Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

[Syriusly]

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.

If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?

If he gets caught he is subject to the law. If he gets away, then he is not.

AS things stand right now, illegals are not caught.

Scores of thousands of illegals are in prison.

200,000 plus were deported.

Just shut up if you can't be honest.

OUt of well over ten million here.

Not subject.

And, no, I won't be shutting up anytime soon.

Well lets see- who to believe- you- who proclaim your opinion to be correct- or the U.S. Supreme Court.......hmmmmm tough call....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is a good representation of Trump with the far rat conservatives.

 

[Flopper]

...Further, a change in requirement for citizenship which is spelled out in the constitution and has stood the test of time for a 150 years is not going to be reversed by the court because congress and the administration can't come to terms on immigration enforcement...

All it takes is a case with sufficient standing and merit to be heard, and a sympathetic bench, yes?

Regardless of the case, the court is not going to render a verdict which they feel would change the constitution, taking away citizenship from millions of Americans, born and unborn. That power rest with the Congress and the American people.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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?

I'm sure they will give Obama a green light on his citizenship status.

 

[bendog]

...Further, a change in requirement for citizenship which is spelled out in the constitution and has stood the test of time for a 150 years is not going to be reversed by the court because congress and the administration can't come to terms on immigration enforcement...

All it takes is a case with sufficient standing and merit to be heard, and a sympathetic bench, yes?

Regardless of the case, the court is not going to render a verdict which they feel would change the constitution, taking away citizenship from millions of Americans, born and unborn. That power rest with the Congress and the American people.

That's sort of my thinking. I don't see how congress could take away citizenship from some kid already considered a citizen. So, at best, what the folks complaining can hope for is some weird two tier thing, where people born after x date are different from those born before the date.

I went through this unpleasantness with Dante, but the 14th was primarily aimed at preventing the South from ever imposing slavehood again on anyone. For the seceding states to get back the ability to send senators and reps to congress, they had to ratify. And any person born here, was a citizen, and therefore could never be a slave. At the end of reconstruction, all that damn war accomplished was to establish states could not secede and we couldn't get our slaves back (-:

So, while I'm not sold on birthright citizenship for kids born to parents who both are illegally here, the whole argument is not worth the effort. It'd be easier, and imo more effective, to just make it very difficult for illegal aliens to find work and housing. Require all new employees and renters/buyer prove citizenship or legal status. Police the border, much like Obama is doing, to catch people as they come in, and re-route em. Maybe give the males 30 days on a chain gang before dropping the off in Juarez or someplace.

 

[Syriusly]

[
So, while I'm not sold on birthright citizenship for kids born to parents who both are illegally here, the whole argument is not worth the effort. It'd be easier, and imo more effective, to just make it very difficult for illegal aliens to find work and housing. Require all new employees and renters/buyer prove citizenship or legal status. Police the border, much like Obama is doing, to catch people as they come in, and re-route em. Maybe give the males 30 days on a chain gang before dropping the off in Juarez or someplace.

On a related note- make Birth tourism illegal.

 

[Flopper]

...Well hoping that the Supreme Court will change its mind and rule how you want it to- is not exactly working for change...

Never said it was.

...And what you call 'Anchor Babies' are as of today- exactly as much American Citizens as you and I are...

True. Already conceded. But there are ways of fixing that unintended and frequently exploited loophole in the 14th, moving forward.

...You don't like that- well push for changing the Constitution.

Too much fuss. Far easier to have SCOTUS revisit the matter; relegating a new Amendment to the 'fall-back' position in the matter.

Too Much Fuss?
The framers of the constitution purposely made it difficult to change for good reason. They believed a Constitution should endure - what Chief Justice Marshall would later call a Constitution "for the ages" - and thus they did not want it changed for light or transient reasons. The disagreement over immigration is a perfect example. We don't need to change the constitution to solve the immigration problem. We just need our elected officials to create just and enforceable immigration law and enforce them.

Why is the Constitution so hard to change?

