2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: Flapp_Jackson on December 11, 2024, 06:34:52 PM
-
At a minimum, this will (probably) go to the Supreme Court and finally answer the question on whether merely being born on US soil regardless of the parent's legal national residence makes one a US citizen.
We are the only nation that has this "feature." No other country lets a mother give birth in their state and bestow citizenship on the child allowing him/her to remain in the country as a citizen. We give kids born of foreign parents here dual citizenship which is bizarre. A mother from China could have a kid here then take the child back to child and raise it. That child then has full citizenship status in the US until, say, 21 when they decide to return to the US and join the State Department or serve in Congress.
All kinds of scenarios where we should do away with this outdated solution meant to make slaves born in the US who have no other country of their own to be granted citizenship.
https://youtu.be/u6bLBxf1Ue4
-
so waycist
-
so waycist
There are no Caucasian anchor babies? I was unaware.
-
Thats some gymnastics for an executive order to suspend a constitutional amendment. Have to see how this one plays out.
-
Thats some gymnastics for an executive order to suspend a constitutional amendment. Have to see how this one plays out.
The part up for interpretation is jurisdiction. Children born in the US by foreign dignitaries dont get citizenship because dignitaries aren't affected by US laws. Same could be interpreted for illegal immigrants crossing the border. I don't think it can be applied to persons on current visas tho.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...."
-
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Very important words.
In my opinion doesn't apply to illegal immigrants.
-
There are no Caucasian anchor babies? I was unaware.
waycist again.
I just say that as default to things I don't agree with but can't find an answer to. But I agree with you even though I think I am wrong.
-
Thats some gymnastics for an executive order to suspend a constitutional amendment. Have to see how this one plays out.
Please show where Trump said he was suspending a Constitutional Amendment.
You're creating a straw argument again.
Roe v. Wade did not require a new amendment to give women the "right" to have an abortion. The Supreme Court simply interpreted the right to privacy in a new way -- sort of a Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon way. If the relationship between a doctor and patient is privileged, and a doctor is performing abortions, then the doctor also has a right to privacy which prevents the government from intervening in their practice. Most people got it wrong when they said Roe was about protecting the pregnant mother's rights. It was really about protecting the doctors. There is no other right that is afforded to a third party this way, but that's how the Liberal majority court decided. It took decades to correct that legal blunder.
Something similar is needed for birthright citizenship. The amendment was created after the Civil War to ensure African slaves born in the US of foreign parents would be granted citizenship. The 14th amendment is all about post civil war issues including citizenship, due process, equal protection, privileges or immunities, rebellion and other crime(s), etc. All of these were post civil war issues that needed to be addressed federally so the Southern states could not infringe on the rights of freed slaves and the North could not infringe on the rights of former Confederate soldiers.
There's no need to repeal or "suspend" the amendment if the Supreme Court rules that, based on the plain language and original intent of the law, we've been doing it wrong all these decades.
-
This will be interesting.
At Annapolis, there is a ethics class. Say you rescue a vessel traveling illegally from Cuba to Florida. The boat isn't sinking, but they are waving for help as it's often a make shift type raft. A pregnant woman comes aboard and gives birth. That ship is "US soil" and thus the child is a US citizen by birth.
Then you have that Korean CEO who gave birth here so her son doesn't have to join their selective service since he's a US citizen.
Since the many politicians are already shitting on the 2A, what's the harm in shitting on any other "born on US soil" right? Send em back with their parents. If the country of origin doesn't take them, then oh well.
-
The thing that caught my attention is, when a person with foreign citizenship commits a crime on US soil, we arrest them. But, depending on the crime, we will usually deport them into the custody of their own country, and that country will apply their laws and legal system to their citizen.
An American can be thrown into a foreign prison for breaking their laws while in that country. But if they come home before the foreign police can arrest them outside the US, those cops can't just show up at the house in the US and take them back for trial and punishment. That country must go through the extradition process, assuming they have an extradition treaty with the US. Even then, the US may decide to deny extradition. All of that, because you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, not the country you were a visitor in.
That pretty much describes what's meant by "jurisdiction" in my mind. Which means I agree that illegal immigrants and any of their children born in the US are to be deported as foreign citizens, because illegal immigration is breaking the law. These immigrants/aliens never officially renounced their non-US citizenship and never applied to become a naturalized US citizen.
-
i've seen the arguments like "the kid didn't choose where they were born or who their parents are," "they lived their whole lives here and don't speak the language or know anyone in their parent's home country,", and so on.
