Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

[Kondor3]

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

Possibly... then again, with a little imagination, a slick mouthpiece, and a sympathetic bench, who knows? Wouldn't be the first time The Court has reversed itself.

 

[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...

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.

The clause '...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." may prove to be the weak spot in the armor...

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

Cool story. Entirely a straw man, but cool story nonetheless.

Nobody is advocating for an end to birthright citizenship. Some people, myself included, feel that there are some issues in regards to whom it should apply, namely children born to illegally present aliens.

 

[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.

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.

Says the ass. Be polite if you want polite.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, yes, Correll, you can be pompous.

 

[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.

The clause '...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." may prove to be the weak spot in the armor...

Unlikely. In the Plyer v. Doe decision the question of whether or not the children of illegals were 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was addressed directly. Every justice agreed that they were. Even those in dissent on the Plyer decision recognized this.

You're gonna need a constitutional amendment.

And if a state refuses to issue a birth certificate to the children of illegals, they'll run into equal protection problems. As the children are citizens.

 

[Skylar]

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

Possibly... then again, with a little imagination, a slick mouthpiece, and a sympathetic bench, who knows? Wouldn't be the first time The Court has reversed itself.

The 14th is some pretty clear language. With precedent dismantling most of the major arguments opponents of birth right citizenship would try and use. Jurisdiction is out. If they are persons is out. There's no plausible angle to work. Nor is there any major precident to work from.

You're gonna need a constitutional amendment to change that portion of the 14th.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Cool story. Entirely a straw man, but cool story nonetheless.

Nobody is advocating for an end to birthright citizenship. Some people, myself included, feel that there are some issues in regards to whom it should apply, namely children born to illegally present aliens.

Its a difficult issue to tackle. As federal legislation would run headlong into the 14th amendment. And any USSC ruling would deal with the Wong Kim Ark and Plyer v. Doe decision. The first which establishes birthright citizenship for the children of legal residents.....even if federal law forbids it. The second recognizing the children of illegals as people and subject to the jurisdiction of US law per the 14th amendment.

There's no plausible legal rout that I'm aware of save an amendment to change the 14th. Precedent and the 14th are too clear on this issue.

 

[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.

Says the ass. Be polite if you want polite.

Your desire to be rude to people and expect them to be doormat for you, is one of the reasons it has been so hard for me to accept your claim of being a REpublcan.

But now I realize the truth.

You are a republican.

You are the Last Liberal Republican.

 

[SwimExpert]

As federal legislation would run headlong into the 14th amendment.....

It would take a constitutional amendment to implement.

 

[Correll]

Oh, yes, Correll, you can be pompous.

I like to think I can treat people the way they treat me, so thanks.

 

[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.

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.

The Plyer decision isn't about citizenship. Its about the status of the children of illegal immigrants under the 14th amendment. And it resolves two key issues relevant to this discussion:

1) Children of illegals are 'persons' under the 14th amendment
2) Children of illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of US law under the 14th amendment.

With these two axioms of precedent firmly decided by Plyer, on what basis would you deny a child born in the US to illegal immigrant parents citizenship under this clause of the 14th amendment:

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

I can't see any plausible legal argument around citizenship for such children.

 

[Skylar]

As federal legislation would run headlong into the 14th amendment.....

It would take a constitutional amendment to implement.

It absolutely would. As the 14th is clear on the matter. And precedent has already removed any plausible legal argument regarding the relevant passages in the 14th amendment; the personhood argument and the jurisdiction argument.

I suppose you could try to argue on the basis of what is the 'United States'. But Longborough v. Blake toasted that in 1820.

 

[Correll]

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.

The Plyer decision isn't about citizenship. Its about the status of the children of illegal immigrants under the 14th amendment. And it resolves two key issues relevant to this discussion:

1) Children of illegals are 'persons' under the 14th amendment
2) Children of illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of US law under the 14th amendment.

With these two axioms of precedent firmly decided by Plyer, on what basis would you deny a child born in the US to illegal immigrant parents citizenship under this clause of the 14th amendment:

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

I can't see any plausible legal argument around citizenship for such children.

The fact that I disagree with their ruling.

My hope is that Trump moves on this ASAP if elected, and when challenged fights it hard and well and hopefully the Court will find some nice cowardly narrow ruling that they love so much and the deportations can continue.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The Plyer decision isn't about citizenship. Its about the status of the children of illegal immigrants under the 14th amendment. And it resolves two key issues relevant to this discussion:

1) Children of illegals are 'persons' under the 14th amendment
2) Children of illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of US law under the 14th amendment.

With these two axioms of precedent firmly decided by Plyer, on what basis would you deny a child born in the US to illegal immigrant parents citizenship under this clause of the 14th amendment:

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

I can't see any plausible legal argument around citizenship for such children.

The fact that I disagree with their ruling.

I'm discussing likely outcomes based on plausible scenarios of actual law. And regardless of your agreement, precedent is rock solid on the matter. So any assessment of outcome would have to take into account that precedent.

Plyer removes any plausible argument against extending citizenship to the children of illegals born in the US. You'd need an amendment.

My hope is that Trump moves on this ASAP if elected, and when challenged fights it hard and well and hopefully the Court will find some nice cowardly narrow ruling that they love so much and the deportations can continue.

