4myRPJWbr_aem_ZtKev9SXG51PtSA3IMrCgA

[Offthemat]

9 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Based on the wording of the 14th amendment, one could certainly argue that is in fact not the “logical resolution”

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the wording that will determine the outcome. 

[Offthemat]

13 minutes ago, red viking said:

https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/trump-citizenship-justice-department-denaturalization/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLWUiJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHvg6ygFRGxKq9tHEvhx6T1EKcZYhVlbXNyY5H309iesxIAHN8Qs4myRPJWbr_aem_ZtKev9SXG51PtSA3IMrCgA

Yes, even naturalized citizens are subject to federal law. 

[Scouts Honor]

oh so basically only those who have demonstrated...

so nothing new.

[Caveira]

29 minutes ago, red viking said:

https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/trump-citizenship-justice-department-denaturalization/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLWUiJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHvg6ygFRGxKq9tHEvhx6T1EKcZYhVlbXNyY5H309iesxIAHN8Qs4myRPJWbr_aem_ZtKev9SXG51PtSA3IMrCgA

A link that long prolly has 36 viruses don’t click it.