The question is, suppose a mother arrives with a child born in Mexico 2 days prior. Do not the same arguments apply to that child? Why would we give citizenship to a child born on US soil and not to a 2-day-old child who will experience the exact same situation as the first one?
There's no logic in the law. That's one reason our immigration process is so screwed up and illegals coming to the US can manipulate the system to remain here without ever needing to go through the immigration process.
-
i've seen the arguments like "the kid didn't choose where they were born or who their parents are," "they lived their whole lives here and don't speak the language or know anyone in their parent's home country,", and so on.
The question is, suppose a pother arrives with a child born in Mexico 2 days prior. Do not the same arguments apply to that child? Why would we give citizenship to a child born on US soil and not to a 2-day-old child who will experience the exact same situation as the first one?
There's no logic in the law. That's one reason our immigration process is so screwed up and illegals coming to the US can manipulate the system to remain here without ever needing to go through the immigration process.
Yup, illegals know how the system works and are taking advantage of it. If the DACA person doesn't speak their parents language, then too bad. It's their parents fault for coming here illegally. The only reason for DACA is to get voters for the DNC who support illegals.
-
Please show where Trump said he was suspending a Constitutional Amendment.
You're creating a straw argument again.
Roe v. Wade did not require a new amendment to give women the "right" to have an abortion. The Supreme Court simply interpreted the right to privacy in a new way -- sort of a Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon way. If the relationship between a doctor and patient is privileged, and a doctor is performing abortions, then the doctor also has a right to privacy which prevents the government from intervening in their practice. Most people got it wrong when they said Roe was about protecting the pregnant mother's rights. It was really about protecting the doctors. There is no other right that is afforded to a third party this way, but that's how the Liberal majority court decided. It took decades to correct that legal blunder.
Something similar is needed for birthright citizenship. The amendment was created after the Civil War to ensure African slaves born in the US of foreign parents would be granted citizenship. The 14th amendment is all about post civil war issues including citizenship, due process, equal protection, privileges or immunities, rebellion and other crime(s), etc. All of these were post civil war issues that needed to be addressed federally so the Southern states could not infringe on the rights of freed slaves and the North could not infringe on the rights of former Confederate soldiers.
There's no need to repeal or "suspend" the amendment if the Supreme Court rules that, based on the plain language and original intent of the law, we've been doing it wrong all these decades.
Nice try. Roe V Wade was crafted out of other bits but the 14th amendment directly address this.
I am not opposed to ending birthright citizenship but it should be done clearly and properly by amending the constitution rather than imaginative reinterpretation like how the democrats try to do.
-
The part up for interpretation is jurisdiction. Children born in the US by foreign dignitaries dont get citizenship because dignitaries aren't affected by US laws. Same could be interpreted for illegal immigrants crossing the border. I don't think it can be applied to persons on current visas tho.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...."
Foreign dignitaries as well as foreign armies.
Someone here legally or illegally still fall under the jurisdiction of the USA since they can be held accountable to the laws of the country.
Basically I would argue this is a loophole in the text that needs to be fixed by changing the amendment, not "reinterpretation". If you gave illegal aliens immunity then you could say they don't fall under the jurisdiction but that would create other, worse problems.
-
Nice try. Roe V Wade was crafted out of other bits but the 14th amendment directly address this.
I am not opposed to ending birthright citizenship but it should be done clearly and properly by amending the constitution rather than imaginative reinterpretation like how the democrats try to do.
It was a nice try because it's 100% on point. SCOTUS has the authority to interpret the law. If they interpret the 14th amendment in Trump's favor, there's no need to amend the Constitution.
Stop being obtuse.
If SCOTUS decides we've implemented the 14th incorrectly all these years, there is no need for a new amendment or repeal of the existing 14th.
Do you need a new law to replace an ambiguous one if case law provides the proper interpretation? Same concept.
-
Realistically this wont go to SCOTUS and he'd probably lose there.
Trumps going to finish the wall, kick out the criminals, hold migrants in Canada and Mexico, and lock down the border. He'll put more scrutiny on visas and pass laws to grant amnesty to the otherwise law abiding who are already here.
The deport them all is just leverage like leaving NATO to put attention on the issue and give moderate democrats an excuse to support his agena.
-
Realistically this wont go to SCOTUS and he'd probably lose there.
Trumps going to finish the wall, kick out the criminals, hold migrants in Canada and Mexico, and lock down the border. He'll put more scrutiny on visas and pass laws to grant amnesty to the otherwise law abiding who are already here.
