US Supreme Court agrees to hear case challenging birthright citizenship(bbc.com)
bbc.com
US Supreme Court agrees to hear case challenging birthright citizenship
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c208j0wrzrvo
75 comments
As far as I can tell, being born here is the only reason that I'm considered a citizen. My parents were also considered citizens for the same reason. But if we go back a few generations, I don't think the paperwork exists to prove that their great-grandparents were citizens. There might be a copy in some Ellis Island archive, but I'd be hard pressed to locate it.
So... lacking that documentation, does the recursion unwind? Being descended of not-provably-naturalized-citizens, am I at risk of deportation?
So... lacking that documentation, does the recursion unwind? Being descended of not-provably-naturalized-citizens, am I at risk of deportation?
That depends. How light is your skin color?
> being born here is the only reason that I'm considered a citizen
What was the test for citizenship before the 14th amendment?
What was the test for citizenship before the 14th amendment?
> What was the test for citizenship before the 14th amendment?
Basically, the same. Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor (1830) established:
The rule commonly laid down in the books is, that every person who is born within the ligeance of a sovereign is a subject; and, e converso, that every person born without such allegiance is an alien. . . . Two things usually concur to create citizenship; first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign; and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or in other words, within the ligeance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also at his birth derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to the sovereign, as such, de facto.[0]
It excluded slaves and it excluded Native Americans. Native American US citizenship was established in 1924 by statute.[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause#cite_ref-4
[1] https://www.bia.gov/faqs/are-american-indians-and-alaska-nat...
Basically, the same. Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor (1830) established:
The rule commonly laid down in the books is, that every person who is born within the ligeance of a sovereign is a subject; and, e converso, that every person born without such allegiance is an alien. . . . Two things usually concur to create citizenship; first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign; and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or in other words, within the ligeance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also at his birth derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to the sovereign, as such, de facto.[0]
It excluded slaves and it excluded Native Americans. Native American US citizenship was established in 1924 by statute.[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause#cite_ref-4
[1] https://www.bia.gov/faqs/are-american-indians-and-alaska-nat...
I have two thoughts about this.
First - there's no point in worrying about something before it's clear what will happen. Personally, I find it extremely unlikely that any decision will be so broadly defined as to be applicable to more than a handful of people.
Second - I propose that it doesn't matter. I lean toward the Trump administration's positions on probably 2/3 of the issues commonly discussed today, and even from that position I would be incredibly outraged if mass denaturalization were to come to pass. The country would no longer be the America I love at that point, and I would feel very little if any affinity for it.
If what you fear comes to pass, I wouldn't see it as something happening to you - I would see it as a clear signal to emigrate as soon as possible, and at pretty much all costs.
First - there's no point in worrying about something before it's clear what will happen. Personally, I find it extremely unlikely that any decision will be so broadly defined as to be applicable to more than a handful of people.
Second - I propose that it doesn't matter. I lean toward the Trump administration's positions on probably 2/3 of the issues commonly discussed today, and even from that position I would be incredibly outraged if mass denaturalization were to come to pass. The country would no longer be the America I love at that point, and I would feel very little if any affinity for it.
If what you fear comes to pass, I wouldn't see it as something happening to you - I would see it as a clear signal to emigrate as soon as possible, and at pretty much all costs.
> First - there's no point in worrying about something before it's clear what will happen
You don't think it's important to prepare for things that have a non-zero likelihood of occurring? This case has already worked its way to the Supreme Court, it's obvious something is happening with it.
> Second - I propose that it doesn't matter. I lean toward the Trump administration's positions on probably 2/3 of the issues commonly discussed today
Is the anti-immigrant rhetoric of this admin one of the things you do or not lean towards?
You don't think it's important to prepare for things that have a non-zero likelihood of occurring? This case has already worked its way to the Supreme Court, it's obvious something is happening with it.
> Second - I propose that it doesn't matter. I lean toward the Trump administration's positions on probably 2/3 of the issues commonly discussed today
Is the anti-immigrant rhetoric of this admin one of the things you do or not lean towards?
> You don't think it's important to prepare for things that have a non-zero likelihood of occurring?
Of course that's not what I meant. Preparation is not the same as worry. Worry solves nothing; what's needed is a cycle of observation, analysis, preparation, and action.
> Is the anti-immigrant rhetoric of this admin one of the things you do or not lean towards?
