Scotus agrees to hear birthright citizenship case

What’s your justification for an Amendment to change birth right citizenship?

 

Two terrorist, man and his pregnant wife come here and have a baby... are these people from another country (VISITING) and their baby under our jurisdiction?

It's an old law specifically geared and written for Native Americans and not foreigners from another sovereign country.

 

Snowballs day in hell before the Constitution is changed. Much more likely they unwind Wong Kim Ark.

IMO, this issue of “birth tourism” would be solved much faster if Congress restarted the draft and selective service included woman.

 

You are conflating with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

 

Maybe on that part, but these people that are not American citizens are not subject to our laws nor are they under our jurisdiction, neither should their offspring be...

 

This has been my exact question. People assume the parents must be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, but the historical context of the language was to specifically unwind language of Dred Scott.

 

So what would be your alternative criteria to birthright citizenship?

I guess the supposed problem is birth tourism, which is admittedly gaming the system, but having said that do you have any evidence that this birth tourism is leading to any particular problems?

 

So if the terrorist is not subject to our laws or under our jurisdiction, then the Feds can’t prosecute him for detonating a bomb in a theater?

You might want to rethink this one. You just gave a terrorist diplomatic immunity.

 

There is no gaming needed if the system is irrelevant. What is the value of a US citizenship today?

- voting?
- constitutional protections?
- deportation protections?
- access to benefits?
- US passport?
- Serve on a federal jury?
- sponsor a family member?
- run for political office?

The only reason that matters to the birth tourism is highlighted in red. The more insidious plot to me are Chinese having children in Northern Mariana Islands and Guam.

 

You realize that the reason that it wasn't intended for illegal immigrants is that there was literally no way to illegally immigrate to the US at the time, right?

 

One test for "under the jurisdiction" is whether a foreigner can be prosecuted under US law. Diplomats and other persons deemed to have diplomatic immunity cannot be prosecuted under US law unless their home country agrees to waive immunity. If the terrorists can be prosecuted for any crimes that they may commit they are considered under the jurisdiction of the US. If the terrorist couple has a baby in the US the child automatically has US citizenship.

 

Yes. If either of the "terrorists" walks outside and commits an act of terrorism, our legal system would not accept a defense that this was an act of war between two states and, therefore, they could not be tried by civil authorities.

Native Americans were from sovereign countries at the time (as were the many, many immigrants at the time).

 

Not citizens of our country to begin with, nor should their offspring be subject/citizen to our country.

 

Those immigrants who are not citizens, even illegal ones, are still subject to our laws, and protected by the 14th amendment of the Constitution as a “person”. And their offspring born here have in fact been citizens for almost 200 years. I have no idea what the point is you’re trying to make.

 

Subject to our laws, yes, not subject to subjugation...

 

Sorry, North, you lost that argument. Our laws are not legally meant to subjugate the offspring of impregnated woman entering our country. It is a matter of subjugation... and we do NOT have the right to subjugate other people's citizens NOR their offspring.

 

Huh?

We aren’t subjugating anyone by conferring them the rights of US citizenship and requiring they comply with our laws while here. No more than Hungary will be subjugating me next month when I land in Budapest and show them my passport and subject myself to their laws.
.
That’s a conflation you’ve created because you lost your first 3 arguments in the thread.

Have a nice evening. I should have known better.

 

The SCOTUS has NO RIGHT to subjugate babies born of mothers from foreign nations.

 

The challenge is more about whether a district judge can grant a nationwide injunction. That is the real issue imo