The deport them all is just leverage like leaving NATO to put attention on the issue and give moderate democrats an excuse to support his agena.
Realistically, if we are serious about reducing the mass of illegals coming into the country by any significant amount, we need to stop attracting them. A pregnant woman can offer her child something she may never be able to obtain herself -- US citizenship. That's a huge carrot for anyone intent on making a better life for her children.
So, Trump should do all the things you said, but I think he's actually going to instruct his immigration offices to stop processing children born in the US of foreign parents for automatic citizenship. Of course, 100 groups will be waiting to challenge the XO/XA in court, which means if/when he loses that case, it will at some point be appealed to SCOTUS.
He promised this among his top priorities on day one. So, far, he's made so many day-one promises, it's going to take an entire week! If he's being honest, though, most of this stuff will be drafted for signature before he takes the oath. An hour of signing orders and policies, and it's Miller time -- or whatever teetotaler beverage he enjoys!
-
Utterly 0 chance this works.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
If somehow it does work goodbye second ammendment. When we start voiding constitutional rights they all go away.
-
Funny how human nature works. Think about this when you are competing with these "birthright" babies for housing, food, and other opportunities.
-
It was a nice try because it's 100% on point. SCOTUS has the authority to interpret the law. If they interpret the 14th amendment in Trump's favor, there's no need to amend the Constitution.
Stop being obtuse.
If SCOTUS decides we've implemented the 14th incorrectly all these years, there is no need for a new amendment or repeal of the existing 14th.
Do you need a new law to replace an ambiguous one if case law provides the proper interpretation? Same concept.
Nice backpedaling. Whenever it comes to guns you bemoan the courts for using interpretation to make up gun control law (legislating from the bench) and would have no problem calling out the courts for not upholding the 2nd amendment but now when it comes to something you want you have no problems with the SCOTUS using interpretation to get what you want. Go one way or go the other, I don't care, just be consistent.
Obviously if the SCOTUS decides something a certain way it is going to be that way. Thanks captain obvious.
-
Utterly 0 chance this works.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
If somehow it does work goodbye second ammendment. When we start voiding constitutional rights they all go away.
The 2a begs to differ....
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Nice backpedaling. Whenever it comes to guns you bemoan the courts for using interpretation to make up gun control law (legislating from the bench) and would have no problem calling out the courts for not upholding the 2nd amendment but now when it comes to something you want you have no problems with the SCOTUS using interpretation to get what you want. Go one way or go the other, I don't care, just be consistent.
Obviously if the SCOTUS decides something a certain way it is going to be that way. Thanks captain obvious.
Hahahhahaha. Nice try
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Nice backpedaling. Whenever it comes to guns you bemoan the courts for using interpretation to make up gun control law (legislating from the bench) and would have no problem calling out the courts for not upholding the 2nd amendment but now when it comes to something you want you have no problems with the SCOTUS using interpretation to get what you want. Go one way or go the other, I don't care, just be consistent.
Obviously if the SCOTUS decides something a certain way it is going to be that way. Thanks captain obvious.
Interpreting law within the scope, context and intent is not "legislating from the bench."
Why are you trying to conflate the 2nd amendment with the 14th? The 2nd was ratified in 1791 to protect the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. The 14th, on the other hand, was ratified in 1868 just after the end of the Civil War (1861–1865) to protect citizens and states in the aftermath.
This is not a debate about SCOTUS treating all amendments the same way. it's about a case-by-case deep dive into the meaning of the amendments, their history, and the reasons for their being created in the first place.
If SCOTUS would do that in an honest and straightforward way, i'd welcome that process and have it appled to all amendments.
Seems you have an opinion that is hypocritical. From the sound of your post, you're just throwing out anything that comes top of mind without thinking about what you're saying. Interpreting the Constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade and reassessing birthright citizen ship is not legislating from the bench. It's doing the job the courts were intended to do -- making sure the laws are applied and enforced as they are intended and not as some wish they were.
-
Nice backpedaling. Whenever it comes to guns you bemoan the courts for using interpretation to make up gun control law (legislating from the bench) and would have no problem calling out the courts for not upholding the 2nd amendment but now when it comes to something you want you have no problems with the SCOTUS using interpretation to get what you want. Go one way or go the other, I don't care, just be consistent.
Obviously if the SCOTUS decides something a certain way it is going to be that way. Thanks captain obvious.
Exactly this. The 2nd ammendment is obvious, so it's the 14th. Interpretation of it based on politics is exactly how we lose the right. Imagine a democrat gets elected, stuffs the Supreme Court and now the 2nd ammendment is about muskets only. Or if either says free speech now has a new definition and only applies to vocal speech.
