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

[Marener]

If Congress were to declare illegal aliens outside the jurisdiction of the US, they’d be giving them immunity from our laws.

Seriously. That’s what jurisdiction means.

 

[candycorn]

How about because citizenship should be about more than where one is born. That’s why I don’t believe in birthright citizenship for ANYONE. Not even my family, which has been here for close to 400 years.

Citizenship should be determined at age of maturity through proving one is willing and capable of being an asset to the country, not a liability and loyalty to that country abd its core ideology above other interests.

Who decides whom is an asset?

 

[Anathema]

Who decides whom is an asset?

If you can’t figure out who the assets are and who aren’t… you’re not one.

 

[busybee01]

Lawyer makes Kurt Schlichter the point that we will likely lose the Birthright Citizenship case on procedural grounds, and this is just starting the fight.


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





So our first option is try to pass some laws via congress that can define "under the jurisdiction thereof" and clarify the situation, and the 2nd longer option is an amendment removing it.

Freak out. The questioning made it very clear that they consider it a part of the Constitution. You will need a constitutional amendment.

 

[busybee01]

Yes, there is, for the reasons I stated.

Your hatred of non-whites is not a valid reason.

 

[Concerned American]

So our first option is try to pass some laws via congress that can define "under the jurisdiction thereof" and clarify the situation, and the 2nd longer option is an amendment removing it.

Good luck with that. When was the last time you saw the US congress do ANYTHING that benefited Americans? I haven't seen ANYTHING done by congress other than partisan bickering, scam impeachments, and lawfare for at least 15 years.

 

[Zincwarrior]

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

Which, under the 14th, means if they are born here they are citizens.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The system has worked fine for around 250 years. Zero need to change it. As for the court, this is the same court that said money=speech so they could rule that water isn't wet and it wouldn't surprise me.

I think there is zero chance scotus will overturn BRC, but, the system worked when we didn’t have tens of millions of illegals flooding the border.

China has over 500 “birth tourism” companies from what I understand, whose job it is to basically sell US citizenship to those who have the money to pay for it.

 

[Robert W]

Freak out. The questioning made it very clear that they consider it a part of the Constitution. You will need a constitutional amendment.

I heard part of the case in the Supreme court. What questioning? Are you talking about the 3 Democrats?

 

[JoeB131]

Wong Kim Ark involved people born with parents that were here legally under the rules at the time. It was also more about the Chinese Exclusion act than overall immigration.

But it set the precedent that the 14th Amendment protected birthright citizenship.

His parents being here legally at the time means it doesn't relate directly to the situation we are facing now.

Just like the Founders wanting the minutemen to have their own muskets doesn't relate directly to a nutbag walking into a school and making a dozen litle corpses, but here we are.

The problem is, you haven't really made a good case why they shouldn't be citizens the minute they are born.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Yes, because DIPLOMATS are covered under various treaties and agreements. It's why they have diplomatic immunity.

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.

Actually, it would have the same problem.

Since "Legal" and "Illegal" immigration aren't as clear cut as you like to pretend them to be, where do you draw the line.

What about Foundlings, as one of the justices asked. If a foundling is turned into social services and put up for adoption, how do we know his parents were "legal" or not?

 

[JoeB131]

If Congress were to declare illegal aliens outside the jurisdiction of the US, they’d be giving them immunity from our laws.

Seriously. That’s what jurisdiction means.

Quite. Which means the Mafia could sneak someone in, have his whack a bunch of people, and then the worst they could do to him is "deport" him.

 

[candycorn]

If you can’t figure out who the assets are and who aren’t… you’re not one.

So you can’t define it either. Just what I thought

 

[Eric Cartman]

I heard part of the case in the Supreme court. What questioning? Are you talking about the 3 Democrats?

The questioning came from seven of the nine justices and it was apparent they weren't buying the administration's argument against birthright citizenship... Probably because it is textually clear that it exists.

 

[busybee01]

I heard part of the case in the Supreme court. What questioning? Are you talking about the 3 Democrats?

I would suggest that you listen the next time. John Roberts summed up the day by declaring “It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” He clearly is equating birthright citizenship with the Constitution. That is not Trump's argument. Most of the 6 fascist judges grilled Sauer aggressively over his arguments. It was not about procedures. Even Trump knew he was losing. They may choose to use arcane procedural issues to overturn the executive order but that is somewhat standard practice for them.

 

[Robert W]

I would suggest that you listen the next time. John Roberts summed up the day by declaring “It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” He clearly is equating birthright citizenship with the Constitution. That is not Trump's argument. Most of the 6 fascist judges grilled Sauer aggressively over his arguments. It was not about procedures. Even Trump knew he was losing. They may choose to use arcane procedural issues to overturn the executive order but that is somewhat standard practice for them.

Do you also believe in UFOs. I listened closely for perhaps an hour. They kept the same thing going and finally I figured nothing new was happenings, I did other things. By your claims, I see where you are going, and it smells rotten.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Why aren't they under our laws? What jurisdiction allegiance is there to their home country that prevents them from being under our laws when living here? NONE!

The only foreigners with allegiance to their country of birth was defined as foreign enemies in conflict with us, and foreign aliens who work as ambassadors when here for their government, are exempt from birthright citizenship for their children.

Just being born in another country was NOT allegiance to that country's jurisdiction when here in America.

They gave up all allegiance to their home country when they CHOSE to leave it, and come to America to live.

And yes, the 14th was written for the black slaves because they were the ONLY ONES EXEMPTED from birthright citizenship... All persons with the exception of slaves ....already had birthright citizenship for their children born here (with the exception of foreign military enemies in conflict and foreign ambassadors, both under foreign jurisdiction)

ALL PERSONS simply added slaves to EVERY ONE ELSE whose children were born citizens.

Did Americans want the hordes of Irish immigrating here during their potato famine? HECK NO! Americans hated that they were taking "their jobs" and were holding salaries down because they would work for cheaper, and taking their housing available causing rents to rise etc etc etc....much like all of your complaints today about unlawful entrants/illegal immigrants.....this was before the 14th and guess what Marty?

The kids of the hordes of unwanted Irish that immigrated here in the 1850s+ children born here, were born citizens of the united states.....!

Why were they? Because under common law, which we in America followed, all persons bearing children on our soil were born citizens except children of slaves, enemy children and ambassador children....

It was the law we followed PRIOR to the 14th.

Why would the 14th adding slaves, take away birthright citizenship to all other foreigners immigrating here Marty? It wouldn't, and it didn't. The end!

 

[Anathema]

So you can’t define it either. Just what I thought

No. I can define it easily enough, I just don’t believe you’ll accept or agree with the definition, so it isn’t worth my time trying to educate you.

 

[candycorn]

No. I can define it easily enough,

Yet you won’t do it.

 

[Anathema]

Yet you won’t do it.

I value my free time at about $150 an hour, paid up front. If you want to purchase some of my time to educate you, we could strike a bargain, I’m sure.