Absolutely. (ETA for clarity: meaning I absolutely disagree with their statements that incite division and feed hate)
I truly try to limit my sharing of my own views on HN, because that's not in the spirit of the community and not why I come here. If you're honestly interested in how I see it, I can copy over a post I just made on a right-wing forum on this topic.
I assure you, I have no hate in my heart for anyone. What I feel is driven by empathy, what I say is informed by empathy, and what I do is -- to the best of my ability -- a result of careful rational thought.
Of course that's not what I meant. Preparation is not the same as worry. Worry solves nothing; what's needed is a cycle of observation, analysis, preparation, and action.
> Is the anti-immigrant rhetoric of this admin one of the things you do or not lean towards?
Absolutely. (ETA for clarity: meaning I absolutely disagree with their statements that incite division and feed hate)
I truly try to limit my sharing of my own views on HN, because that's not in the spirit of the community and not why I come here. If you're honestly interested in how I see it, I can copy over a post I just made on a right-wing forum on this topic.
I assure you, I have no hate in my heart for anyone. What I feel is driven by empathy, what I say is informed by empathy, and what I do is -- to the best of my ability -- a result of careful rational thought.
> Preparation is not the same as worry. Worry solves nothing
Would you prepare for something you did not have any worries about? I assume any preparation would be in response to a worry/fear/uncertainty about a situation. You study for a test because you are worried you will not know the answers. Preparation and worry seem intrinsically linked. Worry is the onus through which preparation becomes necessary.
> I truly try to limit my sharing of my own views on HN
Is that true? You freely gave your opinions on this issue and the admin in your previous comment, and you seem to talk about your opinions on these things elsewhere on HN. I was just trying to understand what parts of this admin you lean towards, and if this is one of those cases.
If you copy a post from that other forum here, I would read and likely respond to it if it was relevant to my earlier question.
> I assure you, I have no hate in my heart for anyone. What I feel is driven by empathy, what I say is informed by empathy, and what I do is -- to the best of my ability -- a result of careful rational thought.
I have a hard time squaring this with "leaning towards agreeing with 2/3rds of the admin's decisions." Trump is highly vindictive and has made that a cornerstone of this "revenge tour" presidency. But that is probably a conversation for another, more politically-inclined forum.
Would you prepare for something you did not have any worries about? I assume any preparation would be in response to a worry/fear/uncertainty about a situation. You study for a test because you are worried you will not know the answers. Preparation and worry seem intrinsically linked. Worry is the onus through which preparation becomes necessary.
> I truly try to limit my sharing of my own views on HN
Is that true? You freely gave your opinions on this issue and the admin in your previous comment, and you seem to talk about your opinions on these things elsewhere on HN. I was just trying to understand what parts of this admin you lean towards, and if this is one of those cases.
If you copy a post from that other forum here, I would read and likely respond to it if it was relevant to my earlier question.
> I assure you, I have no hate in my heart for anyone. What I feel is driven by empathy, what I say is informed by empathy, and what I do is -- to the best of my ability -- a result of careful rational thought.
I have a hard time squaring this with "leaning towards agreeing with 2/3rds of the admin's decisions." Trump is highly vindictive and has made that a cornerstone of this "revenge tour" presidency. But that is probably a conversation for another, more politically-inclined forum.
> Preparation and worry seem intrinsically linked. Worry is the onus through which preparation becomes necessary.
It sounds like we have a different definition of "worry". What I'm trying to say is that it's neither helpful nor healthy to become emotionally invested in something that is unlikely to happen. By "preparation" I mean I use those things as inputs to my decision-making process in general, and use the fact that I'm taking the concern into account to otherwise put it aside.
> Is that true? You freely gave your opinions on this issue and the admin in your previous comment, and you seem to talk about your opinions on these things elsewhere on HN.
I try to be transparent, and bring up political stuff only when it's directly relevant to understand why I'm making a statement. If I don't have facts to bring to the conversation, I stay out of it. I'll challenge someone if they support an argument with something that is either untrue or incomplete, whether or not I agree with their conclusion.
At no point do I expect or intend to change anyone's mind; that's not the point. When it comes down to it, I don't believe that a belief that won't survive being challenged is worth holding, and I want to know if I've missed something. To put it another way, any time I mention something political here, it's because I see someone who holds a contrary belief and want to challenge my own beliefs on the subject.
> I was just trying to understand what parts of this admin you lean towards, and if this is one of those cases.
Why?
