Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Reaches the Supreme Court

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Or lawfully. If you are not a citizen, and simply being in the US does not make you under the jurisdiction, then the laws of the US do not apply to you.

But if our laws don't apply to those in country unlawfully then how does anyone enforce our criminal laws against them? Arrest them, deport them?

 

[Rogue AI]

Or lawfully. If you are not a citizen, and simply being in the US does not make you under the jurisdiction, then the laws of the US do not apply to you.

Nonsense, they fall under our laws within our territory, they are not extended the rights and privileges of citizens such as voting or birthright citizenship. You folks are grasping.

 

[Correll]

But if our laws don't apply to those in country unlawfully then how does anyone enforce our criminal laws against them? Arrest them, deport them?

Grab them and phyiscally throw them out of the country.

 

[otto105]

Grab them and phyiscally throw them out of the country.

Get that jack boot!

We're all national socialists now. Maybe their checking the stickers on signs for UN invasion plans...

 

[Correll]

Get that jack boot!

We're all national socialists now. Maybe their checking the stickers on signs for UN invasion plans...

The nazis weren't don't really have a bad rap, because they deported a lot of people from nazi germany....


Your... point is really, really, REALLY, dumb.

 

[kyzr]

It does not make you a citizen. But the article states people born under the jurisdiction. The parents being here puts them under the jurisdiction.

I think there was an exception for diplomats' kids, meaning that they are non-citizens so their kids are not citizens.

So are illegals like diplomats, "not subject to the jurisdiction" since they are not citizens?

 

[Correll]

I think there was an exception for diplomats' kids, meaning that they are non-citizens so their kids are not citizens.

So are illegals like diplomats, "not subject to the jurisdiction" since they are not citizens?

So, just being here, isn't enough to count? MMMMMMMMMMMMM..... how interesting....

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I'm just curious how the people who wrote the 14th amendment explained why the child would be a citizen but the parents would not? Would that have meant that the child had rights the parents did not? If the child was a citizen and had rights, did that mean the parents could not be deported? If not, then why not just make the whole family citizens?

The idea that they meant for any illegal who got onto US soil and had a baby that was a citizen, just doesn't make sense.

Because the 14th amendment was crafted to address the issue of the landmark and reportedly most infamous SCOTUS ruling in Dred Scott v Sandford which ruled as follows (it was created to address SCOTUS ruling that black people were not citizens and to make it clear that children of former slaves were considered citizens):

"The 14th Amendment was passed largely in response to the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Here's the context:

---

• Issue: Whether Dred Scott, an enslaved man who had lived in free states and territories, was a citizen of the United States and could sue for his freedom in federal court.
• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled:
  1. African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in federal court.
  2. Congress lacked the authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories, effectively nullifying the Missouri Compromise.
• Significance: This decision not only denied citizenship to African Americans but also deeply entrenched slavery and heightened sectional tensions leading to the Civil War.

---

• Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendmentwas designed to:
  1. Overturn Dred Scott by guaranteeing citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, regardless of race, and ensuring equal protection under the law.
  2. Secure the rights of formerly enslaved people in the aftermath of the Civil War.
• Citizenship Clause: Explicitly grants citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, removing any ambiguity about the citizenship of African Americans or anyone else born on U.S. soil.
• Equal Protection Clause: Mandates that states must provide equal protection of the laws to all persons within their jurisdiction, further counteracting the racial discrimination entrenched by Dred Scott.

---

The 14th Amendment not only repudiated Dred Scott but also laid the foundation for future civil rights advancements, including:

1. The end of segregation through Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
2. The application of constitutional rights to state actions via incorporation doctrine.
3. Modern rulings on immigration, voting rights, and equality.

---

In summary, the 14th Amendment was a direct repudiation of Dred Scott v. Sandford, ensuring that citizenship and basic rights could no longer be denied on the basis of race."

 

[Rogue AI]

Because the 14th amendment was crafted to address the issue of the landmark and reportedly most infamous SCOTUS ruling in Dred Scott v Sandford which ruled as follows (it was created to address SCOTUS ruling that black people were not citizens and to make it clear that children of former slaves were considered citizens):

"The 14th Amendment was passed largely in response to the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Here's the context:

---

• Issue: Whether Dred Scott, an enslaved man who had lived in free states and territories, was a citizen of the United States and could sue for his freedom in federal court.
• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled:
  1. African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in federal court.
  2. Congress lacked the authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories, effectively nullifying the Missouri Compromise.
• Significance: This decision not only denied citizenship to African Americans but also deeply entrenched slavery and heightened sectional tensions leading to the Civil War.

