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

[martybegan]

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..

And a federal law clarifies this further. Why couldn't another law clarify illegals aren't under the jurisdiction therof" when it comes to the 14th amendment?

 

[Zincwarrior]

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.

That might be quite prescient.

 

[Zincwarrior]

And a federal law clarifies this further. Why couldn't another law clarify illegals aren't under the jurisdiction therof" when it comes to the 14th amendment?

What if there was a law passed that Catholics aren't? Would Catholics then no longer be born citizens?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Redefining? Like gun laws redine the terms of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Bullshit. Where does it say that?

Stop pulling dhit out of your ass! You are starting to act like KBJ on the Supreme Court.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Sure we did. Wong v. US.

 

[busybee01]

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.

You can't pass a law. It has to be a constitutional amendment.

 

[BrokeLoser]

You can't pass a law. It has to be a constitutional amendment.

How did the kenyan shove DACA down our throats?

 

[candycorn]

Again...that the court is taking the case is an indication that birthright citizenship is on life support....one of the very few things that is spelled out with 100% clarity in the constitution as being a birthright.

So I think MAGA has already won this.

The source in the OP is right. I’m sure he’s persona-non-grada in MAGA camps now but he was right... BRC is on the way out...same sex and interracial marriage is on the way out too.

And no--expanding the court will not stop it.

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit. Where does it say that?

Stop pulling dhit out of your ass! You are starting to act like KBJ on the Supreme Court.

Because an amendment amends the Constitution and saying "this can be apply retroactively" then becomes part of the Constituion.

 

[martybegan]

Sure we did. Wong v. US.

Wong doesn't apply because back then the laws in question were the Exclusion acts, not current immigration laws.

 

[martybegan]

You can't pass a law. It has to be a constitutional amendment.

I think you could pass a law, but it would only apply to anyone after the signing of the law.

To make it retroactive would require an amendment.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Because an amendment amends the Constitution and saying "this can be apply retroactively" then becomes part of the Constituion.

The main part of the Constitution which outlaws ex post facto would need to be repealed. That isn't happening.

 

[JoeB131]

Wong doesn't apply because back then the laws in question were the Exclusion acts, not current immigration laws.

that actually makes it stronger.

Chinese were considered unsavory at the time, as undocumented immigrants are now.

Didn't matter. You are born here, you are a citizen. The Constitution says so.

 

[martybegan]

The main part of the Constitution which outlaws ex post facto would need to be repealed. That isn't happening.

No, it wouldn't. The new amendment would just have to clearly say that in the case of birthright citizenship, Congress can make removing it retroactive.

 

[martybegan]

that actually makes it stronger.

Chinese were considered unsavory at the time, as undocumented immigrants are now.

Didn't matter. You are born here, you are a citizen. The Constitution says so.

The exclusion acts that were the crux of the case are no longer in effect. New laws are that don't follow those laws are now in effect.

The Constitution says if you are "under the juristiction thereof"

It isn't as explicit as you claim it to be.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, it wouldn't. The new amendment would just have to clearly say that in the case of birthright citizenship, Congress can make removing it retroactive.

That would create a contradiction in the Constitution itself. Why can't you see that? It goes against all common logic to do that. You can have ex post facto laws except this one time? Are you serious or just plain dumb?

 

[JoeB131]

The exclusion acts that were the crux of the case are no longer in effect. New laws are that don't follow those laws are now in effect.

The Constitution says if you are "under the juristiction thereof"

It isn't as explicit as you claim it to be.

Sure it is.

We arrest undocumented immigrants all the time, so they are clearly under our jurisdiction.

It isn't about the immigrants, it's about the babies, who are born in areas under the jurisdiction of the US.

 

[martybegan]

That would create a contradiction in the Constitution itself. Why can't you see that? It goes against all common logic to do that. You can have ex post facto laws except this one time? Are you serious or just plain dumb?

No contradiction, because it would be explicit for that specific case.

Drawing lines is what laws are all about, I fail to see your issue with this.

Do two people share your account? You go from posting like a 60 year old to posting like some 25 year old moron.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The exclusion acts that were the crux of the case are no longer in effect. New laws are that don't follow those laws are now in effect.

The Constitution says if you are "under the juristiction thereof"

It isn't as explicit as you claim it to be.

The problem is Wong explained what "under the jurisdiction thereof" in its argument. You and others don't seem to realize that fact.

I am betting you will be sorely disappointed in the ruling.