Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

[Flopper]

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!

Thanks for reminding me. I forgot returning to goal standard as well as abolishing the federal income tax.

 

[Jackson]

What's the goal standard?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The goal standard is the make fun of the far right idjits for not making their goals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since you are far right reactionaries and far left tardos have no idea about gold, learn up.

 

[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.

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.

More likely, someone would file for an injunction in the lower federal courts and the injunction would be granted. It would then wind its way through the court system. If no circuit upheld the law, the Supreme Court wouldn't bother to intervene. As they didn't in the case of gay marriage until the 6th circuit stepped on their own dick.

 

[Skylar]

...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.

You'd likely need an amendment to close that 'loophole'. As the 'loophole' is the wording of the 14th amendment.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yeah, that's not likely to happen. Amendments are ridiculously difficult to pass. Especially controversial ones.

 

[JakeStarkey]

...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.

More likely, someone would file for an injunction in the lower federal courts and the injunction would be granted. It would then wind its way through the court system. If no circuit upheld the law, the Supreme Court wouldn't bother to intervene. As they didn't in the case of gay marriage until the 6th circuit stepped on their own dick.

A person in the Utah AG's office told me exactly that, that the "6th stepped on its collective dick, and that is what Kagan was waiting for. It's all over now."

 

[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.

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.

More likely, someone would file for an injunction in the lower federal courts and the injunction would be granted. It would then wind its way through the court system. If no circuit upheld the law, the Supreme Court wouldn't bother to intervene. As they didn't in the case of gay marriage until the 6th circuit stepped on their own dick.

A person in the Utah AG's office told me exactly that, that the "6th stepped on its collective dick, and that is what Kagan was waiting for. It's all over now."

Laughing....it was a pretty piss poor reading of the Windsor decision. Like awkwardly bad.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

More likely, someone would file for an injunction in the lower federal courts and the injunction would be granted. It would then wind its way through the court system. If no circuit upheld the law, the Supreme Court wouldn't bother to intervene. As they didn't in the case of gay marriage until the 6th circuit stepped on their own dick.

A person in the Utah AG's office told me exactly that, that the "6th stepped on its collective dick, and that is what Kagan was waiting for. It's all over now."

Laughing....it was a pretty piss poor reading of the Windsor decision. Like awkwardly bad.

But, but . . . Silhouette said that it would lead to the end of LGBT marriage!

 

[Skylar]

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.

More likely, someone would file for an injunction in the lower federal courts and the injunction would be granted. It would then wind its way through the court system. If no circuit upheld the law, the Supreme Court wouldn't bother to intervene. As they didn't in the case of gay marriage until the 6th circuit stepped on their own dick.

A person in the Utah AG's office told me exactly that, that the "6th stepped on its collective dick, and that is what Kagan was waiting for. It's all over now."

Laughing....it was a pretty piss poor reading of the Windsor decision. Like awkwardly bad.

But, but . . . Silhouette said that it would lead to the end of LGBT marriage!

Sil couldn't find her ass with two hands and a flash light.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

More likely, someone would file for an injunction in the lower federal courts and the injunction would be granted. It would then wind its way through the court system. If no circuit upheld the law, the Supreme Court wouldn't bother to intervene. As they didn't in the case of gay marriage until the 6th circuit stepped on their own dick.

A person in the Utah AG's office told me exactly that, that the "6th stepped on its collective dick, and that is what Kagan was waiting for. It's all over now."

Laughing....it was a pretty piss poor reading of the Windsor decision. Like awkwardly bad.

But, but . . . Silhouette said that it would lead to the end of LGBT marriage!

Sil couldn't find her ass with two hands and a flash light.

As the little girl says, "indeed!", in the insurance commercial.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Not quite...

The Constitution would have to be amended to repeal the 14th Amendment, which would be the 28th 'amendment,' and the Constitution amended again with the 29th 'amendment' to 'replace' the 14th Amendment, if so desired.

And as already correctly noted: the notion of 'repealing' the 14th Amendment is idiocy; also idiotic is the notion that the 14th Amendment concerned solely the citizenship status of freedmen.

