Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

[JakeStarkey]

Writer of the article presents her conservative side decently.

The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.

Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

 

[Correll]

"settled"? What is this "Settled" thing you speak of?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"settled"? What is this "Settled" thing you speak of?

Tell us why you don't think it is. Give examples, precedents, etc.

SCOTUS, if it takes the petition, will suggest to Congress if anything to grant citizenship to Samoans, imo.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.

Congress in the Bill Clinton administration had no power to make its taxes retroactive ex post facto either.

But they did it anyway.

BTW, who is proposing that birth right citizenship be taken away from those who already have it (i.e. anchor babies already born in the U.S. to illegal aliens)?

The only proposals I've heard, are to change this policy so that anchor babies born here from now on, don't get it in the first place.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.

Congress in the Bill Clinton administration had no power to make its taxes retroactive ex post facto either.

But they did it anyway.

BTW, who is proposing that birth right citizenship be taken away from those who already have it (i.e. anchor babies already born in the U.S. to illegal aliens)?

The only proposals I've heard, are to change this policy so that anchor babies born here from now on, don't get it in the first place.

Let Congress pass it, and see if SCOTUS rules it good.

 

[bendog]

The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.

Congress in the Bill Clinton administration had no power to make its taxes retroactive ex post facto either.

But they did it anyway.

BTW, who is proposing that birth right citizenship be taken away from those who already have it (i.e. anchor babies already born in the U.S. to illegal aliens)?

The only proposals I've heard, are to change this policy so that anchor babies born here from now on, don't get it in the first place.

Let Congress pass it, and see if SCOTUS rules it good.

It's even worse than that. It'd have to have 60plus in the Senate and a potus sign it to even get to the SCOTUS. I'm not in favor of birthright citizenship for children with both parents here illegally, but I'd be surprised to see it go away.

 

[bodecea]

Writer of the article presents her conservative side decently.

The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.

Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

Will they be deciding Cruz's citizenship?

 

[JakeStarkey]

He is an alien, yes, from Canada.

 

[Correll]

"settled"? What is this "Settled" thing you speak of?

Tell us why you don't think it is. Give examples, precedents, etc.

SCOTUS, if it takes the petition, will suggest to Congress if anything to grant citizenship to Samoans, imo.

I used to think Marriage was "Settled" and then I was informed that the meaning I had been using my whole life was a lie and that I was a bigot for using the word the way I it was in the dictionary.

Sooo, "settled" obviously means very little.

So, lets ignore that, and just do what we want.

 

[bendog]

Marriage was going to turn out the way it did sooner rather than later. I'm not sure about Kennedy, but I have a hard time envisioning John Roberts wanting his legacy to be changing how we've viewed citizenship for over 100 years. And, unless the Big Quack can somehow overcome the polls, Hillary will be making nominations.

 

[Syriusly]

Well you are correct about one thing- if Congress did pass a law specifically denying citizenship to children born in the United States to children born of illegal parents, it would probably force the Supreme Court to rule.

But they might punt on technical issues- I could see the Supreme Court avoiding the essential question by claiming that Congress only has Constitutional authority to determine naturalization laws- and since children born in the United States are not 'naturalized', the law would exceed Congressional authority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well you are correct about one thing- if Congress did pass a law specifically denying citizenship to children born in the United States to children born of illegal parents, it would probably force the Supreme Court to rule.

But they might punt on technical issues- I could see the Supreme Court avoiding the essential question by claiming that Congress only has Constitutional authority to determine naturalization laws- and since children born in the United States are not 'naturalized', the law would exceed Congressional authority.

That would be the Conservative position.

 

[bendog]

Well you are correct about one thing- if Congress did pass a law specifically denying citizenship to children born in the United States to children born of illegal parents, it would probably force the Supreme Court to rule.

But they might punt on technical issues- I could see the Supreme Court avoiding the essential question by claiming that Congress only has Constitutional authority to determine naturalization laws- and since children born in the United States are not 'naturalized', the law would exceed Congressional authority.

That would be the Conservative position.

That's not what they did in Kim Ark was it? I thought they came straight out and found a person born here, to citizens of a for govt who were legally here, working in the private sector, and with a permanent domicile ... is a citizen.

The waffle room, it seemed to me, was the "legally here."

 

[Syriusly]

Well you are correct about one thing- if Congress did pass a law specifically denying citizenship to children born in the United States to children born of illegal parents, it would probably force the Supreme Court to rule.

But they might punt on technical issues- I could see the Supreme Court avoiding the essential question by claiming that Congress only has Constitutional authority to determine naturalization laws- and since children born in the United States are not 'naturalized', the law would exceed Congressional authority.

That would be the Conservative position.

That's not what they did in Kim Ark was it? I thought they came straight out and found a person born here, to citizens of a for govt who were legally here, working in the private sector, and with a permanent domicile ... is a citizen.

The waffle room, it seemed to me, was the "legally here."

Sort of- but you also have to look at Plyler v. Doe.

And there is another ruling where the Supreme Court just casually mentions as part of its reasoning that a child born in the United States to illegal parents is a citizen- essentially like "of course".

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS would not consider Plyler worth much, I think.

 

[rdean]

The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.

Congress in the Bill Clinton administration had no power to make its taxes retroactive ex post facto either.

But they did it anyway.

BTW, who is proposing that birth right citizenship be taken away from those who already have it (i.e. anchor babies already born in the U.S. to illegal aliens)?

The only proposals I've heard, are to change this policy so that anchor babies born here from now on, don't get it in the first place.

Don't be a fucking idiot.

GOP recommends taking away citizenship from anchor babies - Google Search

 

[Correll]

Marriage was going to turn out the way it did sooner rather than later. I'm not sure about Kennedy, but I have a hard time envisioning John Roberts wanting his legacy to be changing how we've viewed citizenship for over 100 years. And, unless the Big Quack can somehow overcome the polls, Hillary will be making nominations.

POlls aren't that bad. And Trump hasn't been address Hillary so much as his rivals in the Party.

 

[Syriusly]

SCOTUS would not consider Plyler worth much, I think.

The logic behind Plyler is what the Supreme Court would consider- and certainly they would have to address Plyler.

 

[Correll]

SCOTUS would not consider Plyler worth much, I think.

The logic behind Plyler is what the Supreme Court would consider- and certainly they would have to address Plyler.

NOt the dem appointees.

And if they can get Kennedy to flip...

TaH-DA, GAME OVER!

 

[bendog]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216