I'm an anarcho-capitalist; the vast majority of my beliefs are going to be at odds with most people regardless of political affiliation. I don't have a political litmus test for who I interact with and (at the risk of being blunt) if you do, I'd prefer you just go ahead and assume that I fail it.
I pride myself on being transparent, and if you're honestly interested in understanding each other's perspective I'm more than happy to oblige. If not, then nothing I can say will matter and it's not worth upsetting anyone over.
> I have a hard time squaring this with "leaning towards agreeing with 2/3rds of the admin's decisions."
Oh, me too. Me too. It's not a comfortable position to be in when I dislike the man personally while simultaneously believe some of the results of his actions are positive for the country.
> Trump is highly vindictive and has made that a cornerstone of this "revenge tour" presidency.
I 100% agree. I wish that weren't the case, but do see some bright side to it - I really, really hope the Democrats sees Trump's popular support as a reaction to their alienating a very large portion of the electorate. I'd love nothing more than to see both parties temper their divisiveness and be more empathetic to those on "the other side".
Oh, and I'll also say that if it doesn't work out that way, I don't see much positive in the future for the Republicans, either. It's at least equally likely that this is the beginning of a descent into tyranny.
> But that is probably a conversation for another, more politically-inclined forum.
Yep, that's my point. I love talking politics and philosophy, but my respect for the norms of this community outweigh that. It's been my experience that most of these conversations quickly turn adversarial - if you go through my comment history you'll likely see that I often disengage when that happens, or wait a day or two to reply to avoid starting a flame war.
It sounds like we have a different definition of "worry". What I'm trying to say is that it's neither helpful nor healthy to become emotionally invested in something that is unlikely to happen. By "preparation" I mean I use those things as inputs to my decision-making process in general, and use the fact that I'm taking the concern into account to otherwise put it aside.
> Is that true? You freely gave your opinions on this issue and the admin in your previous comment, and you seem to talk about your opinions on these things elsewhere on HN.
I try to be transparent, and bring up political stuff only when it's directly relevant to understand why I'm making a statement. If I don't have facts to bring to the conversation, I stay out of it. I'll challenge someone if they support an argument with something that is either untrue or incomplete, whether or not I agree with their conclusion.
At no point do I expect or intend to change anyone's mind; that's not the point. When it comes down to it, I don't believe that a belief that won't survive being challenged is worth holding, and I want to know if I've missed something. To put it another way, any time I mention something political here, it's because I see someone who holds a contrary belief and want to challenge my own beliefs on the subject.
> I was just trying to understand what parts of this admin you lean towards, and if this is one of those cases.
Why?
I'm an anarcho-capitalist; the vast majority of my beliefs are going to be at odds with most people regardless of political affiliation. I don't have a political litmus test for who I interact with and (at the risk of being blunt) if you do, I'd prefer you just go ahead and assume that I fail it.
I pride myself on being transparent, and if you're honestly interested in understanding each other's perspective I'm more than happy to oblige. If not, then nothing I can say will matter and it's not worth upsetting anyone over.
> I have a hard time squaring this with "leaning towards agreeing with 2/3rds of the admin's decisions."
Oh, me too. Me too. It's not a comfortable position to be in when I dislike the man personally while simultaneously believe some of the results of his actions are positive for the country.
> Trump is highly vindictive and has made that a cornerstone of this "revenge tour" presidency.
I 100% agree. I wish that weren't the case, but do see some bright side to it - I really, really hope the Democrats sees Trump's popular support as a reaction to their alienating a very large portion of the electorate. I'd love nothing more than to see both parties temper their divisiveness and be more empathetic to those on "the other side".
Oh, and I'll also say that if it doesn't work out that way, I don't see much positive in the future for the Republicans, either. It's at least equally likely that this is the beginning of a descent into tyranny.
> But that is probably a conversation for another, more politically-inclined forum.
Yep, that's my point. I love talking politics and philosophy, but my respect for the norms of this community outweigh that. It's been my experience that most of these conversations quickly turn adversarial - if you go through my comment history you'll likely see that I often disengage when that happens, or wait a day or two to reply to avoid starting a flame war.
>> I was just trying to understand what parts of this admin you lean towards, and if this is one of those cases.
>Why?
Because I can't square your previous statements without understanding what parts are acceptable to you and which are not. You have not provided anything for me to understand your position politically except that you don't think it's worth worrying about the Supreme Court potentially destroying birthright citizenship.