 

[Skylar]

...Further, a change in requirement for citizenship which is spelled out in the constitution and has stood the test of time for a 150 years is not going to be reversed by the court because congress and the administration can't come to terms on immigration enforcement...

All it takes is a case with sufficient standing and merit to be heard, and a sympathetic bench, yes?

Regardless of the case, the court is not going to render a verdict which they feel would change the constitution, taking away citizenship from millions of Americans, born and unborn. That power rest with the Congress and the American people.

If congress passed a law denying birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants......the court would probably take it up. And I'm not sure how they would rule. If they go with precedent, maybe not. If they go with the 14th as its written, probably.

 

[Skylar]

...Well hoping that the Supreme Court will change its mind and rule how you want it to- is not exactly working for change...

Never said it was.

...And what you call 'Anchor Babies' are as of today- exactly as much American Citizens as you and I are...

True. Already conceded. But there are ways of fixing that unintended and frequently exploited loophole in the 14th, moving forward.

...You don't like that- well push for changing the Constitution.

Too much fuss. Far easier to have SCOTUS revisit the matter; relegating a new Amendment to the 'fall-back' position in the matter.

Too Much Fuss?
The framers of the constitution purposely made it difficult to change for good reason. They believed a Constitution should endure - what Chief Justice Marshall would later call a Constitution "for the ages" - and thus they did not want it changed for light or transient reasons. The disagreement over immigration is a perfect example. We don't need to change the constitution to solve the immigration problem. We just need our elected officials to create just and enforceable immigration law and enforce them.

Why is the Constitution so hard to change?

The constitution is so hard to change because amendments are the ultimate power under the constitution. They can do.....anything. There are literally no restrictions. You'd have to go outside the constitution to counter them.

 

[bendog]

[
So, while I'm not sold on birthright citizenship for kids born to parents who both are illegally here, the whole argument is not worth the effort. It'd be easier, and imo more effective, to just make it very difficult for illegal aliens to find work and housing. Require all new employees and renters/buyer prove citizenship or legal status. Police the border, much like Obama is doing, to catch people as they come in, and re-route em. Maybe give the males 30 days on a chain gang before dropping the off in Juarez or someplace.

On a related note- make Birth tourism illegal.

That is probably very doable. As I recall Ark Wong noted the parents were domiciled in the US

"That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

 

[Skylar]

[
So, while I'm not sold on birthright citizenship for kids born to parents who both are illegally here, the whole argument is not worth the effort. It'd be easier, and imo more effective, to just make it very difficult for illegal aliens to find work and housing. Require all new employees and renters/buyer prove citizenship or legal status. Police the border, much like Obama is doing, to catch people as they come in, and re-route em. Maybe give the males 30 days on a chain gang before dropping the off in Juarez or someplace.

On a related note- make Birth tourism illegal.

That is probably very doable. As I recall Ark Wong noted the parents were domiciled in the US

"That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

If the parents are granted permission to be here, Wong Kim Ark pretty much shuts the door on preventing their kids from having citizenship.

But if they're not? Wong Kim Ark seems to strongly link the concept of 'domicile' with being permitted to be in the US legally. Wong Kim Ark doesn't explicitly exclude those born to parents without domicile. But the case would be harder to cite for parents without permission.

 

[Syriusly]

...Further, a change in requirement for citizenship which is spelled out in the constitution and has stood the test of time for a 150 years is not going to be reversed by the court because congress and the administration can't come to terms on immigration enforcement...

All it takes is a case with sufficient standing and merit to be heard, and a sympathetic bench, yes?

Regardless of the case, the court is not going to render a verdict which they feel would change the constitution, taking away citizenship from millions of Americans, born and unborn. That power rest with the Congress and the American people.

If congress passed a law denying birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants......the court would probably take it up. And I'm not sure how they would rule. If they go with precedent, maybe not. If they go with the 14th as its written, probably.

Maybe- or maybe not.

A lower court could overturn the law, appeals court agree, and the Supreme Court could refuse to take the case- because if you read the Supreme Court rulings I don't think they believe there is any legal controversy.