 

[Kondor3]

...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.

I was referring to a revisiting of the issue via SCOTUS...

 

[Correll]

"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.

There is nothing "ignorant or hateful or bigoted" about wanting to end the bad policy of BirthRight Citizenship.

His assumed that no reasonable person could reasonable disagree with him and thus, insulted me.

And I responded appropriately.

You call some one an ignorant bigot, don't be surprised if the tone of the discussion gets a little ugly.

You prefer to keep it clean? Then don't be an ass.

 

[Kondor3]

...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...

Great. Then you won't mind if we close the loophole, given that we're just throwing time and energy at a myth.

...The fact is over 85% of these so called "anchor babies" are born years after the mother enters the county...

If they are born at any point in time between the moment of entry and the parents' acquisition of legal residency status, then that child is an Anchor Baby. Elapsed time has nothing to do with it.

...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...

Not our problem.

Their parents should have thought of that before setting foot upon United States soil.

...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...

Once we establish conditions by which Drivers Licenses, State ID Cards, Voter Registration Cards, etc., can only be issued to citizens and legal residents...

Everybody is going to have to go through a one-time proof-of-citizenship effort, which a lot of folks already do, to obtain a passport, take a government job, etc...

Hell, we can even set up a Documentation Assistance Bureau designed to help disabled, immobile and low-income folks to complete the process, at no personal charge.

All that shit is detail that we can bat clean-up on when the time comes.

...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...

State-level processing will do just fine, once national standards are established - to facilitate uniformity and authenticity and validation, while leaving control in local hands.

... 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...

No ex poste facto.

Plenty of supplemental means for providing proof and plenty of appellate and other processes as safeguards to fail-safe against such mistakes.

Minimal impact.

And, if it isolates and identifies 11-12 million Invaders, and sets things into motion so that future waves of untold millions can no longer try to pull the same shit...

It will be worth the effort, to bring our own credentialing processes and statute into the 21st Century, and to beat back the next wave of Invaders, and the next, and the next...

 

[Skylar]

...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.

I was referring to a revisiting of the issue via SCOTUS...

I hear you. And the constitution is ridiculously clear on the matter:

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

With the court finding, definitively, that the children of illegals are 'persons' per the 14th amendment and under the jurisdiction of US law in the Plyer v. Doe decision.

Without a constitutional amendment, I can't see how the USSC would do anything but affirm the status quo.

 

[Correll]

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.

You agreed that they would receive citizenship from their mothers. That is all I "assumed" in the second sentence.

Then I asked you a question about the implication of that, ie doesn't that imply that they should NOT have US citizenship?

 

[Correll]

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

Not quite...

The Constitution would have to be amended to repeal the 14th Amendment, which would be the 28th 'amendment,' and the Constitution amended again with the 29th 'amendment' to 'replace' the 14th Amendment, if so desired.

And as already correctly noted: the notion of 'repealing' the 14th Amendment is idiocy; also idiotic is the notion that the 14th Amendment concerned solely the citizenship status of freedmen.

It's cool the way you state that so confidently, like you expect that to be the basis of law.


I'm going to try that too.


We don't need to amend or repeal anything. We just need an executive order from President Trump stating that children born to citizens of foreign nationals here against our democratically enacted laws are NOT subject to our laws (or they would not be here) and thus are not Americans, but citizens of their mothers nation.

It is IDIOTIC that anyone would think otherwise than I.


(I'm not naturally as pompous as, err, some people, so I used more caps. How did I do?

 

[Correll]

...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.

I was referring to a revisiting of the issue via SCOTUS...

I hear you. And the constitution is ridiculously clear on the matter:

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

With the court finding, definitively, that the children of illegals are 'persons' per the 14th amendment and under the jurisdiction of US law in the Plyer v. Doe decision.

Without a constitutional amendment, I can't see how the USSC would do anything but affirm the status quo.

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The Court found that where states limit the rights afforded to people (specifically children) based on their status as immigrants, this limitation must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a "substantial" state interest."

People, not citizens, and Lord knows the US government has a "Substantial" interest in this matter.