-
Exactly this. The 2nd ammendment is obvious, so it's the 14th. Interpretation of it based on politics is exactly how we lose the right. Imagine a democrat gets elected, stuffs the Supreme Court and now the 2nd ammendment is about muskets only. Or if either says free speech now has a new definition and only applies to vocal speech.
Due Process Clause
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments both contain a Due Process
Clause, although the Fourteenth Amendment applies explicitly to the
states. The Due Process Clauses in both articles as having the same
meaning, as Justice Frankfurter describes in his concurrence in Malinski v.
New York, 324 U.S. 401 (1945): "To suppose that "due process of law" meant
one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth is too frivolous
to require elaborate rejection."
Due process is generally understood to contain two concepts: procedural due
process and substantive due process.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourteenth_amendment_0
So, by "exactly this," are you saying the 14th amendment was "so obvious" that a SOTUS ruling was extraneous and superfluous? In other words, you don't think there needs to be a SCOTUS to rule on the interpretation of any amendments because 2024 America is exactly the same as 1868 American?
Citizenship
Also known as the Naturalization Clause, the Citizenship Clause is contained in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause conferred U.S. and state citizenship at birth to all individuals born in the United States.
African Americans
In Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), the Supreme Court
held that African Americans were not U.S. citizens, even if they were
free.
The Fourteenth Amendment, however, guaranteed that everyone
born or naturalized in the United States and under its jurisdiction
would be a United States citizen. It also ensured that federal citizenship
was also made primary, which meant that states could not prevent
freed slaves from obtaining state citizenship and thus federal citizenship.
As such, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively overturned Scott v.
Sanford.
Since we still have former slaves giving birth to slaves in the US who still have their citizenship denied, you believe the 14th still has the same purpose and intent?
-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourteenth_amendment_0
So, by "exactly this," are you saying the 14th amendment was "so obvious" that a SOTUS ruling was extraneous and superfluous? In other words, you don't think there needs to be a SCOTUS to rule on the interpretation of any amendments because 2024 America is exactly the same as 1868 American?
Since we still have former slaves giving birth to slaves in the US who still have their citizenship denied, you believe the 14th still has the same purpose and intent?
Yes, if we open the can of worms that is modern vs historical. Then a democrat WILL try ban all guns using the same argument that modern weapons are too dangerous or something. Some things are best left alone. Modern freedom of speech is way different than in the 1800s. Do you want the court to redefine the rights of speech?
-
Yes, if we open the can of worms that is modern vs historical. Then a democrat WILL try ban all guns using the same argument that modern weapons are too dangerous or something. Some things are best left alone. Modern freedom of speech is way different than in the 1800s. Do you want the court to redefine the rights of speech?
Please elaborate. What can of worms?
And stop flip-flopping between amendments. This topic is about the 14th amendment only.
The 2nd is a one-off when it comes to protection the rights to which it applies, because guns can harm others physically. The problems with the 2nd isn't interpretation as much as an inability to enforce actual common sense laws, so lawmakers went the knee-jerk route.
The 1st is cut and dried. We've evolved for centuries, and that amendment has been interpreted correctly to cover new technologies and media as they developed.
Birthright citizenship in 2024 makes no logical sense. It needs to stop.
-
Interpreting law within the scope, context and intent is not "legislating from the bench."
I am sure judges who you say "legislate from the bench" believe they are interpreting the law within the scope, context, and intent too.
Why are you trying to conflate the 2nd amendment with the 14th? The 2nd was ratified in 1791 to protect the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. The 14th, on the other hand, was ratified in 1868 just after the end of the Civil War (1861–1865) to protect citizens and states in the aftermath.
It isn't a comparison of the two, it is showing how you alter your justification of interpretation based on the issue. Regardless of the original purpose the language is pretty clear on that part of the 14th amendment therefore trying to show that it doesn't fall within the original purpose just creates room to ignore plain text. I am not saying you are wrong about the original purpose BTW, I just think that the changes need to be made in proper ways by amending the constitution rather than in reinterpreting things which just creates more room for lawmakers and presidents to do whatever they want.
Roe V Wade was created out of bits and pieces and not at all clearly in the constitution. Birthright citizenship is plainly in the text, that is not a good comparison.
-
I am sure judges who you say "legislate from the bench" believe they are interpreting the law within the scope, context, and intent too.
Still pretending you can read minds? Try looking for facts, not just posting made up, unsupported opinions.