> At no point do I expect or intend to change anyone's mind; that's not the point. When it comes down to it, I don't believe that a belief that won't survive being challenged is worth holding, and I want to know if I've missed something. To put it another way, any time I mention something political here, it's because I see someone who holds a contrary belief and want to challenge my own beliefs on the subject.
Well put, and I agree. Arguing a belief is the fastest way to improve and correct it. That is why I was trying to get a more well-rounded picture of your opinions on this admin, because I want to understand your context surrounding your political ideas.
> Yep, that's my point. I love talking politics and philosophy, but my respect for the norms of this community outweigh that. It's been my experience that most of these conversations quickly turn adversarial - if you go through my comment history you'll likely see that I often disengage when that happens, or wait a day or two to reply to avoid starting a flame war.
We can end it here to keep with those norms. I appreciate you responding with some of your opinions and your honesty.
>Why?
Because I can't square your previous statements without understanding what parts are acceptable to you and which are not. You have not provided anything for me to understand your position politically except that you don't think it's worth worrying about the Supreme Court potentially destroying birthright citizenship.
> At no point do I expect or intend to change anyone's mind; that's not the point. When it comes down to it, I don't believe that a belief that won't survive being challenged is worth holding, and I want to know if I've missed something. To put it another way, any time I mention something political here, it's because I see someone who holds a contrary belief and want to challenge my own beliefs on the subject.
Well put, and I agree. Arguing a belief is the fastest way to improve and correct it. That is why I was trying to get a more well-rounded picture of your opinions on this admin, because I want to understand your context surrounding your political ideas.
> Yep, that's my point. I love talking politics and philosophy, but my respect for the norms of this community outweigh that. It's been my experience that most of these conversations quickly turn adversarial - if you go through my comment history you'll likely see that I often disengage when that happens, or wait a day or two to reply to avoid starting a flame war.
We can end it here to keep with those norms. I appreciate you responding with some of your opinions and your honesty.
It sounds like we have good intentions and are on the same page as a whole :)
> We can end it here to keep with those norms.
I'll do you one better - I have a pseudo-anonymous email address in my profile. Shoot me a message and I'll share real contact information if you'd like to continue.
> We can end it here to keep with those norms.
I'll do you one better - I have a pseudo-anonymous email address in my profile. Shoot me a message and I'll share real contact information if you'd like to continue.
We know the current supreme court will end this.
But the big question is how will this be enforced ?
What happens if the parents became citizens after their children were born. Will the children be deemed non-US ?
Also I know many people who's children were born in the US but parents were from Ireland and not US citizens. Either on a tourist visa or work visa or undocumented. Some kids have been here for over 50 years.
Will this only be enforced if the child has the "wrong" skin color ? That is what I expect.
But the big question is how will this be enforced ?
What happens if the parents became citizens after their children were born. Will the children be deemed non-US ?
Also I know many people who's children were born in the US but parents were from Ireland and not US citizens. Either on a tourist visa or work visa or undocumented. Some kids have been here for over 50 years.
Will this only be enforced if the child has the "wrong" skin color ? That is what I expect.
> We know the current supreme court will end this.
Do we? The language of the 14th Amendment is extraordinarily clear:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
I agree it's possible that the Court will just throw it out. But at that point, what meaning does the constitution have? How are any of our rights protected if the Court can just void the plain language of an amendment?
Crazy stuff.
Do we? The language of the 14th Amendment is extraordinarily clear:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
I agree it's possible that the Court will just throw it out. But at that point, what meaning does the constitution have? How are any of our rights protected if the Court can just void the plain language of an amendment?
Crazy stuff.
The meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is flexible enough for them to decide whatever they want it to mean.
[deleted]
They found some bullshit way of negating, "a well regulated militia". You are completely correct this will be the focus.
Textualism when they want to uphold it, originalism when they do not.
Textualism when they want to uphold it, originalism when they do not.
The court will probably look at the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
I don't think they have the balls to end it. I think they just decide that adjudication on the case takes 4+ years, they sidestep making any real decision, and they hope and pray the whole thing goes away with the next administration. In the mean time, the Trump admin continues to do what they want, with the fig leaf that they promise they will listen to the court.
It's extremely uncommon for the court to issue an opinion with such large repercussions.
Even if birthright citizenship is overturned (which I find very unlikely), I would expect it to be narrowly defined so as to apply only to children born of parents not present legally in the country - and likely with a specific carveout for those who overstay visas and such, as those people are clearly subject to US jurisdiction by virtue of the application process.