 

[Syriusly]

[
So, while I'm not sold on birthright citizenship for kids born to parents who both are illegally here, the whole argument is not worth the effort. It'd be easier, and imo more effective, to just make it very difficult for illegal aliens to find work and housing. Require all new employees and renters/buyer prove citizenship or legal status. Police the border, much like Obama is doing, to catch people as they come in, and re-route em. Maybe give the males 30 days on a chain gang before dropping the off in Juarez or someplace.

On a related note- make Birth tourism illegal.

That is probably very doable. As I recall Ark Wong noted the parents were domiciled in the US

"That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

If the parents are granted permission to be here, Wong Kim Ark pretty much shuts the door on preventing their kids from having citizenship.

But if they're not? Wong Kim Ark seems to strongly link the concept of 'domicile' with being permitted to be in the US legally. Wong Kim Ark doesn't explicitly exclude those born to parents without domicile. But the case would be harder to cite for parents without permission.

For that issue you also need to read Plyler v. Doe.

Wong Kim Ark hinges on 'within the jurisdiction of'- and Plyler v. Doe addresses jurisdiction.

And once there is agreement that a person born in the United States is born within- or subject- to the jurisdiction of the United States- the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear.

 

[Skylar]

...Further, a change in requirement for citizenship which is spelled out in the constitution and has stood the test of time for a 150 years is not going to be reversed by the court because congress and the administration can't come to terms on immigration enforcement...

All it takes is a case with sufficient standing and merit to be heard, and a sympathetic bench, yes?

Regardless of the case, the court is not going to render a verdict which they feel would change the constitution, taking away citizenship from millions of Americans, born and unborn. That power rest with the Congress and the American people.

If congress passed a law denying birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants......the court would probably take it up. And I'm not sure how they would rule. If they go with precedent, maybe not. If they go with the 14th as its written, probably.

Maybe- or maybe not.

A lower court could overturn the law, appeals court agree, and the Supreme Court could refuse to take the case- because if you read the Supreme Court rulings I don't think they believe there is any legal controversy.

Plyer doesn't speak to citizenship. And Wong Kim Ark speaks to citizenship with parental domicile.

Neither nix the idea of birthright citizenship to illegals. But neither support it. I would argue that a reasonable reading of the 14th would include birthright citizenship to illegals. As regardless of parentage, if you're born to humans....you're a person.

 

[Skylar]

[
So, while I'm not sold on birthright citizenship for kids born to parents who both are illegally here, the whole argument is not worth the effort. It'd be easier, and imo more effective, to just make it very difficult for illegal aliens to find work and housing. Require all new employees and renters/buyer prove citizenship or legal status. Police the border, much like Obama is doing, to catch people as they come in, and re-route em. Maybe give the males 30 days on a chain gang before dropping the off in Juarez or someplace.

On a related note- make Birth tourism illegal.

That is probably very doable. As I recall Ark Wong noted the parents were domiciled in the US

"That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

If the parents are granted permission to be here, Wong Kim Ark pretty much shuts the door on preventing their kids from having citizenship.

But if they're not? Wong Kim Ark seems to strongly link the concept of 'domicile' with being permitted to be in the US legally. Wong Kim Ark doesn't explicitly exclude those born to parents without domicile. But the case would be harder to cite for parents without permission.

For that issue you also need to read Plyler v. Doe.

Wong Kim Ark hinges on 'within the jurisdiction of'- and Plyler v. Doe addresses jurisdiction.

Not for citizenship. But instead, for educational access. Even if the child wasn't born in the US or have any credible claim to US citizenship.

And once there is agreement that a person born in the United States is born within- or subject- to the jurisdiction of the United States- the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear.

In that I agree. And the language of Plyer may support such an interpretation. Though Plyer spoke to rights under the equal protection clause. Not citizenship. As their ruling applied equally to illegal immigrant children that had no citizenship nor claim to it.

