We ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. And the intention was for it to provide citizenship to any person born in the U.S. who was subject to her jurisdiction. That included people who came here illegally. While that is mostly correct, it is not exactly correct. There were enslaved people who were brought here illegally after we banned the importation of enslaved people in 1807 (effective in 1808). There is no dispute that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to provide those people and their descendants citizenship. Additionally, California passed a law in 1858 that prohibited Chinese people from immigrating there (the state supreme court struck it down four years later). Yet, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment agreed that the children of Chinese immigrants would also benefit from birthright citizenship (example below).
No it wasn’t. Because it’s express language was not limited to children of slaves. It has had the same meaning and understanding historically since 1868. This case should be quick, easy and 9-0. I am predicting 7-2
Think about what you are saying, bro ....if they are not subject to our laws, then what law are they breaking by being here?
I don’t think the administration appealed the constitutionality of its order to not recognize birthright citizenship but the ability of district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. I suspect the Supreme Court will confirm precedent and the 14th’s meaning anyway.
i suspect they will rule on the national injunction question only. that is what Stephen Miller wants to test
What’s so ironic in your prediction is that (I’m guessing) your 2 predicted dissenters are Thomas and Alito, who are notoriously out-spoken in their strict constructionist theories. And while a strict construction could only lead to a finding that you predict, you’re predicting them (again, I’m guessing) because they are equally notoriously Trump sycophants who will rule exactly in line with MAGA direction. The decision in this case, IMO, will really answer a lot of questions of which justices are bound by principles of law and which are bound by principles of Party.
Part and parcel. This case illustrates the necessity for nationwide injunctions. They want the right to declare people born here to be non-citizens and deport them from states that didn’t file suit? Absurd
I agree which is why o think they’ll affirm the common understanding of birthright citizenship even though the administration tried to appeal on narrower grounds.
I don't trust these globalists judges. They can stop the nonsense from the district court judges, but they do NOT. Show where in the Constitution where the Executive Branch of the Government, and Commander-In-Chief of all the military, has to get the okay from the Judicial Branch judges to protect American citizens from enemies of the state... foreign and domestic enemies? And tell us where the judicial Branch or the SCOTUS gets to pick and choose case by case which illegal Invaders Broke into our country "most legally?" Giving these illegal invaders "due process" implies that the SCOTUS has the right to infringe on the other two Branches of Government and the legal immigration LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. Because the SCOTUS thinks they can pick and choose who can break our immigration laws? Due process is for American citizens. Sorry but that immigration law does NOT include giving the SCOTUS the power to break our immigration laws by adding themselves into that law... adding "due process." The immigration laws were passed by the other Two Branches of Government. These immigration laws are legal, and the POTUS has the Constitutional right to use whichever laws that the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branches of Government passed to protect us from Illegal Invaders from other nations. The Judicial Branch cannot interfere with President Trump's Constitutional right to protect We The People. No one elected the SCOTUS to run, and to protect, our nation. Show us where in the Constitution the Judicial branch gets to give illegal invaders Constitutional Rights like American citizens get in due process? Show me where in the Constitution is says that the Executive Branch needs to get the okay or approval from someone else like the SCOTUS to hire and fire people in The Executive Branch of government? If there is a law passed doing so, then it's cannot nullify the Constitutional Rights and Powers in the Executive Branch. There are NO Unions that have Constitutional power over the POTUS to deny him his right to hire and fire anyone in his Executive Branch of the Government. The President does NOT need to impeach these district judges, because they are NOT Constitutionally protected positions to begin with... The Two Branches of Government brought their judgeships and positions into existence... still NOT Constitutionally protected. That means they can BE DEFUNDED IN A VOTE... I'd pass that vote in a reconciliation vote since it can and should be a FUNDING ISSUE. Please give Trump the power to reduce the district judgeships to 300 and give Trump the legal power to choose which judgeships to eliminate... Lol... Bye bye Boasberg.
as I understand it, the question isn't about birthright citizenship but about the nationwide injunction. That is what Miller is trying to break with these cases The Supreme Court could deliver a serious blow to Trump’s court challengers The Supreme Court on Thursday scheduled oral arguments on a momentous question: What is the extent of lower court judges’ power to block a president’s policies nationwide? If the high court grants the Trump administration’s request to limit or lift three nationwide injunctions blocking his bid to end birthright citizenship, it could cripple the ability of Trump’s opponents to seek — and judges’ ability to grant — such blocks entirely. Federal judges across the country have already applied the remedy to halt key parts of the president’s agenda in lawsuits challenging anti-diversity initiatives, cuts to federal medical research, the pause on refugee admissions and a freeze on nearly all federal grant spending.
Folks watching to match entertainment masquerading as news. Made up media vs lame stream media. JSMDH. Truly amazing on ll the talking points.
Why is one different than the other three. Could be that unlike under the current POTUS, the Clinton, Bush and Obama all followed the proper procedures with respect to the deportations that took place in their administrations and in those rare cases in which courts held that the proper procedures weren't followed none of those presidents openly defied the courts.
So, if your ancestor came through Ellis Island and had a kid before they were a US citizen every kid after, including you, is a non-citizen?
Just curious, what about the baby dropped off/abandoned at the local fire department with no knowledge of their parents' citizenship?? Citizen or countryless?
The goal is to make it so they are saying " only those who look like us an act like us are citizens" without coming right out and saying that. The meaning is clear.