The absolute largest change I would expect would be to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents illegally entered into the US and have never had a visa of entry permit of any type whatsoever.
Even if birthright citizenship is overturned (which I find very unlikely), I would expect it to be narrowly defined so as to apply only to children born of parents not present legally in the country - and likely with a specific carveout for those who overstay visas and such, as those people are clearly subject to US jurisdiction by virtue of the application process.
The absolute largest change I would expect would be to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents illegally entered into the US and have never had a visa of entry permit of any type whatsoever.
> those people are clearly subject to US jurisdiction by virtue of the application process.
But the wording doesn't apply to the parents, it applies to the baby: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", not "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and whose parents are subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
But the wording doesn't apply to the parents, it applies to the baby: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", not "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and whose parents are subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
FWIW, I think that's a strong argument.
> It's extremely uncommon for the court to issue an opinion with such large repercussions.
Like Dobbs (Abortion), Bruen (Guns), Students for Fair Admissions (Affirmative Action), Loper Bright, Destruction of the voting rights act, Trump is king, etc
This supreme court issues at least one opinion with massive repercussions each term, every term. I simply don't know how you are under the impression that they care about repercussions in the slightest. They don't much care for rationale explanation or precedent either.
Like Dobbs (Abortion), Bruen (Guns), Students for Fair Admissions (Affirmative Action), Loper Bright, Destruction of the voting rights act, Trump is king, etc
This supreme court issues at least one opinion with massive repercussions each term, every term. I simply don't know how you are under the impression that they care about repercussions in the slightest. They don't much care for rationale explanation or precedent either.
> The absolute largest change I would expect would be to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents illegally entered into the US and have never had a visa of entry permit of any type whatsoever.
That's the vibe I get.
However, I don't see a definition of jurisdiction in the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that would make this workable. How do you see this being resolved?
That's the vibe I get.
However, I don't see a definition of jurisdiction in the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that would make this workable. How do you see this being resolved?
> How do you see this being resolved?
At a much higher level, this court seems to be attempting to slowly and carefully reign in the power of the federal government.
I expect that there will be enough of a headline here for the Trump administration to hold it up as a victory, while being so narrowly defined that it will only apply to a relative handful of individuals.
The court's interest here is most likely a precedent that will be applicable in subsequent cases. It could conceivably end up establishing a new, weaker form of Chevron deference where ambiguity is interpreted in the light most beneficial to the People.
At a much higher level, this court seems to be attempting to slowly and carefully reign in the power of the federal government.
I expect that there will be enough of a headline here for the Trump administration to hold it up as a victory, while being so narrowly defined that it will only apply to a relative handful of individuals.
The court's interest here is most likely a precedent that will be applicable in subsequent cases. It could conceivably end up establishing a new, weaker form of Chevron deference where ambiguity is interpreted in the light most beneficial to the People.
> At a much higher level, this court seems to be attempting to slowly and carefully reign in the power of the federal government.
The same court that said POTUS is immune to prosecution for anything he does as part of his office?
How can you conceivably think this SCOTUS is doing anything but increasing the reach of the Executive Branch?
The same court that said POTUS is immune to prosecution for anything he does as part of his office?
How can you conceivably think this SCOTUS is doing anything but increasing the reach of the Executive Branch?
I think the court is trying desperately to avoid having to rule on anything and will slow walk this until it hopefully goes away, while giving the admin virtual carte blanche to do what they want.
I can see why you'd say that, but I'm actually thinking on a longer timeline. They've been trending that way for almost a decade now, and seem to be accelerating a bit. Most recently, the overturning of the Chevron deference doctrine comes to mind, and that was in July 2024.
If they do the same thing to Republican presidents then I'll believe it's principled. I haven't seen much sign of that, though.
Like, whatever happened to the major questions doctrine? Feels like that should apply to a bunch of Trump's actions.
Like, whatever happened to the major questions doctrine? Feels like that should apply to a bunch of Trump's actions.
Hannah Arendt's 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism in the chapter titled "The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man" discusses how European countries did this after World War I and the results of those efforts.
The court will do as European countries did after the first world war: people of certain backgrounds and having some kind of stateless or refugee status will be deprived of any birthright.
Left unchallenged, this will eventually lead to mass de-naturalization and deportation or, for those with no country or whose country refuses them,
indefinite detention in some kind of "displaced persons" camp.
> What happens if the parents became citizens after their children were born. Will the children be deemed non-US ?