 

[Syriusly]

...Further, a change in requirement for citizenship which is spelled out in the constitution and has stood the test of time for a 150 years is not going to be reversed by the court because congress and the administration can't come to terms on immigration enforcement...

All it takes is a case with sufficient standing and merit to be heard, and a sympathetic bench, yes?

Regardless of the case, the court is not going to render a verdict which they feel would change the constitution, taking away citizenship from millions of Americans, born and unborn. That power rest with the Congress and the American people.

If congress passed a law denying birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants......the court would probably take it up. And I'm not sure how they would rule. If they go with precedent, maybe not. If they go with the 14th as its written, probably.

Maybe- or maybe not.

A lower court could overturn the law, appeals court agree, and the Supreme Court could refuse to take the case- because if you read the Supreme Court rulings I don't think they believe there is any legal controversy.

Plyer doesn't speak to citizenship. And Wong Kim Ark speaks to citizenship with parental domicile.

Neither nix the idea of birthright citizenship to illegals. But neither support it. I would argue that a reasonable reading of the 14th would include birthright citizenship to illegals. As regardless of parentage, if you're born to humans....you're a person.

We have no essential disagreement- but I will point out again- it doesn't matter whether Plyler is about citizenship- it is about who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- Plyler says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction and are covered by the 14th Amendment equal protection clause- and the court will not accept an argument that the term 'jurisdiction' means something different in the second half of the14th Amendment than it does in the first half.

 

[Skylar]

All it takes is a case with sufficient standing and merit to be heard, and a sympathetic bench, yes?

Regardless of the case, the court is not going to render a verdict which they feel would change the constitution, taking away citizenship from millions of Americans, born and unborn. That power rest with the Congress and the American people.

If congress passed a law denying birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants......the court would probably take it up. And I'm not sure how they would rule. If they go with precedent, maybe not. If they go with the 14th as its written, probably.

Maybe- or maybe not.

A lower court could overturn the law, appeals court agree, and the Supreme Court could refuse to take the case- because if you read the Supreme Court rulings I don't think they believe there is any legal controversy.

Plyer doesn't speak to citizenship. And Wong Kim Ark speaks to citizenship with parental domicile.

Neither nix the idea of birthright citizenship to illegals. But neither support it. I would argue that a reasonable reading of the 14th would include birthright citizenship to illegals. As regardless of parentage, if you're born to humans....you're a person.

We have no essential disagreement- but I will point out again- it doesn't matter whether Plyler is about citizenship- it is about who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- Plyler says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction and are covered by the 14th Amendment equal protection clause- and the court will not accept an argument that the term 'jurisdiction' means something different in the second half of the14th Amendment than it does in the first half.

I agree. Plyer was a slam dunk on jurisdiction. Even dissenting opinions acknowledged this fact. And it would be a very short step to citizenship under the 14th.

My point is more one of nuance, as I think many are citing the wrong cases for the wrong reasons. Wong doesn't work for illegals well, due to its emphasis on domicile and permission to be in the US. And while Plyer makes a very strong jurisdictional argument, it doesn't even mention citizenship. Let alone resolve the issue of birth right citizenship to the children of illegals.

However........we agree completely on the likely outcome of any case the USSC would year on the issue. With the 14th amendment clear as a bell. And Plyer obliterating any jurisdictional arguments against birthright citizenship.

 

[bendog]

...Further, a change in requirement for citizenship which is spelled out in the constitution and has stood the test of time for a 150 years is not going to be reversed by the court because congress and the administration can't come to terms on immigration enforcement...

All it takes is a case with sufficient standing and merit to be heard, and a sympathetic bench, yes?

Regardless of the case, the court is not going to render a verdict which they feel would change the constitution, taking away citizenship from millions of Americans, born and unborn. That power rest with the Congress and the American people.

If congress passed a law denying birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants......the court would probably take it up. And I'm not sure how they would rule. If they go with precedent, maybe not. If they go with the 14th as its written, probably.

Maybe- or maybe not.

A lower court could overturn the law, appeals court agree, and the Supreme Court could refuse to take the case- because if you read the Supreme Court rulings I don't think they believe there is any legal controversy.

