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

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Bullshit. Where did you make that up from?

 

[martybegan]

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.


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.

The Standard is clarified by law and interpreted by the SC. We have never had this question before the SC before.

More polls where it depends how one asks the question.

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit. Where did you make that up from?

Because an amendment can say "we apply this retroactively and ex post facto doesn't apply in this case"?

 

[pknopp]

The Standard is clarified by law and interpreted by the SC. We have never had this question before the SC before.

More polls where it depends how one asks the question.

Polls are irrelevant.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I am laying out a path where congress can restrict birthright citizenship, which has already been done in the case of diplomats.

 

[martybegan]

That is the ONLY Carveout.

Doesn't mean it has to be the only one.

 

[martybegan]

It was already clarified.

No, the current situation has not.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, and our country decided on everyone born here....ALL PERSONS born here with the limited exception mentioned due to their jurisdiction exemption..... first under our laws, and then constitutionally in the 14th Amendment sealed the deal....

....and the SC will rule against your and Trump's position.....

We need an amendment to change it.

No, we didn't decide that. It kind of just happened as a side effect of giving the Freedmen their citizenship rights, or at least attempting to do so. I doubt the writers thought it meant someone could visit here, pop out a kid, and then have that kid be a citizen.

 

[martybegan]

You either need spell check or go back to elementary school.

Spell check is working wonky on my computer, and go **** yourself with an AIDS infested tire iron.

 

[Marener]

I am laying out a path where congress can restrict birthright citizenship, which has already been done in the case of diplomats.

Your “path” is an idea you copied from a far right columnist.

And the problem with your “path” is that laws can’t redefine the language in the constitution.

 

[martybegan]

Your “path” is an idea you copied from a far right columnist.

And the problem with your “path” is that laws can’t redefine the language in the constitution.

The path is something I believe is possible, I've read several articles agreeing with it and disagreeing with it.

There is no redefining going on, only clarifying.

 

[Marener]

The path is something I believe is possible, I've read several articles agreeing with it and disagreeing with it.

There is no redefining going on, only clarifying.

Doesn’t matter what you want to call it, it’s still redefining the terms of the 14th amendment and that’s not possible to do with legislating.

 

[martybegan]

Doesn’t matter what you want to call it, it’s still redefining the terms of the 14th amendment and that’s not possible to do with legislating.

Making it apply beyond the freedmen is far more redefining it than congress passing a law clarifying what "under the jurisdiction thereof" means.

 

[Marener]

Making it apply beyond the freedmen is far more redefining it than congress passing a law clarifying what "under the jurisdiction thereof" means.

Absolutely not. If the authors of the amendment only wanted it to apply to former slaves, they could have done that.

They purposefully didn’t. They intended for it to apply to immigrants.

So you’re completely wrong.

If you’re “clarifying” what “under the jurisdiction” MEANS, then you’re redefining it.

What is a definition? It’s what the words mean. That’s what you’re doing, you just won’t admit it.

 

[martybegan]

Absolutely not. If the authors of the amendment only wanted it to apply to former slaves, they could have done that.

They purposefully didn’t. They intended for it to apply to immigrants.

So you’re completely wrong.

If you’re “clarifying” what “under the jurisdiction” MEANS, then you’re redefining it.

What is a definition? It’s what the words mean. That’s what you’re doing, you just won’t admit it.

You are arguing in circles.

They did not intend for it to apply to immigrants, show me proof of that.

 

[Marener]

You are arguing in circles.

They did not intend for it to apply to immigrants, show me proof of that.

Not arguing in circles, just trying to get you to see that all you’re doing is playing word games.

The debates in Congress were noted in the Ark decision which you probably didn’t read.

Page 49 of the decision.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep169/usrep169649/usrep169649.pdf

To see the whole debate, it’s around page 12.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-globe/congress-39-session-1-part-4.pdf

Show me your proof they didn’t intend for it to apply to immigrants.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Doesn't mean it has to be the only one.

Its the only one the Amendment permits.

 

[martybegan]

Not arguing in circles, just trying to get you to see that all you’re doing is playing word games.

The debates in Congress were noted in the Ark decision which you probably didn’t read.

Page 49 of the decision.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep169/usrep169649/usrep169649.pdf

To see the whole debate, it’s around page 12.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-globe/congress-39-session-1-part-4.pdf

Show me your proof they didn’t intend for it to apply to immigrants.

Show me your proof they knew about the concept of illegal immigrants.

 

[martybegan]

Its the only one the Amendment permits.

Nope.

Funny this strict construction comes from people who shit on the 1st and 2nd amendments daily.

 

[CowboyTed]

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

The diplomats thing is more to do with international norms of a tiny amount of children. True adherence to Constitution should mean they are Citizens but this was considered a very small exception..
The U.S. government does not publicly track or release an official annual count of children born to foreign diplomats. However, reports from the American Immigration Council indicate that roughly 12 babies are born to "immunized" diplomats in the U.S. each year.

This is as clear as day in the constitution, you are born in the country, you are a citizen...
Approximately 225,000 to 250,000 children are born to undocumented immigrant parents in the United States annually. These children are U.S. citizens at birth, and there are roughly 4 million children living with at least one undocumented parent in the U.S..


That is all cool that you don't like the undocumented children being US Citizens but your problem is with the US Constitution. Look to amend it... Stop bitching and chase the law the way it was meant to be..
Here I will help, European Countries have do it.

Ireland votes in favour of curbs on citizenship

Ireland has massively endorsed its government's plans to strip African and eastern European children and their parents living in the republic of Irish citizenship.

www.theguardian.com

No EU country currently offers automatic, unconditional birthright citizenship (jus soli) to children born to foreign parents. Most EU nations use jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood). Over time, countries like Ireland (2004) and others have removed automatic birthright citizenship, replacing it with restrictive conditions or "double jus soli" (citizenship if a parent was also born there)

So just need to change the US constitution to reflect the modern values of the US people... Good Luck with that, Democrats have been trying to do that for decades...