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

[JoeB131]

Different situations, and of course Plessey set seperate but equal as precedent, and the court then rightly overturned it.

The case is a country has a right to control who becomes citizens of said country.

Then amend the Constitution.

The actual carve out is covered under fedral code.

Drawing lines is what writing laws is all about.

That would be for a court to figure out.

The Courts ruled on this 126 years ago in Wong v. US

 

[martybegan]

That is the constitution....

Want to change it, change the constitution...

Or pass a law that clarifies illegals aren't under the "juristiction thereof" for the purpose of the 14th, and add people on tourist visas for good measure.

If we go the amendment route, you free border people risk it being retroactive, because an Amendment can ignore ex post facto for specific situations.

 

[martybegan]

US suspends risky disease research - Nature

Government to cease funding gain-of-function studies that make viruses more dangerous, pending a safety assessment.

www.nature.com

Ban on gain-of-function studies ends - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Off topic is off topic.

Take your adderall.

 

[JoeB131]

Diplomats are under our laws, we just can't prosecute them. We can send them back to their own country though, and that country can handle any issue.

All those Irish came in under the laws at the time, and yes, they did want the cheap labor in the Northern Urban areas.

It was the rural areas that didn't want it.

Does a country have a right to decide who it allows to become citizens, yes or no?

Then why stop at the children of immigrants? Why not just declare the children of citizens who are undesirable groups to not be citizens?

 

[BackAgain]

I don't get why this is in the Supreme Court.

"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"

It is in plain english, f*ck your opinions, this is the law...

You have a perfect right to seek an amendment...

No amendment needed. Just a simple statement about what the Amendment says and what its terms actually mean.

We have a perfect right to demand such clarification.

If SCOTUS does elect to continue the current (mis)understanding, then maybe an Amendment could be considered.

 

[martybegan]

Then amend the Constitution.


The Courts ruled on this 126 years ago in Wong v. US

We likely don't have to, and if you guys force us to go the Amendment route and Article V, it would allow us to propose it to be retroactive.

Wong doesn't apply because it was before modern Immigration law and was specific to the idiotic Exclusion acts passed and then made moot for people born here by Ark.

 

[martybegan]

Then why stop at the children of immigrants? Why not just declare the children of citizens who are undesirable groups to not be citizens?

Because I don't want to?

Again, drawing lines is what all this is about.

 

[JoeB131]

We likely don't have to, and if you guys force us to go the Amendment route and Article V, it would allow us to propose it to be retroactive.

Wong doesn't apply because it was before modern Immigration law and was specific to the idiotic Exclusion acts passed and then made moot for people born here by Ark.

Immigration law can't overrule the clearly written constitutional standard.

The current immigration law has been in place since the 1960s, and no one had an issue with this until Cheeto Hitler came along.

Because I don't want to?

Again, drawing lines is what all this is about.

I agree.

We have a line.

Most Americans agree that's where the line should be.

Study: Americans divided on immigration, but support birthright citizenship

A nationwide survey shows that Americans are fiercely divided over immigration—until the issue turns personal.

www.rochester.edu

Nearly 59 percent of Americans support birthright citizenship, whereas 24 percent oppose it. Support crosses party lines, although at different levels. The survey found 79 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of independents, and 39 percent of Republicans favor the policy.

 

[Marener]

The law that applies the articles and amendments to the constitution are written by the legislature.

They don't have to re-define, they have to clarify like they did with children of diplomats.

Any law which applies the amendment to the constitution has to be consistent with that amendment.

You’re trying to be “cute” and pretend you aren’t redefining a word by saying “clarify”. The law which says children of diplomats aren’t citizens doesn’t “clarify” the constitution. It applies it.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Not nessisarily. Again a carve out was already made for children of diplomats under the current amendment.

That is the ONLY Carveout.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No it means under the current understanding of the 14th amendment, depending on how they decide this current case.

This question in particular has never been asked before.

It was already clarified.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No amendment needed. Just a simple statement about what the Amendment says and what its terms actually mean.

We have a perfect right to demand such clarification.

If SCOTUS does elect to continue the current (mis)understanding, then maybe an Amendment could be considered.

They did that with Wong. Guys two Wongs don't make Right!

 

[BackAgain]

They did that with Wong. Guys two Wongs don't make Right!

Wong never addressed the question of the alleged “birthright” citizenship of kids born here of illegal aliens.

Ironically, therefore, citation to Wong is … wong.

 

[pknopp]

Off topic is off topic.

Take your adderall.

Im.not the one who brought up the falsehoods about covid. It doesnt happen if we weren't funding it.