Plyer doesn't speak to citizenship. And Wong Kim Ark speaks to citizenship with parental domicile.

Neither nix the idea of birthright citizenship to illegals. But neither support it. I would argue that a reasonable reading of the 14th would include birthright citizenship to illegals. As regardless of parentage, if you're born to humans....you're a person.

And I believe there is some legislative history to support birthright citizenship, even if a mother is here illegally. But, as you said Wong Kim Ark goes out of the way to discuss how the parents were legally here, working in private commerce and not an employee of China, and domiciled here (not transients). And, the Chinese exclusion act made any attempt to permanently immigrate here and obtain citizenship impossible. So, unless the Court did not want to avoid approving birthright citizenship, I think one has to consider why it went out of the way to show the parents were legal residents. But, again, the danger of asking the Scotus to decide birthright citizenship is obvious ... be careful what you ask for. LOL

 

[Skylar]

All it takes is a case with sufficient standing and merit to be heard, and a sympathetic bench, yes?

Regardless of the case, the court is not going to render a verdict which they feel would change the constitution, taking away citizenship from millions of Americans, born and unborn. That power rest with the Congress and the American people.

If congress passed a law denying birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants......the court would probably take it up. And I'm not sure how they would rule. If they go with precedent, maybe not. If they go with the 14th as its written, probably.

Maybe- or maybe not.

A lower court could overturn the law, appeals court agree, and the Supreme Court could refuse to take the case- because if you read the Supreme Court rulings I don't think they believe there is any legal controversy.

Plyer doesn't speak to citizenship. And Wong Kim Ark speaks to citizenship with parental domicile.

Neither nix the idea of birthright citizenship to illegals. But neither support it. I would argue that a reasonable reading of the 14th would include birthright citizenship to illegals. As regardless of parentage, if you're born to humans....you're a person.

And I believe there is some legislative history to support birthright citizenship, even if a mother is here illegally. But, as you said Wong Kim Ark goes out of the way to discuss how the parents were legally here, working in private commerce and not an employee of China, and domiciled here (not transients). And, the Chinese exclusion act made any attempt to permanently immigrate here and obtain citizenship impossible. So, unless the Court did not want to avoid approving birthright citizenship, I think one has to consider why it went out of the way to show the parents were legal residents.

While the court would likely address Wong as a source for establishing birthright citizenship for the children of legal residents, it would probably be used as historic context rather than the basis of any ruling on birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

The 14th amendment does that well enough.

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.

There's no way around that in Wong. With Plyer v. Doe toasting any jurisdictional argument.

So what credible argument could be used to deny birthright citizenship when the 14th is so clear?

But, again, the danger of asking the Scotus to decide birthright citizenship is obvious ... be careful what you ask for. LOL

I'm happy the way the situation is. I only think the court would address the issue if Congress moved against birthright citizenship for illegals. And Congress would likely lose.

 

[jillian]

Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children...

if the parents are illegals, so are the fucking kids!!!!

no, nutter. that's not the case. that is your wishful thinking.

If the mommy goes back to Mexico and tells them the kid was born while she was out of the country and would like a Mexican Birth Certificate, do you think they will give her one?

Who cares? And it has nothing to do with the OP. What you don't like is immaterial. It does not matter.

I care. It has plenty to do with the OP with regards to whether the child is considered the citizens of this nation or some other.

What I like is completely material if enough other people agree, and repealing Birthright Citizenship is fairly popular.

And could become more so, if the change viewpoint gets a strong voice, like Trump, to be heard over the din of the Lib Media.

it is always popular to be one of the torch and pitchfork types. that's why rational people have to stop you.

so no, your desire to discriminate really isn't all that important.

your "strong voice" is no different than the "strong voices" that created the HUAC or the lynchings in the south or jim crow or interning American citizens who happened to have Japanese ancestors

so your "strong voice" concept has been ignorant and misguided in the past and is this time, too....

that's how hitler succeeded