There are already laws about that. IIRC, all minor children become citizens when a parent is naturalized.
There are already laws about that. IIRC, all minor children become citizens when a parent is naturalized.
That seems fine, but what about Adult Children ? And maybe their children.
Their parents had them and some became citizens once they became adults (kids 18+ years old).
If ended it will be a big mess I think. But if they do end it, maybe this rule will be applied starting 'today', not retroactively.
Their parents had them and some became citizens once they became adults (kids 18+ years old).
If ended it will be a big mess I think. But if they do end it, maybe this rule will be applied starting 'today', not retroactively.
Those laws might be rendered incompatible with the SCOTUS decision.
[deleted](1)
"For nearly 160 years, the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution has established the principle that anyone born in the country is a US citizen, with exceptions for children born to diplomats and foreign military forces."
I was actually unaware of this. That does seem to be a wedge to maybe support the issue. I'm not arguing one way or another for or against, just an interesting opening I had not seen before.
I was actually unaware of this. That does seem to be a wedge to maybe support the issue. I'm not arguing one way or another for or against, just an interesting opening I had not seen before.
It's tricky - the 14th amendment was passed following reconstruction as a way of ensuring that freed slaves couldn't be denied citizenship. Much later, the Wong Kim Ark case argued that it should cover the children of immigrants, and the supreme court agreed. Quite a while after that, the Wong Kim Ark decision was interpreted to include children of non-citizens as well, and _that's_ what's never been tested in court until now.
It should not be tricky. The role of the supreme court is to enforce and interpret the constitution and federal law. What the constitution says in this case is unambiguous. It would very reductive to re-inturpret the 14th amendment after 150 years to mean something other than what it says.
> It would very reductive to re-inturpret the 14th amendment after 150 years to mean something other than what it says.
They did it with the Second Amendment in DC v. Heller. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court decides it means, nothing else, nothing more, nothing less.
They did it with the Second Amendment in DC v. Heller. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court decides it means, nothing else, nothing more, nothing less.
"The Constitution means whatever the current majority of Supreme Court decides it means, ...."
FTFY
FTFY
You may not like it but OP is absolutely right. Whatever the supreme court rules stands. That’s exactly how the current system works unless laws are passed or the constitution is amended. Your response is childish and you should be embarrassed.
> Your response is childish and you should be embarrassed.
I’m mortified that I don’t measure up to the example you set for the rest of us. I shall strive earnestly to do better in my future endeavors.
I’m mortified that I don’t measure up to the example you set for the rest of us. I shall strive earnestly to do better in my future endeavors.
I don't think they're disagreeing with me, just pointing out that the meaning of the Constitution is subject to a majority vote, which only further undermines the premise that any such thing as an unambiguous (much less "objective") interpretation exists because not even the entire Court always agrees with itself.
Not disagreeing at all, just pointing out how extreme they would have to be to actually undo the 14th Amendment. Modern laws are highly complex and often genuinely challenging to read and understand. The Constitution is very readable even for lay people. Re-inturpreting it to revoke rights requires a willfull misunderstanding by justices.
It would be extreme, but that doesn't make it unlikely. Roe v. Wade was settled law for nearly 50 years, then it was simply nullified.
And the thing is, the Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Constitution based on what lay people would think, but based on what a simple majority of them imagine the ghosts of the Founding Fathers would think if they were summoned by necromancy to adjudicate modern matters on first principles. That's why the canonical interpretation of "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with any modern interpretation of "regulation" that any lay person would understand.
And the thing is, the Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Constitution based on what lay people would think, but based on what a simple majority of them imagine the ghosts of the Founding Fathers would think if they were summoned by necromancy to adjudicate modern matters on first principles. That's why the canonical interpretation of "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with any modern interpretation of "regulation" that any lay person would understand.
> the Wong Kim Ark decision was interpreted to include children of non-citizens as well
Non-citizens, yes, but foreign subjects who were compliant with US law at the time.
I believe the scope of this decision will be limited to children born on US soil to non-citizens who entered the country illegally.
Non-citizens, yes, but foreign subjects who were compliant with US law at the time.
I believe the scope of this decision will be limited to children born on US soil to non-citizens who entered the country illegally.
How will this be enforced? Where are your parents papers right now? What about their parents? Seems like an easy way to criminalize and deport literally anyone with zero pretext.
Haven't heard of this either, obviously not a topic I am up to date on. I'll look into it, appreciate the pointer.