Why are you trying to conflate the 2nd amendment with the 14th? The 2nd was ratified in 1791 to protect the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. The 14th, on the other hand, was ratified in 1868 just after the end of the Civil War (1861–1865) to protect citizens and states in the aftermath.
It isn't a comparison of the two, it is showing how you alter your justification of interpretation based on the issue. Regardless of the original purpose the language is pretty clear on that part of the 14th amendment therefore trying to show that it doesn't fall within the original purpose just creates room to ignore plain text. I am not saying you are wrong about the original purpose BTW, I just think that the changes need to be made in proper ways by amending the constitution rather than in reinterpreting things which just creates more room for lawmakers and presidents to do whatever they want.
Roe V Wade was created out of bits and pieces and not at all clearly in the constitution. Birthright citizenship is plainly in the text, that is not a good comparison.
I never altered any justification. You're pretending my thoughts on 2A align with the ficticious arguments you believe support your opinion. Again, mind reader?
When you make a change to the Constitution based on legal opinion, you open it up to getting really screwed up with present day politics. You just have to look at the 18th Amendment to see I'm right. Prohibition was added to the Constitution in order to apply it to all states from the federal level. Just 13 years later, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th.
The Constitution is supposed to be a broad guideline, and any changes should be for new issues not anticipated 200 years ago. It's not supposed to be changed whenever a corrected interpretation can suffice. The process to amend the constitution os very, very difficult -- and for good reason. A change should only be made when the need is so apparent, important and accepted by a very large majority of states. Good luck getting the Constitution changed on this issue in a country that's divided almost evenly down party lines. You know the issue will become a GOP vs. Dem fight.
You're welcome to believe what you want, but you don't screw around with your home's foundation just because a picture is always crooked.
"Birthright citizenship is plainly in the text," Show where that's in plain text, because it includes a clause that has been largely ignored for over 50 years.
-
I never altered any justification. You're pretending my thoughts on 2A align with the ficticious arguments you believe support your opinion. Again, mind reader?
When you make a change to the Constitution based on legal opinion, you open it up to getting really screwed up with present day politics. You just have to look at the 18th Amendment to see I'm right. Prohibition was added to the Constitution in order to apply it to all states from the federal level. Just 13 years later, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th.
The Constitution is supposed to be a broad guideline, and any changes should be for new issues not anticipated 200 years ago. It's not supposed to be changed whenever a corrected interpretation can suffice. The process to amend the constitution os very, very difficult -- and for good reason. A change should only be made when the need is so apparent, important and accepted by a very large majority of states. Good luck getting the Constitution changed on this issue in a country that's divided almost evenly down party lines. You know the issue will become a GOP vs. Dem fight.
You're welcome to believe what you want, but you don't screw around with your home's foundation just because a picture is always crooked.
"Birthright citizenship is plainly in the text," Show where that's in plain text, because it includes a clause that has been largely ignored for over 50 years.
You think there weren't politics back in the day that the constitution was written? Politics always has been and always will be around with any change to law or the constitution. That is not a justification to never touch the constitution, if that were the case we wouldn't have any amendments past the 10th, you wouldn't have an amendment outlawing slavery for example. There is a prescribed way to change the constitution and though you may not like the potential outcome, that is not a justification for reinterpreting it to get the outcome you want. Alcohol was made illegal then they decided it was a mistake, so what did they do? They amended the constitution again like it is supposed to be done, not creative reinterpretation.
Your own argument contradicts itself, saying it is so hard to do it will likely never happen right after citing a case where the constitution was amended twice on a single issue. If they can do it for alcohol then we can do it for birth-right citizenship and in the event we can't then too bad because that is the way the constitution was designed. Regardless I won't stoop to the level that the left plays with gun rights, I hold constitutional principles firmly, not only when it is convenient.
What clause? "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? It was already pointed out to you why this doesn't apply.
BTW I don't need to read minds, I see it in conversations about court decisions all the time. When one side loses they claim corrupt judges, legislating from the bench, etc. When their side wins they claim it is upholding the law and the constitution. It is rarely ever legal principles, mostly run of the mill cognitive bias.
-
You think there weren't politics back in the day that the constitution was written? Politics always has been and always will be around with any change to law or the constitution. That is not a justification to never touch the constitution, if that were the case we wouldn't have any amendments past the 10th, you wouldn't have an amendment outlawing slavery for example. There is a prescribed way to change the constitution and though you may not like the potential outcome, that is not a justification for reinterpreting it to get the outcome you want. Alcohol was made illegal then they decided it was a mistake, so what did they do? They amended the constitution again like it is supposed to be done, not creative reinterpretation.