---

• Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendmentwas designed to:
  1. Overturn Dred Scott by guaranteeing citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, regardless of race, and ensuring equal protection under the law.
  2. Secure the rights of formerly enslaved people in the aftermath of the Civil War.
• Citizenship Clause: Explicitly grants citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, removing any ambiguity about the citizenship of African Americans or anyone else born on U.S. soil.
• Equal Protection Clause: Mandates that states must provide equal protection of the laws to all persons within their jurisdiction, further counteracting the racial discrimination entrenched by Dred Scott.

---

The 14th Amendment not only repudiated Dred Scott but also laid the foundation for future civil rights advancements, including:

1. The end of segregation through Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
2. The application of constitutional rights to state actions via incorporation doctrine.
3. Modern rulings on immigration, voting rights, and equality.

---

In summary, the 14th Amendment was a direct repudiation of Dred Scott v. Sandford, ensuring that citizenship and basic rights could no longer be denied on the basis of race."

You are cherry picking by ignoring section 5. Barring an act of Congress, which has not occurred, the interpretation defaults to the president who is tasked with enforcing federal laws.

 

[Orangecat]

Quite likely there is some form of ownership or money involvement that allows it to stay around

Fills the quota for racist victim whites who pretend to be black.

 

[Truth2Know]

If Prince William and Kate Middleton were to come to the states and had a baby, would it be an American citizen?

According to some, only Kate would need to come. William could stay at home with the British kids.

 

[Correll]

According to some, only Kate would need to come. William could stay at home with the British kids.

According to some, wouldn't even have to land, just fly into us airspace for the delivery and then turn around, fly back, boom, all you need.

 

[Moonglow]

Try thinking.

way ahead of you hopeful sychophants.

 

[Moonglow]

According to some, wouldn't even have to land, just fly into us airspace for the delivery and then turn around, fly back, boom, all you need.

Aslong as it is below six hundred feet

 

[Orangecat]

way ahead of you hopeful sychophants.

That’s why you don’t capitalize sentences. Moron.

 

[Auld Phart]

It would have dual citizenship.

wrong

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because the 14th amendment was crafted to address the issue of the landmark and reportedly most infamous SCOTUS ruling in Dred Scott v Sandford which ruled as follows (it was created to address SCOTUS ruling that black people were not citizens and to make it clear that children of former slaves were considered citizens):

"The 14th Amendment was passed largely in response to the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Here's the context:

---

• Issue: Whether Dred Scott, an enslaved man who had lived in free states and territories, was a citizen of the United States and could sue for his freedom in federal court.
• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled:
  1. African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in federal court.
  2. Congress lacked the authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories, effectively nullifying the Missouri Compromise.
• Significance: This decision not only denied citizenship to African Americans but also deeply entrenched slavery and heightened sectional tensions leading to the Civil War.

---

• Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendmentwas designed to:
  1. Overturn Dred Scott by guaranteeing citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, regardless of race, and ensuring equal protection under the law.
  2. Secure the rights of formerly enslaved people in the aftermath of the Civil War.
• Citizenship Clause: Explicitly grants citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, removing any ambiguity about the citizenship of African Americans or anyone else born on U.S. soil.
• Equal Protection Clause: Mandates that states must provide equal protection of the laws to all persons within their jurisdiction, further counteracting the racial discrimination entrenched by Dred Scott.

---

The 14th Amendment not only repudiated Dred Scott but also laid the foundation for future civil rights advancements, including:

1. The end of segregation through Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
2. The application of constitutional rights to state actions via incorporation doctrine.
3. Modern rulings on immigration, voting rights, and equality.

---

In summary, the 14th Amendment was a direct repudiation of Dred Scott v. Sandford, ensuring that citizenship and basic rights could no longer be denied on the basis of race."

OK, so BRC was adopted for the children of slaves. I'm trying to figure how we get from there, to children of illegals. If they intended for the children of illegals to be citizens, then what did they do with the parents? They would have HAD to allow them to stay, right? So, why didn't they just make the whole family citizens?

 

[AntonToo]

A mexican woman in the desert at night, being transported by cartel coyotes, has a baby 10 feet across the border into texas.

That woman, no american even knows she is there.

How is she "under our jurisdiction"?

Umm simple - she and her Coyote friends are subject to arrest by US authorities…unlike ambassadors for example.

 

[AntonToo]

I'm just curious how the people who wrote the 14th amendment explained why the child would be a citizen but the parents would not? Would that have meant that the child had rights the parents did not? If the child was a citizen and had rights, did that mean the parents could not be deported? If not, then why not just make the whole family citizens?

The idea that they meant for any illegal who got onto US soil and had a baby that was a citizen, just doesn't make sense.

Because one was born in US and the others were not.

What’s not to get?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The US Constitution is very clear.

He should lose in a snap ruling.

Remember when the US constitution was clear on abortion? That was awesome!