Opinion Article: Don’t Freak Out When We Lose the Birthright Citizenship Case

[Zincwarrior]

They have diplomatic immunity due to international agreements. Their kids not being citizens automatically here is due to the law below.

Exactly
. Everyone else is subject to our jurisdiction.

 

[BackAgain]

Amendment isn't going to happen. We can't even pass amendments doing sensible stuff like repealing the Second Amendment or getting rid of the electoral college.

Neither of those suggestions constitute “sensible stuff.”

As for laws, those laws would be immediately challenged and we'd be back where we started.

You fail to understand. Again.

You’re really quite slow.

 

[Marener]

They have diplomatic immunity due to international agreements. Their kids not being citizens automatically here is due to the law below.

Federal Register :: Request Access



So now that we have a law declaring the above, declaring children of illegals not covered under the 14th should just require congress passing a law to define it.

Diplomatic immunity is a super old concept and extends back through history. Maybe it’s codified in agreements now, but it was common knowledge when the amendment was written.

The reason they’re not citizens has nothing to do with any laws, but because that’s what the constitution says.

An illegal immigrant is subject to the jurisdiction of the country just like a lawful legal resident, but not like a diplomat.

You can’t split this baby.

 

[martybegan]

Exactly
. Everyone else is subject to our jurisdiction.

Because of the law I referenced. Extending that to children of illegals just takes another law.

 

[martybegan]

Diplomatic immunity is a super old concept and extends back through history. Maybe it’s codified in agreements now, but it was common knowledge when the amendment was written.

The reason they’re not citizens has nothing to do with any laws, but because that’s what the constitution says.

An illegal immigrant is subject to the jurisdiction of the country just like a lawful legal resident, but not like a diplomat.

You can’t split this baby.

Actually you can by saying illegals are under their original countries jurisdiction because they didn't follow our laws to enter our country.

I still want an amendment so we can eliminate the whole ex post facto problem that a new law would have.

 

[Marener]

Actually you can by saying illegals are under their original countries jurisdiction because they didn't follow our laws to enter our country.

I still want an amendment so we can eliminate the whole ex post facto problem that a new law would have.

How can you define “under jurisdiction” to apply to legal residents but not illegal immigrants?

Words have meaning.

If you want an amendment, then go try to get an amendment and stop wasting everyone’s time with pointless court cases.

 

[martybegan]

How can you define “under jurisdiction” to apply to legal residents but not illegal immigrants?

Words have meaning.

If you want an amendment, then go try to get an amendment and stop wasting everyone’s time with pointless court cases.

By passing a law saying that.

the law would define that people who don't follow our legal immigration process are not under our jurisdiction for the purpose of the 14th amendment. Same can be said of people under tourist visas.

 

[Marener]

By passing a law saying that.

the law would define that people who don't follow our legal immigration process are not under our jurisdiction for the purpose of the 14th amendment. Same can be said of people under tourist visas.

Laws can’t just redefine words out of convenience.

Otherwise we will pass a law defining “arms” and regulate whatever we want.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes it is. Anyone born under the law and control of the US is a citizen. Period.

Illegals are here unlawfully.

 

[martybegan]

Laws can’t just redefine words out of convenience.

Otherwise we will pass a law defining “arms” and regulate whatever we want.

Actually they clarify the words in the Constitution, because the Constitution gives a framework

Your side has already raped the term "shall not be infringed" and now you are getting all "strict constructionist"

Hack.

 

[Marener]

Actually they clarify the words in the Constitution, because the Constitution gives a framework

Your side has already raped the term "shall not be infringed" and now you are getting all "strict constructionist"

Hack.

We just have to pass a law clarifying the words of the 2nd amendment.

Because you think that laws can do that.

But they can’t. A law can’t change the definition of the words in the constitution. “Subject to the jurisdiction” means what it means. They already decided in Wong Kim Ark.

 

[martybegan]

We just have to pass a law clarifying the words of the 2nd amendment.

Because you think that laws can do that.

But they can’t. A law can’t change the definition of the words in the constitution. “Subject to the jurisdiction” means what it means. They already decided in Wong Kim Ark.

We can clarify things like felons losing their 2nd amendment rights.

What NYC does is make it take 6 months and $600 just to keep a revolver in your hours.

 

[Marener]

We can clarify things like felons losing their 2nd amendment rights.

What NYC does is make it take 6 months and $600 just to keep a revolver in your hours.

The law doesn’t clarify the meaning of “the people”.

SCOTUS held that “the people”, taken in historic context would exclude those who are a threat to public safety.

 

[Robert W]

And that is defined how?

We already exclude children of diplomats, so extending that to illegals should just take a law.

Seems as if the Supreme Court moved to this forum.

 

[Robert W]

The law doesn’t clarify the meaning of “the people”.

SCOTUS held that “the people”, taken in historic context would exclude those who are a threat to public safety.

We do not need the Supreme court with your explanations.
You are the Supreme court according to you.

 

[martybegan]

The law doesn’t clarify the meaning of “the people”.

SCOTUS held that “the people”, taken in historic context would exclude those who are a threat to public safety.

So A law abiding citizen with no felony record is an automatic threat to public safety? Bullshit.

As for the 14th, The law has already clarified in the case of children of diplomats that they aren't under US jurisdiction thereof.

A law extending that to children of illegals and those with tourist visas would accomplish what we need to do going forward. The only thing it couldn't do is make it retroactive to before the signing of the law due to ex post facto.

 

[martybegan]

Seems as if the Supreme Court moved to this forum.

Arguing to not have an argument on a message board is counter-intuitive.

 

[Robert W]

Arguing to not have an argument on a message board is counter-intuitive.

Have you persuaded Marener? Worse, has he persuaded you?

 

[Nostra]

We just have to pass a law clarifying the words of the 2nd amendment.

Because you think that laws can do that.

But they can’t. A law can’t change the definition of the words in the constitution. “Subject to the jurisdiction” means what it means. They already decided in Wong Kim Ark.

The Second does 2 things:

1. Confirms we have a God given right to bear arms
2. Tells the Government this right can't be infringed upon.

Exactly what is confusing your pea brain? What do you need clarified, Moroner?

 

[BackAgain]

While I have no crystal ball, I do recognize that the signs seem to indicate a SCOTUS rejection of President Trump’s Executive Order about so-called “birthright” citizenship for kids born here of one of two illegals alien parents.

Others have already noted that they might skirt the heart of the legal issue by focusing, instead, on procedure.

But either way, it is clear that SCOTUS looks to be poised to void the President’s EO.

That is different, however, from declaring that the previously “understood” alleged “meaning” of the 14th Amendment is the correct understanding. They might go that route, too. Who knows?

But, regardless of how they rule, there is only one correct interpretation. And it’s not the one we seem to have had for many years. SCOTUS has a history of sometimes making mistakes.

The good news is that, eventually, they have also shown the gumption of correcting bad decisions occasionally.