Birthright Citizenship is Teed Up Again

[Mac-7]

You can't change the interpretation of the 14th amendment regardless of how many may want to.

The interoperation is merely the opinion of 5 people

Of course it can be changed

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Since the original Founders mostly came from Europe, it likely referred to immigrants as well.
It was not until we started kicking out the Chinese who build the western half of the Transcontinental Railway, that we started caring about immigration status.

no
Birth Right citizenship was for freed slaves, not illegal aliens

 

[Rawley]

But even if the past SCOTUS was wrong in their interpretation of the 14th amendment, the current SCOTUS legally can not change the interpretation.
Law that has been accepted can not be changed except through a new amendment process.

Like Roe v Wade cannot be changed? Plessy v Ferguson?

 

[Mac-7]

There's no such thing as an "anchor baby."

Do you think the feds can deport American citizens?

They cant, you know

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

President-elect Donald Trump has announced a day-one policy to end birth citizenship. Currently, under U.S. law, a person is granted U.S. citizenship if they’re born in the country. Trump argues this creates an incentive for illegal immigration, or for a woman to simply travel to the United States from another country when she is pregnant. And if the child is born on American soil, then it opens the door to various social benefits and chain migration. [Not my words].

The operative words in the 14th Amendment are:

"...All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

(1) The quoted text is ambiguous. Anyone claiming that it is "clear" or "unambiguous" is simply lying.

(2) The political Left has always maintained the position that the section is rightly understood by ignoring the italicized words above. There is no legitimate principle of document interpretation that suggests ignoring substantive words or clauses to get the true meaning.

(3) The United States law enforcement and immigration authorities have presumed for generations that the quoted section MEANS that anyone born in the U.S. has automatic citizenship, regardless of any other factors.

(4) There is a footnote in a Supreme Court written opinion, composed by Justice Brennan that affirms the Left's interpretation of the clause, but of course that section of the opinion is dicta, and not binding.

(5) The interpretation currently accepted in the U.S. is not only unsupported in law, but it is manifestly foolish. Only a few countries in the world have adopted such foolish rules for citizenship.

It is unclear whether the "accepted meaning" of this section of the 14th Amendment can be changed by an Executive Order, a Federal regulation, a new law, or it would take a Constitutional Amendment. Just as important, even if it is changed one way or another, what does that mean to people who are currently presumed to be citizens whose only claim to citizenship in being born on U.S. soil? What would be the effective date for the "new" policy? Retroactive?

Whenever this issue is raised, the Left goes into shrieks of horror, claiming that the "Constitution" demands this policy, it is settled law, and so on. All bullshit, as you might expect. It has NEVER been definitively, legally, and Constitutionally decided.

Yes, it has. Extremely easy instructions. Why do some of you so-called conservatives never seem to understand this case decided birthright citizenship about 130 years ago?

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I learned this case in educational law. I thought you were a lawyer!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Fact:
The birth right citizenship was meant for the children of slaves, not for the children of illegal aliens.

Oh well! Sucks that they are included.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I have listened to/read constitutional scholars argue that the Founders did not intend that clause to be all inclusive. For instance it was not intended that tourists, ambassadors, people doing business here would have automatic citizenship awarded to a child that happened to be born here. And on that basis Congress could pass legislation that excluded those here illegally which should be acceptable to the courts based on precedent and that would not require a constitutional amendment. It would make for an interesting debate.

Interesting and fruitless. SCOTUS decided this case long ago.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Unkotare]

Do you think the feds can deport American citizens?

They cant, you know

They can deport any illegal alien parent of an American citizen, you know.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Do you think the feds can deport American citizens?

They cant, you know

Who is deporting American citizens? Their parents take them back from whence they came.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Like Roe v Wade cannot be changed? Plessy v Ferguson?

They had a constitutional basis for a change in interpretation. Reversing those cases was based on no reference in the constitution supported the laws. Has the 14th Amendment been changed?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This was decided long ago. This is not something that a person like my sisterinlaw wants relitigated long after it has been settled. Tough.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

As AZrailwhale points out in post 10, the Constitution does not have to be changed

Already “anyone” does not include anyone

The children of diplomats are not US citizens

And thats an exception by law not written into the Constitution

We just need for congress to express a few more exceptions

I had to highlight your error once again. It is in the 14th Amendment, as you have been told repeatedly. I believe you even quoted it once or twice.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Constitution doesn't have to be changed, it just needs to be defended.

Yes, it does. In order to remove birthright citizenship, it does.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

See post #29

Why? It's wrong.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The interoperation is merely the opinion of 5 people

Of course it can be changed

Go ahead and file suit to get it changed then. You can't because your local US court is going to cite SCOTUS precedent. You would lose every step of the way.

 

[Mac-7]

They can deport any illegal alien parent of an American citizen, you know.

But they cant deport the kid

That makes them an anchor that someday can benefit the parents too

 

[Mac-7]

Who is deporting American citizens? Their parents take them back from whence they came.

See the post just above

 

[Unkotare]

But they cant deport the kid

That makes them an anchor that someday can benefit the parents too

An anchor holds a ship in place. What does the baby hold in place?

 

[Mac-7]

I had to highlight your error once again. It is in the 14th Amendment, as you have been told repeatedly. I believe you even quoted it once or twice.

Not the children born of foreign diplomats in the US

Which btw is not written into the 14th

 

[Unkotare]

Not the children born of foreign diplomats in the US

Which btw is not written into the 14th

Do you know what an embassy is? Do you know why American police can't go into the embassy of a foreign country?