Scotus agrees to hear birthright citizenship case

Does is really matter if he's just going to ignore the ruling?

 

Exactly

 

Just having a case to review at all tells you all you need to know about the screaming nosedive this country is in.

 

If a person is born here but not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," does that mean that the federal government has no authority over them? Where is @AnnArborGator when you need him?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Interesting that the admin is requesting that states not suing should be allowed to proceed with the ban — sets up a question of different states having different citizenship rules.

 

This is not a hot button issue for me, personally, but I completely agree with you. The constitution says what it says. This Court usually decides cases based on a strict construction, but they’ve deviated in certain Trump cases. This will be a defining moment, IMO, for this Court to establish whether they are the strict constructionists they’ve claimed, or whether they are a political tool for Trump.

 

It was interpreted to mean that person was subject to US law while here, an example of someone excluded would be a diplomat or an invading army…

 

So is it being interpreted in the filing to include all children of non-citizens? Not sure where the case to be reviewed is on this one.

 

Trump wants this SCOTUS to overturn the previous precedent and reinterpret what “subject to the jurisdiction of” means in the amendment….

 

Getting a court you mostly appointed to ignore precedent and reimagine what the amendment means is way easier than amending the constitution….

“The Court stated "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should be interpreted "in the light of the common law" which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.”

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

 

Let's be absolutely clear about this. The language in the constitution is SIMPLE.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

There is literally zero room for debate here. Absent a new amendment passing, this is fundamental to our nation's founding. There is no person born here who is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Therefore, anyone born here is, by definition, a citizen.

If you don't like this.... call your congressman and start lobbying the states to get it changed.

Edit: We'll allow that a diplomat's child born in the US, is not a citizen, as they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

 

I don’t necessarily disagree with your point but must ask …. if we can re-interpret (is that a word?) the 2nd amendment in the context of the 21st century, is it not reasonable the 14th can be subjected to a similar interpretation?

 

I'm not a huge fan of birthright citizenship but the amendment is pretty damn clear.

 

The Supreme Court opens a Pandora's Box if they side in favor of Trump. If being born here does not make you a citizen, who is to say what does? The fascist leaning Congress could literally pass a law making all Democrats illegal and non-citizens who can be arrested by Brown Shirts and sent off of Camps in other countries.

Hmmm......where have we heard of this before....I just cannot put my finger on it.....

 

I’m not sure I like it either, but I like to look at these things longitudinally. In 1868 we were the third best economy in the world for GDP per capital trailing the UK and Australia. As of 2018 we’re the clear number economy on that metric. I bring this up because people worry birthright citizenship is somehow hurting them or taking away a slice of the pie but it’s clearly not the case. I’m not saying it’s driving our dominant economy; there’s too many factors behind that, but it is clear it’s not a detriment or anchor with the progress we’ve made during that time.

 

Why would the issue be considered from an economic standpoint? Recent discussions pertaining to the first amendment (hate speech) or second amendment (gun rights of citizens) consider the impact on the financial status of American citizens.

 

yeah I am not sure what the criteria would be - your parents have to be a citizen for you to be a citizen? You are bound to your parents place of origin? Would you automatically be a citizen of your parents place of origin? It could be you end up not a citizen of anywhere.

We are nation of immigrants and children of immigrants.

 

Exactly what about this do you think is bastardized and is being misinterpreted

I thought conservatives were generally literalists. If you aren’t going to use the basis of what the constitution explicitly says, what basis are you going to use?

Finally, what problem would be solved by ending birthright citizenship?