The precursor to this case is Trump v. CASA[0], which arose from injunctions blocking the executive order banning birthright citizenship. The case made it to the supreme court on the emergency docket. The court did not address the merits of the case (i.e. is the ban on birthright citizenship constitutional), rather they heard an argument against universal injunctions and the authority of a judge to block executive order. The court judged against universal injunctions. Basically the EO stands.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs forced a certified class and sought a class-wide injunction. This case is called Trump v. Barbara. SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case on the question of the constitutionality of a ban on birthright citizenship.
[0] https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-casa-inc...
EDIT: The Trump v. CASA opinion handed a win to the executive to issues orders without universal injunctions blocking the order immediately. My hot take is that this was part of the original strategy. Not sure how the court will land on the current question at hand.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs forced a certified class and sought a class-wide injunction. This case is called Trump v. Barbara. SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case on the question of the constitutionality of a ban on birthright citizenship.
[0] https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-casa-inc...
EDIT: The Trump v. CASA opinion handed a win to the executive to issues orders without universal injunctions blocking the order immediately. My hot take is that this was part of the original strategy. Not sure how the court will land on the current question at hand.
I'd actually entertain a ban on birthright citizenship _for all citizens_.
Imagine as a thought experiment that everyone in the US had to go through the immigration process to earn a place here. If you are born here, you have a green card for 20 years or so, and if you aren't the kind of desirable person we want in this country, you get a one way ticket somewhere else. We don't need freeloaders! Maybe every 10 years you can reapply if you are not accepted.
Imagine how different our education and child rearing processes would be if the stakes were made real.
Dystopian? Yes. But that is the dystopia we are already heading towards for many people who would otherwise be future citizens.
Imagine as a thought experiment that everyone in the US had to go through the immigration process to earn a place here. If you are born here, you have a green card for 20 years or so, and if you aren't the kind of desirable person we want in this country, you get a one way ticket somewhere else. We don't need freeloaders! Maybe every 10 years you can reapply if you are not accepted.
Imagine how different our education and child rearing processes would be if the stakes were made real.
Dystopian? Yes. But that is the dystopia we are already heading towards for many people who would otherwise be future citizens.
You may enjoy the book Starship Troopers.
Where might this somewhere else be?
We already see that the US needed to pay El Salvador to accept its prisoners, and the UK pay Rwanda to take asylum seekers. It's hard to think of a country which will accept people the US considers to be freeloaders, except by taking considerable compensation .. or by threat of military force, which is also expensive.
If you want a dystopian future, just kill them.
We already see that the US needed to pay El Salvador to accept its prisoners, and the UK pay Rwanda to take asylum seekers. It's hard to think of a country which will accept people the US considers to be freeloaders, except by taking considerable compensation .. or by threat of military force, which is also expensive.
If you want a dystopian future, just kill them.
My friend, this is America. We already have so much experience relocating displaced undesirable native peoples into marginal lands where they can cosplay independence and autonomy. Oklahoma is pretty much taken, but I think we can spare Arkansas, Kentucky, and a few others.
I know a lot of people from high school for whom this would be a big step up in life actually.
I know a lot of people from high school for whom this would be a big step up in life actually.
So, send them to Coventry, set up a ghetto or Bantustan, or be glad there are a lot of islands as in Brave New World.
I misread your "else" in "you get a one way ticket somewhere else" as outside of the US, not partitioning the US.
Historically this means the US will still be spending a lot of money on these so-called freeloaders, not only for internal border control (people, smuggling) but also pollution emissions, water flow, and all the other boring crap usually handled by national law and interstate compacts.
I misread your "else" in "you get a one way ticket somewhere else" as outside of the US, not partitioning the US.
Historically this means the US will still be spending a lot of money on these so-called freeloaders, not only for internal border control (people, smuggling) but also pollution emissions, water flow, and all the other boring crap usually handled by national law and interstate compacts.
This is madness.
It's really not.
First, _jus soli_ is relatively rare in the world at large.
Second, the Supreme Court has never ruled on birthright citizenship; the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has not been tested.
Regardless of your political views, this is an extremely important area of US law, and for it to be undefined isn't fair to anyone.
First, _jus soli_ is relatively rare in the world at large.
Second, the Supreme Court has never ruled on birthright citizenship; the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has not been tested.
Regardless of your political views, this is an extremely important area of US law, and for it to be undefined isn't fair to anyone.