Your own argument contradicts itself, saying it is so hard to do it will likely never happen right after citing a case where the constitution was amended twice on a single issue. If they can do it for alcohol then we can do it for birth-right citizenship and in the event we can't then too bad because that is the way the constitution was designed. Regardless I won't stoop to the level that the left plays with gun rights, I hold constitutional principles firmly, not only when it is convenient.
What clause? "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? It was already pointed out to you why this doesn't apply.
BTW I don't need to read minds, I see it in conversations about court decisions all the time. When one side loses they claim corrupt judges, legislating from the bench, etc. When their side wins they claim it is upholding the law and the constitution. It is rarely ever legal principles, mostly run of the mill cognitive bias.
I was unaware you studied Constitutional law and political science from the 1700s.
You're missing the entire point. Using the Constitution to force an agenda down every state's throat is not the correct justification for Amending it. Prohibition proved that a shortsighted amendment to include an agenda (banning alcohol) creates worse problems than intended (bootlegging, organized crime, etc.).
Birthright citizenship requires the individual be subject to the jurisdiction of this country. That means they have parents that are subject to US jurisdiction because children are not treated as citizens with rights. They are the responsibility of the parents.
If a mother who is not a US citizen gives birth on US soil, her child is still her country's citizen by way of its mother's citizenship. Otherwise, if she returns home, she is now trying to bring an American citizen into a country that doesn't recognize the child as theirs. This is why dual citizenship was created in SOME countries -- so children born on US soil would not be treated as non-citizens by virtue of being birthright citizens of the US. Can't you see how illogical that whole issue is?
This is why we need a better interpretation than the "everyone born here belongs here" reading. It's no longer a workable interpretation as millions are abusing it -- and we are allowing it.
-
I was unaware you studied Constitutional law and political science from the 1700s.
You're missing the entire point. Using the Constitution to force an agenda down every state's throat is not the correct justification for Amending it. Prohibition proved that a shortsighted amendment to include an agenda (banning alcohol) creates worse problems than intended (bootlegging, organized crime, etc.).
Birthright citizenship requires the individual be subject to the jurisdiction of this country. That means they have parents that are subject to US jurisdiction because children are not treated as citizens with rights. They are the responsibility of the parents.
If a mother who is not a US citizen gives birth on US soil, her child is still her country's citizen by way of its mother's citizenship. Otherwise, if she returns home, she is now trying to bring an American citizen into a country that doesn't recognize the child as theirs. This is why dual citizenship was created in SOME countries -- so children born on US soil would not be treated as non-citizens by virtue of being birthright citizens of the US. Can't you see how illogical that whole issue is?
This is why we need a better interpretation than the "everyone born here belongs here" reading. It's no longer a workable interpretation as millions are abusing it -- and we are allowing it.
Mr. constitutional expert, please show me where the constitution says "means they have parents that are subject to US jurisdiction because children are not treated as citizens with rights. They are the responsibility of the parents. " because it sounds like you are making that part up. I must have missed that part somewhere.
Thus when the Fourteenth Amendment's drafters picked the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction," it had an established meaning that was already closely connected to citizenship. The first part of the citizenship clause ("born in the United States") adopted the territorial principle of jus soli. The second part embraced the longstanding exclusions from the jus soli principle: people in U.S. territory but nonetheless not under U.S. sovereign authority, namely diplomats, foreign armies and tribal Native Americans, who had not traditionally been born citizens.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/28/the-original-meaning-of-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-of-the-united-states/
"Reinterpretation" would require ignoring the history of the amendment and of case law surrounding the amendment. Now if we (the USA) does go with your idea and reinterprets it, and the SCOTUS upholds this reinterpretation, you do realize the next president can just reinterpret it again right? Thats the whole problem with these methods of lawmaking, they are lazy in that they bypass the proper way of doing things which undermines the process for the easy win. Then when democrats use the same tactic we have no grounds to object.
-
Mr. constitutional expert, please show me where the constitution says "means they have parents that are subject to US jurisdiction because children are not treated as citizens with rights. They are the responsibility of the parents. " because it sounds like you are making that part up. I must have missed that part somewhere.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/28/the-original-meaning-of-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-of-the-united-states/
"Reinterpretation" would require ignoring the history of the amendment and of case law surrounding the amendment. Now if we (the USA) does go with your idea and reinterprets it, and the SCOTUS upholds this reinterpretation, you do realize the next president can just reinterpret it again right? Thats the whole problem with these methods of lawmaking, they are lazy in that they bypass the proper way of doing things which undermines the process for the easy win. Then when democrats use the same tactic we have no grounds to object.
