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

[Marener]

All questions the court answered, and the current court can answer for the current case.

The intent of the 14th was simply to make the freedmen citizens, the loose wording gave us the situation we have now.

Congress needs to act to fix it, or we need an Article V convention to fix it.

It was Sauer’s job to answer it.

He didn’t and neither can you. The argument is nonsense.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

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.

.

After watching AutoPen Joe's "administration" doing all the carnage it did, there is nothing that can happen under President Trump's hand which can freak me out.

.

 

[martybegan]

It was Sauer’s job to answer it.

He didn’t and neither can you. The argument is nonsense.

The argument has merits, but it isn't overwhelming enough for this court to accept it.

 

[Marener]

The argument has merits, but it isn't overwhelming enough for this court to accept it.

The argument has a lot of holes and would be a mess if the court agreed with the administration.

The claim that Ark is consistent with their interpretation of the amendment is bogus.

The parents of Wong Kim Ark had no allegiance to the country, and couldn’t ever become citizens.

 

[martybegan]

The argument has a lot of holes and would be a mess if the court agreed with the administration.

The claim that Ark is consistent with their interpretation of the amendment is bogus.

The parents of Wong Kim Ark had no allegiance to the country, and couldn’t ever become citizens.

Just because it would be a mess isn't a reason to deny it if you believe the argument.

Ark is unrelated because it was before modern immigration laws were in place, and was about an Exclusion law that is no longer in effect.

 

[Marener]

Just because it would be a mess isn't a reason to deny it if you believe the argument.

Ark is unrelated because it was before modern immigration laws were in place, and was about an Exclusion law that is no longer in effect.

It’s controlling precedent. Just because the immigration laws changed doesn’t mean the constitution did.

The 14th amendment could have been written narrowly to grant citizenship to former slaves, but it wasn’t. Purposefully so.

 

[martybegan]

It’s controlling precedent. Just because the immigration laws changed doesn’t mean the constitution did.

The 14th amendment could have been written narrowly to grant citizenship to former slaves, but it wasn’t. Purposefully so.

No, it isn't. It doesn't deal with the same situation, so the whole idea of it being precedent is wrong.

It was written to make sure the Freedmen were given citizenship and to remove the whole 3/5ths thing.

Anything else is due to the loose language.

Laws can clarify that, but I would prefer an Article V amendment, that can revoke birthright citizenship going back some amount of time.

 

[Marener]

No, it isn't. It doesn't deal with the same situation, so the whole idea of it being precedent is wrong.

It was written to make sure the Freedmen were given citizenship and to remove the whole 3/5ths thing.

Anything else is due to the loose language.

Laws can clarify that, but I would prefer an Article V amendment, that can revoke birthright citizenship going back some amount of time.

It has to do with people born to non-citizens in the country getting citizenship because that’s what the 14th amendment says.

There’s no way to argue that Trump’s interpretation of the citizenship clause could be consistent with Wong Kim Ark, despite their attempt to argue such.

If the authors wanted it to apply only to former slaves, it would have said so. They wanted it to apply to immigrants too.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Sounds like you hate humans and perhaps like animals.

Sounds like he hates fake Republicans

 

[Zincwarrior]

Doesn't matter if you shitcan the 14th Amendment's current interpretation. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it!

Shitcan it and 250mm Americans cannot prove they are citizens. This includes MAGAs!*

* For clarity my family was here before there was a USA.

 

[martybegan]

It has to do with people born to non-citizens in the country getting citizenship because that’s what the 14th amendment says.

There’s no way to argue that Trump’s interpretation of the citizenship clause could be consistent with Wong Kim Ark, despite their attempt to argue such.

If the authors wanted it to apply only to former slaves, it would have said so. They wanted it to apply to immigrants too.

Before the current laws were applied, which has to do with jurisdiction.

We already exclude children of diplomats, excluding children of illegals would be just expanding that.

Again, Wong Kim Ark doesn't apply to the current situation.

 

[Robert W]

Sounds like he hates fake Republicans

I think he hates fake Democrats.

 

[Rawley]

Thy ruling in the 20s say’s otherwise

Nah

 

[Rawley]

Were they subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Did they owe the US any allegiance?

Yup Same as any green card holder. They were legal, permanent residents domiciled here.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No, it isn't.

And pretending otherwise is just that.

Yes it is. Anyone born under the law and control of the US is a citizen. Period.

 

[Marener]

Before the current laws were applied, which has to do with jurisdiction.

We already exclude children of diplomats, excluding children of illegals would be just expanding that.

Again, Wong Kim Ark doesn't apply to the current situation.

Diplomats aren’t subject to our jurisdiction because they have diplomatic immunity. That’s very different than illegal immigrants.

You or Sauer can’t give a coherent explanation or what “subject to the jurisdiction” means, let alone provide any legal argument for that explanation.

 

[Robert W]

Diplomats aren’t subject to our jurisdiction because they have diplomatic immunity. That’s very different than illegal immigrants.

You or Sauer can’t give a coherent explanation or what “subject to the jurisdiction” means, let alone provide any legal argument for that explanation.

Citizens can't be removed even by parents since the child is not a citizen of where the parents are. I hope the Supreme Court rules these children can't stay and the parents get removed with the child.

 

[martybegan]

Yes it is. Anyone born under the law and control of the US is a citizen. Period.

And that is defined how?

We already exclude children of diplomats, so extending that to illegals should just take a law.

 

[Zincwarrior]

And that is defined how?

We already exclude children of diplomats, so extending that to illegals should just take a law.

14th amendment. Its as clear as the sun
. I mean its goddamn literal.

 

[martybegan]

Diplomats aren’t subject to our jurisdiction because they have diplomatic immunity. That’s very different than illegal immigrants.

You or Sauer can’t give a coherent explanation or what “subject to the jurisdiction” means, let alone provide any legal argument for that explanation.

They have diplomatic immunity due to international agreements. Their kids not being citizens automatically here is due to the law below.

Federal Register :: Request Access

Status of person. A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Such a person may be considered a lawful permanent resident at birth.

So now that we have a law declaring the above, declaring children of illegals not covered under the 14th should just require congress passing a law to define it.