Even if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has never made it to the Supreme Court, it's not an ambiguous phrase subject to multiple interpretations. The idea that some class of immigrants are outside the jurisdiction of the US even when they are physically in the country is not supportable.
Precisely. The phrase is exclusively intended to handle both foreign and US diplomats.
Diplomatically, embassies count as the soil of the country they represent and thus subject to the jurisdiction of said country. As a result, a child born to a foreign diplomat present in the US would not be granted citizenship. Similarly, a US ambassador (to Germany, for example) is treated as still subject to US jurisdiction, and by extension, any children of theirs would automatically become US citizens.
A person who entered the US illegally is still subject to US jurisdiction (or else they couldn't be violating US immigration law), so any children they have are citizens. The proper ways to address that are to a) prevent them from entering illegally in the first place, b) fix immigration law so they don't have to enter illegally, and/or c) add a constitutional amendment modifying the 14th amendment to explicitly deny citizenship to children born to parents who are here illegally.
Diplomatically, embassies count as the soil of the country they represent and thus subject to the jurisdiction of said country. As a result, a child born to a foreign diplomat present in the US would not be granted citizenship. Similarly, a US ambassador (to Germany, for example) is treated as still subject to US jurisdiction, and by extension, any children of theirs would automatically become US citizens.
A person who entered the US illegally is still subject to US jurisdiction (or else they couldn't be violating US immigration law), so any children they have are citizens. The proper ways to address that are to a) prevent them from entering illegally in the first place, b) fix immigration law so they don't have to enter illegally, and/or c) add a constitutional amendment modifying the 14th amendment to explicitly deny citizenship to children born to parents who are here illegally.
> The phrase is exclusively intended to handle both foreign and US diplomats.
I'd argue that the phrase was originally intended to make it absolutely clear that formerly enslaved people were citizens, and so were their children.
Obviously it's been used for other purposes since then, and the authors and those who ratified it considered the repercussions through their own biases, but I believe that was almost exclusively the primary intent.
It's striking me at the moment how much the political climate today mirrors that of the time the 14th was ratified. From a historical perspective, the concern is over the expansion of the electorate - from the abolition of slavery then, and from uncontrolled immigration today.
The difference I see is that the abolition of slavery was a positive decision made by the US government; today's concerns around illegal immigration were caused by our failure to enforce our own laws. Based on my understanding of the motivations of our Justices today, that could be a key difference.
I'd argue that the phrase was originally intended to make it absolutely clear that formerly enslaved people were citizens, and so were their children.
Obviously it's been used for other purposes since then, and the authors and those who ratified it considered the repercussions through their own biases, but I believe that was almost exclusively the primary intent.
It's striking me at the moment how much the political climate today mirrors that of the time the 14th was ratified. From a historical perspective, the concern is over the expansion of the electorate - from the abolition of slavery then, and from uncontrolled immigration today.
The difference I see is that the abolition of slavery was a positive decision made by the US government; today's concerns around illegal immigration were caused by our failure to enforce our own laws. Based on my understanding of the motivations of our Justices today, that could be a key difference.
You may want to revisit all those historical texts, because we did not fail to enforce our laws, we chose to because it benefitted us.
The people calling for reform do not seem to understand the literal costs of doing so.
The people calling for reform do not seem to understand the literal costs of doing so.
We’re saying the same thing. I merely phrased it in the negative to underscore the contrast.
It has made it to SCOTUS in the past, in Wong Kim Arc.
Legal English != vernacular English. The phrase hasn't been fully defined, and one direction or another that's what this case is likely to do.
Frankly, anything beyond that is just reading the tea leaves. My opinions on the outcome here are merely that: opinions.
Legal English != vernacular English. The phrase hasn't been fully defined, and one direction or another that's what this case is likely to do.
Frankly, anything beyond that is just reading the tea leaves. My opinions on the outcome here are merely that: opinions.
I think there are plenty of things that haven't been tested because they are so obvious they don't need to be tested.
The result of this is that many people became stateless or de facto citizens of a country where they were in the minority. The Minority Treaties attempted to ensure these citizens maintained rights in countries of the League of Nations, but this was ill-enforced at best.
During the years leading up to World War II, numerous of these new countries, plus France and Germany, began to de-naturalize people of minority (for that country) descent including Germans, Poles, Balkans, Russian, Spaniards and of course Jews. They began to revoke citizenship of both naturalized and native-born people, and attempted to deport them to various places even though many had never lived there and those countries did not want them.