Trump supports immigration visas backed by Musk: ‘I have many H-1B visas on my properties’

[Care4all]

"Because I say so" is not an argument.

Indian Citizenship Act - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Mac-7]

On this one you should give up. Only a constitutional amendment will change the 14th Amendment, and that is simply not happening.

All it takes is a new ruling from the SC

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

All it takes is a new ruling from the SC

You have to get a case up through the federal court system. Show me a case that you could go through, fighting case law, that the SCOTIS would even consider reviewing. Go right ahead. I hope you have plenty of money to fritter away on lawyers, knowing you will never get anything back. File that suit in federal court and go with it! I will sit back and laugh while you find a lawyer stupid enough to take a case they cannot win, embarring their professional reputation beyond all hope.

 

[Mac-7]

You have to get a case up through the federal court system. Show me a case that you could go through, fighting case law, that the SCOTIS would even consider reviewing. Go right ahead. I hope you have plenty of money to fritter away on lawyers, knowing you will never get anything back. File that suit in federal court and go with it! I will sit back and laugh while you find a lawyer stupid enough to take a case they cannot win, embarring their professional reputation beyond all hope.

If you want to know all that hire a lawyer to explain it to you

 

[para bellum]

Indian Citizenship Act - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Yes, I already mentioned that. It came 60 years after the 14th was adopted. That should tell you that "all persons" in the 14th was not really all persons...

The term "subject to the jurisdiction of" had a specific meaning in the 19th century, which I described previously. It would have been simple for the Congress to just say "all persons who are not ambassadors, diplomats, or their families", if that's what they intended.

But they included the term "and subject to the jurisdiction of" as a limiter to "all persons".

At the time, that meant Indians and other foreigners who had not expressed a desire to become a US citizen through naturalization.

Today it means something different, and for many years I held the same view you hold. But I have studied it, and I have since changed my view on what the Congress intended by the language in the 14th.

 

[para bellum]

You have to get a case up through the federal court system. Show me a case that you could go through, fighting case law, that the SCOTIS would even consider reviewing.

It might be possible if Trump issues an EO that prohibits the issuing of Social Security numbers to children of illegals.

That would trigger a 14th Amendment suit in Federal Court that could make it up to the SCOTUS.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If you want to know all that hire a lawyer to explain it to you

You obviously have no clue. I have hired lawyers before. Apparently, you have not.

I want you to put your money where your mouth is and see how far it will go. maybe then, you will realize just how stupid your ideas are!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It might be possible if Trump issues an EO that prohibits the issuing of Social Security numbers to children of illegals.

That would trigger a 14th Amendment suit in Federal Court that could make it up to the SCOTUS.

He won't do that if he's smart. Texas already tried it and had to settle out of court with those denied birth certificates and thus SSNs to children of illegals. Besides, how would they know the kids were illegals when they applied to get an SSN with a valid birth certificate?

It would be struck down as unconstitutional at the lowest federal court. SCOTUS would also agree.

 

[Mac-7]

You obviously have no clue. I have hired lawyers before. Apparently, you have not.

I want you to put your money where your mouth is and see how far it will go. maybe then, you will realize just how stupid your ideas are!

I’m not a lawyer

But I know that birthright citizenship for anchor babies hangs on the word of unelected judges on the SC

 

[jc456]

No need. Case law has established the 14th as we know it, except for you and a few other imbeciles.

nope, sorry chief, as I already posted from the Heritage Foundation the court ruling you posted. It's limited in scope and didn't include the subject to jurisdiction clause.

 

[para bellum]

It would be struck down as unconstitutional at the lowest federal court. SCOTUS would also agree.

It would have to be struck down by the District Court and the Court of Appeals- that is the only way to get it before the SCOTUS.

What happens there? Well, it's an originalist court, so I am not so sure they would be unwilling to revisit the question.

I do concede it's a heavy lift.

 

[Marener]

It would have to be struck down by the District Court and the Court of Appeals- that is the only way to get it before the SCOTUS.

What happens there? Well, it's an originalist court, so I am not so sure they would be unwilling to revisit the question.

I do concede it's a heavy lift.

This court will make it up whenever it suits then. There’s no guarantee that anything in the constitution means anything anymore.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I’m not a lawyer

But I know that birthright citizenship for anchor babies hangs on the word of unelected judges on the SC

There is no such thing as anchor baby and all federal judges are unelected. You will never be able to change either of those facts. Whine all you want to the wall, because that is about as much good as you are doing here.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It would have to be struck down by the District Court and the Court of Appeals- that is the only way to get it before the SCOTUS.

What happens there? Well, it's an originalist court, so I am not so sure they would be unwilling to revisit the question.

I do concede it's a heavy lift.

It is an originalist court so they are less likely to overturn precedent. Roe v. Wade was flawed, so that is why it was reversed.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

nope, sorry chief, as I already posted from the Heritage Foundation the court ruling you posted. It's limited in scope and didn't include the subject to jurisdiction clause.

Who is the Chief Justice of the Heritage Foundation? A bunch of conservative amateurs with good intentions is all you have.

File your lawsuit while everyone points and laughs!

 

[Twisted Gypsy Child]

let's be honest, elections have consequences and CULTISTS have no memory. I do believe that Vivek said "American workers suck" as well
Cultists, how do you like them apples

 

[para bellum]

It is an originalist court so they are less likely to overturn precedent. Roe v. Wade was flawed, so that is why it was reversed.

You may be right, but originalism is interpreting a law based on the meaning at the time the law was passed, not the contemporary meaning.

The clause in dispute is "subject to the jurisdiction of", and the meaning of that term in 1850 is different than how it is viewed today.

They don't have to overturn Wong Kim Ark, because that case did not address the question of lawful presence. There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant in 1898. They only looked at permanent presence, which was satisfied by the long term residence and business operations of the parents.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You may be right, but originalism is interpreting a law based on the meaning at the time the law was passed, not the contemporary meaning.

The clause in dispute is "subject to the jurisdiction of", and the meaning of that term in 1850 is different than how it is viewed today.

They don't have to overturn Wong Kim Ark, because that case did not address the question of lawful presence. There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant in 1898. They only looked at permanent presence, which was satisfied by the long term residence and business operations of the parents.

The originalism is in the writing of the 14th Amendment. The fact that illegal immigrants did not exist is irrelevant to Congress' intent.

 

[g5000]

Why would anyone want to hire a well-educated non-white person from some filthy shithole country to work in hi-tech when they can hire one of these fine MAGA high school graduates?

 

[para bellum]

The originalism is in the writing of the 14th Amendment. The fact that illegal immigrants did not exist is irrelevant to Congress' intent.

The 14th has the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

It does not define the clause. The clause had a meaning in 1865 that was different than how it is understood today.

An originalist court will interpret the text of a law based on the meaning when the law was written, not how it's understood today.

The reason I mentioned illegal immigrants was to explain that interpreting "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in an originalist way would not require overturning Wong Kim Ark.

IOW, anyone whose parents are present in compliance with US law would still be entitled to birthright citizenship. People who are present illegally could be excluded as aliens, without violating legal precedent.

I think it would have to only apply going forward, because you do not want to create a class of stateless people as a result. But I think the interpretation as a matter of law is not as cut-and-dried as many people assume.