The history is already being ignored in the current application and interpretation. It was meant to solve the problem of African slaves and their children born in the US. Period. Applying it to people illegally entering the US on their own and giving birth is where the problem lies.
-
The 2a begs to differ....
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Yes and this is exactly why. Every political team wants to re imagine definitions. We need less of that not more. Don't give excuses to the democrats, vise versa. The gop won't be in power forever.
-
Yes and this is exactly why. Every political team wants to re imagine definitions. We need less of that not more. Don't give excuses to the democrats, vise versa. The gop don't be in power forever.
In other words, keep letting the Left win while we play by the rules?
Not a winning strategy based on the last 50 years.
-
In other words, keep letting the Left win while we play by the rules?
Not a winning strategy based on the last 50 years.
How are they only winning? The courts are fighting back. They didn't stuff the courts, they didn't get rid of the fillibuster. Both sides know what not to do. The gop already messed up abortion rights. If they do this, they will guarantee have a perfect excuse to go after 2a.
-
How are they only winning? The courts are fighting back. They didn't stuff the courts, they didn't get rid of the fillibuster. Both sides know what not to do. The gop already messed up abortion rights. If they do this, they will guarantee have a perfect excuse to go after 2a.
Ummmm....majority of gun laws and rules.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
How are they only winning? The courts are fighting back. They didn't stuff the courts, they didn't get rid of the fillibuster. Both sides know what not to do. The gop already messed up abortion rights. If they do this, they will guarantee have a perfect excuse to go after 2a.
Obama beat Romney in part because the media/debate moderators were helping Obama.
Also, Senator Harry Reid told the same baldfaced lie that Romney hadn't paid any taxes in 10 years. After the election, the media finally called him out on it and asked if he felt any guilt over his lies. He grinned and said, "He didn't win, did he?"
Win at all costs. That's the Democrat motto. They've convinced themselves that the ends justify the means. If they can't win, they can't drive the country in the direction they want. If they can't win by pitching their ideas and policies, they'll win by saying and doing whatever it takes.
When the MSM is against you and for them, it's rather difficult to have your side presented to the public honestly. Playing by the rules isn't going to fix that. Then there's the social media problem of censuring conservatives and Republicans. Even the IRS was guilty of slow-rolling conservative groups' applications for 5013c status -- a direct violation of the groups' freedom of speech. And then there's the one-sided DOJ that targets the opponents of the Democrats even when Trump was in office. The Swamp is real.
At what point do you believe the GOP will start winning in the face of all that opposition?
Trump was targeted because he challenged the status quo in DC. He was impeached twice, charged with a laundry list of crimes in court, framed for colluding with Russia using lies purchased by the Clinton campaign from a former British spy which was then used by the FBI to spy on Trump and his campaign and administration, and on and on.
These are all proven facts that were once dismissed as conspiracy theories. Feel free to explain how one plays by the rules and wins when so much of the game is rigged against you. The only solution I see is to expose the lies, crimes and corruption to a degree that the media has no choice but to cover it honestly and accurately.
Still waiting for the FBI, the media and 50+ inetllignece officers to apologize for lying when they said the Hunter laptop was Russian misinformation.
-
In other words, keep letting the Left win while we play by the rules?
Not a winning strategy based on the last 50 years.
So the constitution doesn't really have inherent value, it matters only when it supports your position?
Conservatism is in large part about not giving the government more and more power over everything but this idea if interpreting away a constitutional right does just that, gives government the power to skip over the proper way of changing the constitution.
-
The history is already being ignored in the current application and interpretation. It was meant to solve the problem of African slaves and their children born in the US. Period. Applying it to people illegally entering the US on their own and giving birth is where the problem lies.
Doesn't matter, the text remains. We can argue original intent and purpose all day long but if the text says something is legal/illegal then it is so.
Applying original intent/purpose is often more subjective in nature due to the fact that of how laws and amendments are made. If 10 senators penned the bill they may have 10 different reasons for their thought process, which one is the right one? What remains above all is the text of the amendment. The second amendment is strong because the text is strong (relatively), going with originalism and interpretation just creates weak points for anti-2a activists to attack.
If you can justify it this easily then you have no grounds to complain when democrats do the same.
-
So the constitution doesn't really have inherent value, it matters only when it supports your position?