Trump wouldn't have the authority to do much. The executive has some wiggle room in terms of what he will enforce. He could focus on one portion of a law and not another, for example. But its much harder to create enforcement authority beyond the scope of the law. Especially when we're talking about something like citizenship itself.

There's very little indication that the court would rule in the manner you'd like.

 

[Correll]

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.

The Plyer decision isn't about citizenship. Its about the status of the children of illegal immigrants under the 14th amendment. And it resolves two key issues relevant to this discussion:

1) Children of illegals are 'persons' under the 14th amendment
2) Children of illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of US law under the 14th amendment.

With these two axioms of precedent firmly decided by Plyer, on what basis would you deny a child born in the US to illegal immigrant parents citizenship under this clause of the 14th amendment:

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

I can't see any plausible legal argument around citizenship for such children.

The fact that I disagree with their ruling.

I'm discussing likely outcomes based on plausible scenarios of actual law. And regardless of your agreement, precedent is rock solid on the matter. So any assessment of outcome would have to take into account that precedent.

Plyer removes any plausible argument against extending citizenship to the children of illegals born in the US. You'd need an amendment.

My hope is that Trump moves on this ASAP if elected, and when challenged fights it hard and well and hopefully the Court will find some nice cowardly narrow ruling that they love so much and the deportations can continue.

Trump wouldn't have the authority to do much. The executive has some wiggle room in terms of what he will enforce. He could focus on one portion of a law and not another, for example. But its much harder to create enforcement authority beyond the scope of the law. Especially when we're talking about something like citizenship itself.

There's very little indication that the court would rule in the manner you'd like.

Precedent can be reversed.

Less likely when the reversal would be in a "conservative" direction, but still.

Perhaps a E.O. ruling that no illegal parents will be given legal residency to stay with their anchor babies. Parents want the kid to have US citizenship, then they have to leave them behind while they return to their home.

 

[Skylar]

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

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.

The Plyer decision isn't about citizenship. Its about the status of the children of illegal immigrants under the 14th amendment. And it resolves two key issues relevant to this discussion:

1) Children of illegals are 'persons' under the 14th amendment
2) Children of illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of US law under the 14th amendment.

With these two axioms of precedent firmly decided by Plyer, on what basis would you deny a child born in the US to illegal immigrant parents citizenship under this clause of the 14th amendment:

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

I can't see any plausible legal argument around citizenship for such children.

The fact that I disagree with their ruling.

I'm discussing likely outcomes based on plausible scenarios of actual law. And regardless of your agreement, precedent is rock solid on the matter. So any assessment of outcome would have to take into account that precedent.

Plyer removes any plausible argument against extending citizenship to the children of illegals born in the US. You'd need an amendment.

My hope is that Trump moves on this ASAP if elected, and when challenged fights it hard and well and hopefully the Court will find some nice cowardly narrow ruling that they love so much and the deportations can continue.

Trump wouldn't have the authority to do much. The executive has some wiggle room in terms of what he will enforce. He could focus on one portion of a law and not another, for example. But its much harder to create enforcement authority beyond the scope of the law. Especially when we're talking about something like citizenship itself.

There's very little indication that the court would rule in the manner you'd like.

Precedent can be reversed.

It can be. However, its most often affirmed. Especially on issues that receive unanimous agreement from judges, in the absense of any new precedent to build on. And the jurisdiction issue under the 14th amendment was unanimous in Plyer. Even the justices that dissented on the opinion recognized that children of illegals were 'subject to the jurisdiction' of US law.

There's no indication in any precedent since that this is not the case. Nor is there any specific indication from any sitting justice that they think otherwise.

Making your 'precedent can be reversed' scenario very unlikely. What is far, far more likely is that precedent will be affirmed. I'd argue, affirmed unanimously on the jurisdiction issue.

Perhaps a E.O. ruling that no illegal parents will be given legal residency to stay with their anchor babies. Parents want the kid to have US citizenship, then they have to leave them behind while they return to their home.

Trump could do that. But it would have no relevance to US citizenship for the child. Which is the issue being addressed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Perhaps a E.O. ruling that no illegal parents will be given legal residency to stay with their anchor babies. Parents want the kid to have US citizenship, then they have to leave them behind while they return to their home.

An illegal alien woman has a baby in this country. The child is a citizen under the application of the law as it stands now. If the parent is deported has no impact on the citizenship of the child. If the parent is deported and takes the child - the child is still a citizen.


>>>>

 

[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.

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

If you went for a constitutional amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship, then in that amendment, you have to define the criteria for citizenship. If not, US citizenship would be defined by being a citizen of a state which is what it was prior to the 14th amendment. I think defining the criteria for citizenship would be just as controversial as eliminating birthright citizenship.

 

[Votto]

"settled"? What is this "Settled" thing you speak of?

Tell us why you don't think it is. Give examples, precedents, etc.

SCOTUS, if it takes the petition, will suggest to Congress if anything to grant citizenship to Samoans, imo.

SCOTUS will do as they are told.

That;s right liberals, that's why corporations are people

That's right Conservatives, that's why all foreigners are now either documented or undocumented US citizens that would be cool to hire as cheap labor for corporations.