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

[martybegan]

Except there's no rationalization for moving the line other than you want to.

We can only deport diplomats if their home country allows it. That's why they were carved out as a special group, as were Native American tribes that had treaties the US broke at the first opportunity.

Otherwise, in hundreds of years of English Common Law, if you are born here, you are a subject of the country. the 14th only clarified the status of Ex-slaves, but underscored this fact.

If you want to amend the constitution, fine, but I don't think there's a lot of appetite for that right now. Not over this.

Plenty of reasons, mainly controlling who becomes a citizen of a country is the right of a country.

No, we can PNG a diplomat any time we feel like it. We can only criminally charge them with their permission.

 

[martybegan]

Why does there need to be an explanation? The EO violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment. There! That is all that needs to be said.

No, the EO simply doesn't have the authority to declare an end to birthright citizenship for illegals.

The next step is congress passing a law limiting it to children of citizens and legal permanent residents.

 

[JoeB131]

Plenty of reasons, mainly controlling who becomes a citizen of a country is the right of a country.

Nope. the 14th was meant to protect the rights of ALL people born here, that's why it was worded the way that it was.

No, we can PNG a diplomat any time we feel like it. We can only criminally charge them with their permission.

The point is, if all you can do to a diplomat is PNG them, you don't have jurisdiction over them.

As opposed to an immigrant or even a tourist, who is totally subject to our laws.

So if they happen to drop a baby while they are here, that baby is a citizen.

Suck it.

No, the EO simply doesn't have the authority to declare an end to birthright citizenship for illegals.

The next step is congress passing a law limiting it to children of citizens and legal permanent residents.

After Democrats retake Congress in November, that's not gonna happen.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. the 14th was meant to protect the rights of ALL people born here, that's why it was worded the way that it was.



The point is, if all you can do to a diplomat is PNG them, you don't have jurisdiction over them.

As opposed to an immigrant or even a tourist, who is totally subject to our laws.

So if they happen to drop a baby while they are here, that baby is a citizen.

Suck it.


After Democrats retake Congress in November, that's not gonna happen.

They added in "under the Jurisdiction thereof" as a not quite clear condition. That is where you cand raw the line.

And that is defined by law. And you were still wrong about us not being able to remove them from the country.

Diplomats are still subject to our laws, they just can't be prosecuted for breaking them without the parent countries permission.

Well then it's Article V convention time.

 

[JoeB131]

They added in "under the Jurisdiction thereof" as a not quite clear condition. That is where you cand raw the line.

And that is defined by law. And you were still wrong about us not being able to remove them from the country.

Diplomats are still subject to our laws, they just can't be prosecuted for breaking them without the parent countries permission.

Well then it's Article V convention time.

Except the line has been drawn.

It was clearly drawn with Wong.

If you can't be prosecuted, only expelled, then you aren't subject to our laws.


No, we don't need to go mucking with the Constitution because you don't like brown people.

I can think of much better reasons to have a convention- getting rid of the Electoral College, getting rid of the Senate, getting rid of the Presidential Pardon Power, getting rid of the Second Amendment.

The fact is, many of the people who wanted to "Send the immigrants home" in 2024 are horrified to see Soccer Moms get shot in the face and small kids in bunny hats sent to concentration camps.

 

[martybegan]

Except the line has been drawn.

It was clearly drawn with Wong.

If you can't be prosecuted, only expelled, then you aren't subject to our laws.


No, we don't need to go mucking with the Constitution because you don't like brown people.

I can think of much better reasons to have a convention- getting rid of the Electoral College, getting rid of the Senate, getting rid of the Presidential Pardon Power, getting rid of the Second Amendment.

The fact is, many of the people who wanted to "Send the immigrants home" in 2024 are horrified to see Soccer Moms get shot in the face and small kids in bunny hats sent to concentration camps.

Wong doesn't apply because it was decided before modern immigration law and dealt with Exclusion acts passed after Ark was born in the US.

You can be prosecuted, you just need the host countries' permission. Also the term is jurisdiction, not laws.

As for your last statement...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, the EO simply doesn't have the authority to declare an end to birthright citizenship for illegals.

The next step is congress passing a law limiting it to children of citizens and legal permanent residents.

That would violate the 14th Amendment. Simple facts. You will learn that when SCOTUS bashes your dreams.

 

[martybegan]

That would violate the 14th Amendment. Simple facts. You will learn that when SCOTUS bashes your dreams.

I don't think it does.

And if SCOTUS says only an amendment will fix this, then I support an amendment either via Congress or an Article V convention.

 

[Zincwarrior]

then I support an amendment either via Congress or an Article V convention.

Then you have really boned the US. Kiss the Second Amendment goodbye.

 

[martybegan]

Then you have really boned the US. Kiss the Second Amendment goodbye.

You won't get enough States to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Amendments require 38 of 50 States to approve an amendment to be ratified.

 

[Zincwarrior]

You won't get enough States to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Amendments require 38 of 50 States to approve an amendment to be ratified.

If you have a convention, it only requires approval of the conventioneers, and then ratification. EVERYTHING is up for grabs.
Eliminating electors and nationwide elections
Repeal the Second Amendment
Modify the Supreme Court
Add protections for privacy, medical care
its an open game!

 

[Hafar1014]

If you have a convention, it only requires approval of the conventioneers, and then ratification. EVERYTHING is up for grabs.
Eliminating electors and nationwide elections
Repeal the Second Amendment
Modify the Supreme Court
Add protections for privacy, medical care
its an open game!

Good luck

 

[martybegan]

If you have a convention, it only requires approval of the conventioneers, and then ratification. EVERYTHING is up for grabs.
Eliminating electors and nationwide elections
Repeal the Second Amendment
Modify the Supreme Court
Add protections for privacy, medical care
its an open game!

And any proposed Amendment that leaves the convention requires 3/4 of the States to approve it before it becomes a ratified amendment.

38 of 50.

 

[Zincwarrior]

And any proposed Amendment that leaves the convention requires 3/4 of the States to approve it before it becomes a ratified amendment.

38 of 50.

No. it only requires what we agree it requires.

 

[martybegan]

No. it only requires what we agree it requires.

No, it requires 38 of 50 States to Ratify.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No, it requires 38 of 50 States to Ratify.

Nope. thats not how these work. Try and lets find out.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. thats not how these work. Try and lets find out.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,

 

[Zincwarrior]

Thats great an all, but doesn't matter if there's a Constitutional convention. The last time we had one we went from the Articles to the Constitution.

So lets do it and find out!

 

[martybegan]

Thats great an all, but doesn't matter if there's a Constitutional convention. The last time we had one we went from the Articles to the Constitution.

So lets do it and find out!

That was under the Articles of Confederation. We have never had an Article V Convention under the Constitution.

You are wrong. just deal with it.

 

[Unkotare]

Except the line has been drawn.

It was clearly drawn with Wong.

If you can't be prosecuted, only expelled, then you aren't subject to our laws.


No, we don't need to go mucking with the Constitution because you don't like brown people.

I can think of much better reasons to have a convention- getting rid of the Electoral College, getting rid of the Senate, getting rid of the Presidential Pardon Power, getting rid of the Second Amendment.

The fact is, many of the people who wanted to "Send the immigrants home" in 2024 are horrified to see Soccer Moms get shot in the face and small kids in bunny hats sent to concentration camps.

People are not colors, and babies are born not "dropped."