Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

[Kondor3]

...birthright citizenship will remain.

The events of the next two to three years should give us that answer.

 

[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.

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

All he did was call me names, so I responded appropriately.

You libs are so narrow minded that you think accusing someone of "ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate" is a real answer, and then are shocked when those you insult, stand up and insult you back.

Libs, all the self awareness of a turnip.

 

[Correll]

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.

So, you agree the concern about a "new class of stateless residents" is incorrect. Good.

Listen doesn't the fact that they will have citizenship in other nations as a result of their mothers citizenship imply that they should NOT have US citizenship?

 

[jillian]

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,.

All he did was call me names, so I responded appropriately.

You libs are so narrow minded that you think accusing someone of "ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate" is a real answer, and then are shocked when those you insult, stand up and insult you back.

Libs, all the self awareness of a turnip.

no one called you names, idiots. he simply pointed out where you have zero understanding.

as for a lack of self-awareness... that's a rightwingnut trait. so stop projecting.

 

[Correll]

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,.

All he did was call me names, so I responded appropriately.

You libs are so narrow minded that you think accusing someone of "ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate" is a real answer, and then are shocked when those you insult, stand up and insult you back.

Libs, all the self awareness of a turnip.

no one called you names, idiots. he simply pointed out where you have zero understanding.

as for a lack of self-awareness... that's a rightwingnut trait. so stop projecting.

He called me a bigot and ignorant. He certainly did not address my point.

So I told him to shove it up his ass.

And no, you libs are the ones without self awareness.

 

[jillian]

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,.

All he did was call me names, so I responded appropriately.

You libs are so narrow minded that you think accusing someone of "ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate" is a real answer, and then are shocked when those you insult, stand up and insult you back.

Libs, all the self awareness of a turnip.

no one called you names, idiots. he simply pointed out where you have zero understanding.

as for a lack of self-awareness... that's a rightwingnut trait. so stop projecting.

He called me a bigot and ignorant. He certainly did not address my point.

So I told him to shove it up his ass.

And no, you libs are the ones without self awareness.

was what you said bigoted? perhaps you should ask why he said that.

in the post you responded to, he simply responded to you. your response was to tell him to "shove it up [his] ass".

why do you think calling people "libs" is respectful or deserves respect in return?

perhaps this response was what it was because it DOES sound ignorant.

you can try to actually engage. you don't i'd suggest that you are going to be treated accordingly

 

[Correll]

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,.

All he did was call me names, so I responded appropriately.

You libs are so narrow minded that you think accusing someone of "ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate" is a real answer, and then are shocked when those you insult, stand up and insult you back.

Libs, all the self awareness of a turnip.

no one called you names, idiots. he simply pointed out where you have zero understanding.

as for a lack of self-awareness... that's a rightwingnut trait. so stop projecting.

He called me a bigot and ignorant. He certainly did not address my point.

So I told him to shove it up his ass.

And no, you libs are the ones without self awareness.

was what you said bigoted? perhaps you should ask why he said that.

in the post you responded to, he simply responded to you. your response was to tell him to "shove it up [his] ass".

why do you think calling people "libs" is respectful or deserves respect in return?

perhaps this response was what it was because it DOES sound ignorant.

you can try to actually engage. you don't i'd suggest that you are going to be treated accordingly

My initial post was based on how I saw you libs get your way on Gay Marriage.

It worked, and it set the new rules that I am now prepared to play by.

No, what I said was not bigoted.

Yes, I do believe that calling a lib a lib is respectful. I often refer to myself as a con. Are you ashamed to be a lib?

He did not try to engage. He dismissed me and insulted me and I treated him accordingly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"All he did was call me names, so I responded appropriately."

No, you acted vulgarly. The words " ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate" do describe accurately how you portray yourself here.

You are far right, not mainstream, so you think everyone who disagrees with you is a "liberal."

That's because you are a far right reactionary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So, you agree the concern about a "new class of stateless residents" is incorrect. Good. Listen doesn't the fact that they will have citizenship in other nations as a result of their mothers citizenship imply that they should NOT have US citizenship?

Your second sentence assumes a conclusion that does not follow from the assertion.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Yeah... we have to eat the Anchor Babies already here, .

Kondor is proposing the Irish solution......

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That would be a completely Constitutional way to deal with the issue you are concerned with- presuming by 'overthrow' you mean a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

...birthright citizenship will remain.

The events of the next two to three years should give us that answer.

No Constitutional Amendment will be passed within the next 2 or 3 years.

Hell- I wouldn't put good money on Congress even passing immigration legislation.

 

[Flopper]

...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.

The anchor baby myth has been disproved time and again but still it lives.There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants come to the U.S. in large numbers just to give birth. The fact is over 85% of these so called "anchor babies" are born years after the mother enters the county.

Without birthright citizenship, the citizenship status of a child depends on the laws and/or citizenship of their parents. Children born of illegal Mexican parents are not Mexican citizens. They become eligible for citizenship only after they reached 18 and have no criminal record and able to prove lineage. Their children do not automatically become Mexican citizens and are stateless.

