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

[Marener]

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

You’re flailing. Of course they didn’t know about the concept of illegal immigrants. That didn’t exist yet.

 

[martybegan]

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...

The Amendment would be the better option, but law can handle it as well. The only thing is an Amendment could be retroactive.

 

[martybegan]

You’re flailing. Of course they didn’t know about the concept of illegal immigrants. That didn’t exist yet.

And that's why Ark doesn't apply. It's simply not the same situation.

Ark isn't precedent in this case.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Nope.

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

Please cite where I have done that.

 

[Marener]

And that's why Ark doesn't apply. It's simply not the same situation.

Ark isn't precedent in this case.

So you first claimed the 14th wasn’t supposed to apply to immigrants, now it’s just “illegal immigrants”.

Whether it applies to illegal immigrants depends on the definition of the term “under jurisdiction”, not on your ability to invent a new category of people.

Explain how the “jurisdiction” clause can apply to legal immigrants but not illegal immigrants.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

No. You would have to change the ex post facto clause by repealing it. Did you ever read the Constitution and how the amendment process works and has been done in the past?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Amendment would be the better option, but law can handle it as well. The only thing is an Amendment could be retroactive.

Making it ex post facto and unconstitutional from the start by creating a conflict.

 

[martybegan]

Please cite where I have done that.

NYC requires 6 months and $500 in fees to keep a revolver in your house, is that infringement?

Can government force a baker to bake a cake for a Same Sex Wedding reception?

 

[martybegan]

Making it ex post facto and unconstitutional from the start by creating a conflict.

Nope. As long as you state that ex post facto doesn't apply to this specific situation.

The repeal of Prohibition repealed prohibition. By your logic that shouldn't have worked.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nope. As long as you state that ex post facto doesn't apply to this specific situation.

The repeal of Prohibition repealed prohibition. By your logic that shouldn't have worked.

It repealed the amendment, dumbass!

You have the legal knowledge of a an elementary school-aged special education student.

 

[pknopp]

NYC requires 6 months and $500 in fees to keep a revolver in your house, is that infringement?

Yes and I believe that was the law the Supreme Court overturned.

 

[Zincwarrior]

NYC requires 6 months and $500 in fees to keep a revolver in your house, is that infringement?

Yes

Can government force a baker to bake a cake for a Same Sex Wedding reception?

Yes

 

[martybegan]

It repealed the amendment, dumbass!

You have the legal knowledge of a an elementary school-aged special education student.

And an amendment can ignore part of the Constitution if it so states clearly.

 

[martybegan]

Yes and I believe that was the law the Supreme Court overturned.

Wrong. Still in effect. That isn't for concealed carry, that's for a home license.

 

[martybegan]

Yes

Yes

Bullshit on one.

And wrong on two.

 

[Godboy]

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.

Democrats will NEVER vote for that. That route is a literal impossibility. Got anything else? We are screwed if thats the only option.

 

[martybegan]

Democrats will NEVER vote for that. That route is a literal impossibility. Got anything else? We are screwed if thats the only option.

Article V convention, which has its own risks, but at this point I feel it is needed.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Bullshit on one.

And wrong on two.

You think those are not infringements? Interesting.

To the topic, what are you worried about if you think your position is right and SCOTUS will go that way?

 

[CowboyTed]

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

oreign diplomats enjoy certain immunities under international law. The spouse and child of a diplomat generally enjoy similar immunities. Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”[2] DHS regulations, however, have long allowed these children to choose to be considered lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from the time of birth

All other people in the US is subject to US laws... this includes Citizens, Tourists, Business Visas, Undocumented....
Simply put, EU countries solved this. Change your Constitution to reflect a more modern world...

Why are you objecting..

 

[martybegan]

You think those are not infringements? Interesting.

To the topic, what are you worried about if you think your position is right and SCOTUS will go that way?

No they are. I call bullshit on you thinking they are.

I think SCOTUS will punt and the majority opinion will say an EO isn't the way to do this, without commenting on legislation accomplishing it.

Only the 3 libs will say in their concurrence that an amendment is required. The rest of the majority will not.