Birthright citizenship

[TimHauck 2,871]

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/
 

@Engorgeous George in particular, any predictions?

 

[squistion 2,200]

Yeah, as I mentioned in another thread, Trump plans to deport all those with birthright citizenship and he won't stop there.

And I think the way thinks are going SCOTUS will probably back him on this in a 6-3 decision. 

[TimHauck 2,871]

7 minutes ago, squistion said:

Yeah, as I mentioned in another thread, Trump plans to deport all those with birthright citizenship and he won't stop there.

And I think the way thinks are going SCOTUS will probably back him on this in a 6-3 decision. 

There’s no way they’re going to apply it retroactively, that’s just silly.  So it’s dumb for people to bring up Barron Trump or whatever.  Honestly I’d bet if it does go into effect they’re going to push back the February 2025 date to whenever they rule on it.

[The Real timschochet 6,763]

I remain an optimist and think that the Court will reject Trump’s argument by a vote of 7-2. 

[squistion 2,200]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

There’s no way they’re going to apply it retroactively, that’s just silly.  So it’s dumb for people to bring up Barron Trump or whatever.  Honestly I’d bet if it does go into effect they’re going to push back the February 2025 date to whenever they rule on it.

They won't say they are applying it retroacively, it will be sold as a a reinterpretation of the Constitution, claiming that is what was the real intent when the 14th Amendment was passed.

[avoiding injuries 1,580]

“If they’re brown, flush’em down.”
- Clarence Thomas

[TimHauck 2,871]

17 minutes ago, squistion said:

They won't say they are applying it retroacively, it will be sold as a a reinterpretation of the Constitution, claiming that is what was the real intent when the 14th Amendment was passed.

He wouldn’t have put a date on the EO if that was the case 

[BrahmaBulls 763]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

Yeah, as I mentioned in another thread, Trump plans to deport all those with birthright citizenship and he won't stop there.

And I think the way thinks are going SCOTUS will probably back him on this in a 6-3 decision. 

If your parents were illegals, then revoke your citizenship.  It's about time to clean this mess up.  

[Strike 5,541]

It's going to be hard to overturn such a long established precedent.  However, they did it with roe v Wade so I'm hopeful they'll do the right thing here as well.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,348]

3 hours ago, TimHauck 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!” 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/
 

@Engorgeous George in particular, any predictions?

 

the key word is jurisdiction, it is my understanding if you are not here legally you are definitely not part of the jurisdiction, and if you are traveling as a tourist that should be void

its going to take someone born here raised in communist russia or china and coming back here and rising to the top politically to make people realize this isn't right. 

we see it already happening with the muslim dude, imagine if he was born here, libs are drooling over the thought of having a muslim socialist/communist in charge of things, almost like they don't see whats happening in Europe

and do we even know if we got 

the right Kim or the Wong Kim?

[TimHauck 2,871]

If Trump wins, what exactly is the proposal?  If either mom or dad is a citizen then baby is a citizen, correct?

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,102]

6 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

If Trump wins, what exactly is the proposal?  If either mom or dad is a citizen then baby is a citizen, correct?

I can tell you even in Canada if a couple is married and one is a citizen, they are NOT citizens until they go thru the process.

Somehow it's okay for Canada but not the US?  No f'n way.  If you're here illegally, out you go.  Now, I'm not against exceptions to keeping some of them here, but it would be case by case.  For example, if a spouse is serving in the Armed Forces then I'd be okay with that exception provided the non-citizen isn't a criminal and is in good standing.

[TimHauck 2,871]

3 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I can tell you even in Canada if a couple is married and one is a citizen, they are NOT citizens until they go thru the process.

Somehow it's okay for Canada but not the US?  No f'n way.  If you're here illegally, out you go.  Now, I'm not against exceptions to keeping some of them here, but it would be case by case.  For example, if a spouse is serving in the Armed Forces then I'd be okay with that exception provided the non-citizen isn't a criminal and is in good standing.

I thought we were trying to reduce the need for the legal system?  Doing this “case by case” would be silly IMO.  I think you have to make the kid a citizen if either parent is.  Reading the EO that’s what it sounds Iike to me, but it’s a little lawyer-speaky

 

[Strike 5,541]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I thought we were trying to reduce the need for the legal system?  Doing this “case by case” would be silly IMO.  I think you have to make the kid a citizen if either parent is.  Reading the EO that’s what it sounds Iike to me, but it’s a little lawyer-speaky

 

It doesn't matter.  The point is that if the Supreme Court rules correctly we would once again be in control of setting the rules.  As it is now almost anyone born here becomes a citizen which causes a lot of problems, much like unrestricted illegal immigration.  It would be nice to have a national conversation and set the rules.

[TimHauck 2,871]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

It doesn't matter.  The point is that if the Supreme Court rules correctly we would once again be in control of setting the rules.  As it is now almost anyone born here becomes a citizen which causes a lot of problems, much like unrestricted illegal immigration.  It would be nice to have a national conversation and set the rules.

“Correctly,” lol

[Gepetto 1,368]

They should be citizens. You're going to create problems if we have people born and raised here not granted citizenship. Eventually they're population will be huge and if they don't have rights it's going to lead to disparity, poverty, inequality, and maybe years down the road Civil War 2.

[seafoam1 3,023]

TimCrack lives for trolling. He has nothing else.

[BrahmaBulls 763]

Just now, seafoam1 said:

TimCrack lives for trolling. He has nothing else.

It's not even funny or entertaining.  He's dumber than a rock.

[seafoam1 3,023]

5 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

It's not even funny or entertaining.  He's dumber than a rock.

The liberals all just fill in for one another when one of them needs a nap. But they are all in sync to throw out stupidity and defend it until it's their turn to nap or until their mom's tell them it's dinner time. 

[TimHauck 2,871]

8 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

It's not even funny or entertaining.  He's dumber than a rock.

There’s @BrahmaBulls “ignoring” me again, lol.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,102]

56 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

They should be citizens. You're going to create problems if we have people born and raised here not granted citizenship. Eventually they're population will be huge and if they don't have rights it's going to lead to disparity, poverty, inequality, and maybe years down the road Civil War 2.

The left and Democrats have already started this in motion.  They want their illegal slaves and they would start a war over it - just like they did last time.