Further, repealing birthright citizenship would be incredibly unwise and unworkable, affecting everyone—not just immigrants. If birthright citizenship was eliminated, all American parents would have to establish the citizenship of their children, through often arduous, expensive, bureaucratic processes. The United States would likely have to create a national “birth registry,” and some sort of national ID to be used as proof of citizenship. Americans could be denied citizenship because of a mistake. If that mistake was not corrected then their children and their children would be stateless. Repealing birthright citizenship would increase the size of the undocumented population. It would be ridiculous to impact every single American just to punish a few individuals.

Ending Birthright Citizenship: (Still) Unconstitutional, Unwise, Unworkable, and Un-American

 

[Flopper]

...birthright citizenship will remain.

The events of the next two to three years should give us that answer.

No Constitutional Amendment will be passed within the next 2 or 3 years.

Hell- I wouldn't put good money on Congress even passing immigration legislation.

The 27th amendment which just addresses the starting date of wage changes for congressmen was proposed in 1789. Maryland was the first state to ratify it in 1789. Michigan was the last state to ratify it in 1992. It took 203 years for the 27 amendment to be ratified.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

Don't be a fucking idiot. He clearly stated that there is no effort to take citizenship away from anchor babies ex post facto, and undeniably distinguished that from changing the law in regards to future anchor babies.

 

[Flopper]

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

Don't be a fucking idiot. He clearly stated that there is no effort to take citizenship away from anchor babies ex post facto, and undeniably distinguished that from changing the law in regards to future anchor babies.

Without birthright citizenship, the requirement for US citizenship would revert to what it was prior to the 14th amendment which was being a citizen of any state. The problem of course is states require that a person must be a US citizen, and reside withing the state. So congress would have to define in either a constitutional amendment or in federal law who is a US citizen. If congress chose to define citizenship in federal law, the next congress could change it as it saw fit, thus making citizenship a political football subject to change at anytime. The only sensible solution would be a constitutional amendment to define citizenship.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Don't be a fucking idiot. He clearly stated that there is no effort to take citizenship away from anchor babies ex post facto, and undeniably distinguished that from changing the law in regards to future anchor babies.

Without birthright citizenship, the requirement for US citizenship would revert to what it was prior to the 14th amendment which was being a citizen of any state. The problem of course is states require that a person must be a US citizen, and reside withing the state. So congress would have to define in either a constitutional amendment or in federal law who is a US citizen. If congress chose to define citizenship in federal law, the next congress could change it as it saw fit, thus making citizenship a political football subject to change at anytime. The only sensible solution would be a constitutional amendment to define citizenship.

Well you don't really cancel an Amendment- you have to write a new Amendment to change what you don't like.

And I for one don't believe our current government could write and pass any Amendment- nobody could agree what it would say.

 

[Flopper]

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

Don't be a fucking idiot. He clearly stated that there is no effort to take citizenship away from anchor babies ex post facto, and undeniably distinguished that from changing the law in regards to future anchor babies.

Without birthright citizenship, the requirement for US citizenship would revert to what it was prior to the 14th amendment which was being a citizen of any state. The problem of course is states require that a person must be a US citizen, and reside withing the state. So congress would have to define in either a constitutional amendment or in federal law who is a US citizen. If congress chose to define citizenship in federal law, the next congress could change it as it saw fit, thus making citizenship a political football subject to change at anytime. The only sensible solution would be a constitutional amendment to define citizenship.

Well you don't really cancel an Amendment- you have to write a new Amendment to change what you don't like.

And I for one don't believe our current government could write and pass any Amendment- nobody could agree what it would say.

No, I didn't mean cancel the amendment. I'm saying if the court interpreted the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment to apply to only the children of freed slaves, then our citizenship laws would revert to what we had prior to the 14th amendment, that is the states definition of citizenship.

I agree, there will be no new amendment. The whole discussion is hypothetical. Republicans are just playing to the grandstand. For people who see the country as being in big trouble, they want big changes, such as constitutional amendments, suppression of 1st amendment rights, repealing civil rights legislation, abolishing governmental departments, the federal reserve, mass deportations, etc. etc.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Don't be a fucking idiot. He clearly stated that there is no effort to take citizenship away from anchor babies ex post facto, and undeniably distinguished that from changing the law in regards to future anchor babies.

Without birthright citizenship, the requirement for US citizenship would revert to what it was prior to the 14th amendment which was being a citizen of any state. The problem of course is states require that a person must be a US citizen, and reside withing the state. So congress would have to define in either a constitutional amendment or in federal law who is a US citizen. If congress chose to define citizenship in federal law, the next congress could change it as it saw fit, thus making citizenship a political football subject to change at anytime. The only sensible solution would be a constitutional amendment to define citizenship.

Well you don't really cancel an Amendment- you have to write a new Amendment to change what you don't like.

And I for one don't believe our current government could write and pass any Amendment- nobody could agree what it would say.

No, I didn't mean cancel the amendment. I'm saying if the court interpreted the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment to apply to only the children of freed slaves, then our citizenship laws would revert to what we had prior to the 14th amendment, that is the states definition of citizenship.

I agree, there will be no new amendment. The whole discussion is hypothetical. Republicans are just playing to the grandstand. For people who see that the country is in big trouble, they want big changes, such as constitutional amendments, suppression of 1st amendment rights, repealing civil rights legislation, abolishing governmental departments, the federal reserve, etc. etc.

Don't forget going back to the the Gold Standard!

 

[Jackson]

He is an alien, yes, from Canada.

Why is he running for president?