Conservatism is in large part about not giving the government more and more power over everything but this idea if interpreting away a constitutional right does just that, gives government the power to skip over the proper way of changing the constitution.
SWOOOOOSSHHHHHHH.
-
Doesn't matter, the text remains. We can argue original intent and purpose all day long but if the text says something is legal/illegal then it is so.
Applying original intent/purpose is often more subjective in nature due to the fact that of how laws and amendments are made. If 10 senators penned the bill they may have 10 different reasons for their thought process, which one is the right one? What remains above all is the text of the amendment. The second amendment is strong because the text is strong (relatively), going with originalism and interpretation just creates weak points for anti-2a activists to attack.
If you can justify it this easily then you have no grounds to complain when democrats do the same.
The 2A isn't "strong". Another poor example used.
-
So the constitution doesn't really have inherent value, it matters only when it supports your position?
Conservatism is in large part about not giving the government more and more power over everything but this idea if interpreting away a constitutional right does just that, gives government the power to skip over the proper way of changing the constitution.
Try again, Straw Boy.
"interpreting away a constitutional right "
Tell me more about the second amendment and how it took the Heller decision to properly apply the right to keep and bear arms to all the people and not just for those in a militia.
For anyone keeping score at home, the Heller decision was in 2008. Do the math!
-
Try again, Straw Boy.
"interpreting away a constitutional right "
Tell me more about the second amendment and how it took the Heller decision to properly apply the right to keep and bear arms to all the people and just for those in a militia.
For anyone keeping score at home, the Heller decision was in 2008. Do the math!
The courts failure to uphold the constitution doesn't justify ignoring the constitution. If you aren't going to do it the right way then you don't respect the constitution or what it stands for and that's not even covering the short sightedness that doing it this way just snowballs the problem because you just give democrats more ammunition to do it when they retake power.
-
The courts failure to uphold the constitution doesn't justify ignoring the constitution. If you aren't going to do it the right way then you don't respect the constitution or what it stands for and that's not even covering the short sightedness that doing it this way just snowballs the problem because you just give democrats more ammunition to do it when they retake power.
Show me where anyone said "We should ignore the constitution," Straw Boy.
You don't know what the right way to amend the constitution is, because you're not a constitutional scholar. The process is defined in the constitution, but the mechanics are a bit more involved.
And you're a fool to throw out the "because you just give democrats more ammunition to do it when they retake power," argument, because that's not how an amendment is created and passed.
Do some research, then come back and explain how everything you said in this post is wrong.
Hint:
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either
by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate
or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
Math question: 2/3 of the House = how many Representatives?
2/3 of the Senate = how many Senators?
History question: When was the last time the Democrats won a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate at the same time?
-
The courts failure to uphold the constitution doesn't justify ignoring the constitution. If you aren't going to do it the right way then you don't respect the constitution or what it stands for and that's not even covering the short sightedness that doing it this way just snowballs the problem because you just give democrats more ammunition to do it when they retake power.
Another poor example.
Ur on a roll today.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Show me where anyone said "We should ignore the constitution," Straw Boy.
No one said it specifically, but it is inherent in the suggestion you make.
The process is defined in the constitution, but the mechanics are a bit more involved.
You are right but that still isn't an excuse for ignoring the process.
And you're a fool to throw out the "because you just give democrats more ammunition to do it when they retake power," argument, because that's not how an amendment is created and passed.
Work on the reading comprehension, I am talking about your suggestion of using "reinterpretation" to address the problem. If republicans use that tactic then democrats will to. I was not taking about making and passing amendments there.
Math question: 2/3 of the House = how many Representatives?
2/3 of the Senate = how many Senators?
History question: When was the last time the Democrats won a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate at the same time?
Gosh you are short sighted in justifying the easy way to get what you want without considering the repercussions when democrats take power.
-
Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship.
Right on cue, a few states' AGs sued for an injunction which was granted.
This video walks through the evidence that proves birthright citizenship only included individuals born in the US to the point in time when the amendment was ratified. The debate on the amendment included the declaration that a foreigner or alien, diplomat, etc. will NOT be included in this amendment.
https://youtu.be/rO0sHvL2_SI
-
This is a good way for SCOTUS to address this quickly. If we treat the 14th like how they ruled in Bruen, then it won't cover illegals who have children here.
I think Trump knew this and wanted it fast tracked to SCOTUS.
For too many generations, people took advantage of this. And along with "we can't deport the parents cause then the children who are US citizens won't have a family".