Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

[Flopper]

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?

No, the child would not receive a Mexican birth certificate because the child was not born in Mexico.

Like most Latin-American countries, Mexican law recognizes both nationality and citizenship. To acquire Mexican citizenship, an individual must first be of Mexican nationality, be 18 years of age, and lead an honest way of life (i.e not a criminal). A child born outside of Mexico to at least one Mexican parent is of Mexican Nationality. When that child becomes 18, he or she will be recognized as a Mexican citizen if they have not been convicted a major crime. If born in the US, then the child will also be a US citizenship at birth and Mexican citizenship at age 18.

Do babies born to US citizens in Mexico receive Mexican citizenship? - Quora
Dual Nationality

 

[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.

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.

Exactly, control immigration and there will be no need to redefine citizenship. There have been 11, 623 constitutional amendments proposed in congress since 1789 and 29 of them have become part of the constitution. There're been thousands of cases in federal court seeking to change commonly accepted interpretations of the constitution and realty few have made it through the courts. The reason for this is that we don't change the constitution or our interpretation of it as a quick fix for problems that can resolved in other ways. In the case of immigration it is just a matter changing the law and/or enforcing the law.

 

[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.

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.

If congress passed a law setting aside birthright citizenship, either the Supreme Court would immediately intervene or wait for a case to work it's way through courts. Considering the gravity of the change, the Supreme Court would probably issue a court order to stop implementation of the law until the court reached a decision.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

there is no need for clarification. if you were born here, you are a citizen.

I think there is a need for clarification.

And any clarification that does not meet my approval does not count.

This is why we have a Constitution, including the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, to protect American citizens from this sort of ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate – including American citizens only a few days old.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Trump is the current candidate most likely to give Working CLass and Middle CLass dems a reason to cross party lines."

This is as ridiculous as it is delusional and wrong.

 

[Kondor3]

[

...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.

Such an important issue that you think changing the Constitution would be 'too much fuss'?

Almost no cases make it to the Supreme Court- there is virtually no way of ensuring that the Supreme Court would even consider the matter, let alone rule the way you hope for.

We will know more about this, shortly after January 20, 2017, quite possibly... time will tell.

 

[Kondor3]

...including American citizens only a few days old.

Yeah... we have to eat the Anchor Babies already here, but that doesn't mean we have to continue, ad infinitum.

Drag your sorry ass across our borders without our permission, pop out a puppy or two, and then you get to stay here?

Horseshit.

Time to close the loophole.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

Then it's time to overthrow the 14th, and craft a new one, that closes the loopholes for Illegal Aliens and their Anchor Babies, moving forward.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Then it's time to overthrow the 14th, and craft a new one, that closes the loopholes for Illegal Aliens and their Anchor Babies, moving forward.

I think very people have considered the ramification of eliminating birthright citizenship. Just eliminating birthright citizenship will have little if any impact on illegal immigration. It would however create a new class in America, stateless residents.

 

[Wildman]

...that's not the case.

This Is My Disagree Icon, Don't like it ?

 

[Wildman]

What you don't like is immaterial.

This Is My Disagree Icon, Don't like it ?

 

[Wildman]

...Working and Middle Class.

working and middle class want to know why, are you allowing two dogs to be pissing on a Yule/Christ Mass tree?????

 

[Wildman]

No, the child would not receive a Mexican birth certificate because the child was not born in Mexico.

no shit!!! THAT is Messykos law!!!

soooo..., you are agreeing with someone who disagrees with me..., pssssst! trust me, anyone who agrees with me are always, RIGHT!! and those who disagree with me are lefties/demorats/libertards and ilk.

ooooh!! BTW
This Is My Disagree Icon, Don't like it ?

 

[Wildman]

Writer of the article presents her conservative side decently.

"conservative"..., i missed that description, i kinda skipped around.

 

[Kondor3]

...I think very people have considered the ramification of eliminating birthright citizenship. Just eliminating birthright citizenship will have little if any impact on illegal immigration. It would however create a new class in America, stateless residents.

Closing the loophole will eliminate the incentive to sneak-in, for those who want to use the Anchor Baby defense against deportation; it puts a modest dent in the problem.

As to 'stateless' people, those kids will automatically be citizens of their parent(s) home country(ies), unless international conventions have changed in the last 24 hours.

Besides, (1) their parents should have thought of that before they snuck-in, and (2) the numbers will not be sufficient to create a 'class', statistically significant as such.

Closing the loophole on 'birthright citizenship' would spare us a future of endless waves of new Birth Tourists and other Anchor Baby producers, for that purpose.

Nobody likes to see a sucker wise-up... but it's time we did, in connection with this unintended loophole in the 14th, that Illegal Aliens are exploiting, to our disadvantage.

Closing the 'birthright citizenship' loophole will not, itself, fix our Illegal Aliens problem, but it will be a good start...

And an effective harbinger of changes-to-come, when coupled with a variety of changes in our laws which establish onerous legal conditions (housing, employment, services, ownership, the destruction of the sanctuary-city model, etc.) which make Illegal Aliens eager to return to their countries of origin as quickly as possible.

Nobody likes to see a sucker wise-up.

But there comes a time, when it becomes necessary, and appropriate.

 

[Correll]

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?

there is no need for clarification. if you were born here, you are a citizen.

I think there is a need for clarification.

And any clarification that does not meet my approval does not count.

This is why we have a Constitution, including the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, to protect American citizens from this sort of ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate – including American citizens only a few days old.

Shove it up you ass.

 

[Correll]

"Trump is the current candidate most likely to give Working CLass and Middle CLass dems a reason to cross party lines."

This is as ridiculous as it is delusional and wrong.

It is as reality based as it is right.

Do you think Free Trade is popular in the Rust Belt Cities? Or Open Borders?

 

[Correll]

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.

Then it's time to overthrow the 14th, and craft a new one, that closes the loopholes for Illegal Aliens and their Anchor Babies, moving forward.

I think very people have considered the ramification of eliminating birthright citizenship. Just eliminating birthright citizenship will have little if any impact on illegal immigration. It would however create a new class in America, stateless residents.

They will have the citizenship of their mothers.

 

[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?

there is no need for clarification. if you were born here, you are a citizen.

I think there is a need for clarification.

And any clarification that does not meet my approval does not count.

This is why we have a Constitution, including the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, to protect American citizens from this sort of ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate – including American citizens only a few days old.

Shove it up you ass.

Yup, get a clear and concise and correct answer, and you snarl like a feral far right reactionary in the corner,.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Then it's time to overthrow the 14th, and craft a new one, that closes the loopholes for Illegal Aliens and their Anchor Babies, moving forward.

I think very people have considered the ramification of eliminating birthright citizenship. Just eliminating birthright citizenship will have little if any impact on illegal immigration. It would however create a new class in America, stateless residents.

They will have the citizenship of their mothers.

That would be true if it happened, but birthright citizenship will remain.