SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 46K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
Stephen Miller weighs in — too bad he isn’t making this argument to SCOTUS:

Click to expand...

That man is a ghoul of the highest order, and of all of Trump's minions one of the most dangerous, imo. Like K at his alma mater he probably sleeps in a day coffin and drinks the blood of an immigrant every night. The Joseph Goebbels vibes he gives are uncanny.
 
GoHeelsweeeehoooo said:
I can understand why people may not like birthright citizenship - but to get rid of it means amending the Constitution not just declaring it illegal
Click to expand...
There is no serious case against birthright citizenship. If, by understand why, you mean they are racist, I agree. If you think they have a good point . . . consider all the chaos that would be introduced if birthright citizenship were removed.

Babies would potentially need paternity tests just to be citizens. If a man impregnates a woman and then skips town, the baby may never be able to prove parentage and would be stateless.

Would hospitals need to check IDs? A woman rushes to the hospital because it's an emergency; she doesn't bring her papers because, you know, it's an emergency. So does the hospital have to wait until the mother returns with papers in order to register the birth certificate? Are hospitals going to be forced to employ forensic analysts who spot fake IDs?

What do we do with the children whose grandparents are people without status? The next step of course would be to say that the child wasn't a citizen by birth, and so therefore his or her child also isn't a citizen. The average person shouldn't need an immigration lawyer to give birth.

If the children aren't citizens, then they could be deporting. We deporting babies now? Where? Who represents babies in immigration court? During Trump 1, we already had the ridiculous spectacle of 5 year olds being questioned by judges as to whether they understood the charges against them. Does the baby have to defend herself? Do we wait until they are five?

That's only a tiny fraction of the things that could go wrong. It would be a mess of vast proportions and would likely lead to some form of civil war or violent retribution.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
How is congress going to “solve” the problem? Do you understand the question before the court?
Click to expand...
I understand the question the court is considering from a macro level. If there are nuanced micro issues being considered then not those. I understand the desire to challenge the constitutionality and why. I asked if I misunderstood wong’s comments as to the issue of permanence she raised.
 
ZenMode said:
That's not untrue.... It's a very odd angle to take, but not untrue.
Click to expand...
There are a host of potential problems that today’s world creates with respect to birthright citizenship given there are companies all over the world specializing in birthright tourism, many in china alone.
 
Callatoroy said:
I understand the question the court is considering from a macro level. If there are nuanced micro issues being considered then not those. I understand the desire to challenge the constitutionality and why. I asked if I misunderstood wong’s comments as to the issue of permanence she raised.
Click to expand...
My point was that saying congress should have been the branch that addressed the issue is misguided. Congress cannot edit the constitution through legislation any more than the President can do so through executive order.
 
Callatoroy said:
There are a host of potential problems that today’s world creates with respect to birthright citizenship given there are companies all over the world specializing in birthright tourism, many in china alone.
Click to expand...
Tough. If you want to change that, see if you can gather up enough racists in enough states to amend the Constitution.
 
Great resources for considering Birthright Citizenship and US History.


Blog post from The National Constitution Center on Birthright Citizenship.
Supreme Court to finally hear merits arguments on birthright citizenship | Constitution Center


Wonderful conversation at the National Constitution Center on Birthright Citizenship led by Akil Reed Amar




Born Equal: America’s Founding Promise and the Fight for Equality - Town Hall Video | Constitution Center

Town Hall video for Born Equal: America’s Founding Promise and the Fight for Equality
constitutioncenter.org
 
Callatoroy said:
There are a host of potential problems that today’s world creates with respect to birthright citizenship given there are companies all over the world specializing in birthright tourism, many in china alone.
Click to expand...
Whatever "problems" there may be pale in comparison to the problems created by a system where someone can't just prove their US citizenship with a birth certificate, but instead must do a full inquiry into the citizenship status of their parents at the time of birth.
 
superrific said:
There is no serious case against birthright citizenship. If, by understand why, you mean they are racist, I agree. If you think they have a good point . . . consider all the chaos that would be introduced if birthright citizenship were removed.

Babies would potentially need paternity tests just to be citizens. If a man impregnates a woman and then skips town, the baby may never be able to prove parentage and would be stateless.

Would hospitals need to check IDs? A woman rushes to the hospital because it's an emergency; she doesn't bring her papers because, you know, it's an emergency. So does the hospital have to wait until the mother returns with papers in order to register the birth certificate? Are hospitals going to be forced to employ forensic analysts who spot fake IDs?

What do we do with the children whose grandparents are people without status? The next step of course would be to say that the child wasn't a citizen by birth, and so therefore his or her child also isn't a citizen. The average person shouldn't need an immigration lawyer to give birth.

If the children aren't citizens, then they could be deporting. We deporting babies now? Where? Who represents babies in immigration court? During Trump 1, we already had the ridiculous spectacle of 5 year olds being questioned by judges as to whether they understood the charges against them. Does the baby have to defend herself? Do we wait until they are five?

That's only a tiny fraction of the things that could go wrong. It would be a mess of vast proportions and would likely lead to some form of civil war or violent retribution.
Click to expand...
Most of the world doesn’t have birthright citizenship and can manage the administrative issues. Were we to amend the constitution (not going to happen) we would add citizenship of parents to all future birth certificates. All current citizens would be grandfathered in.

It would mean parents would need to bring passports to the hospital, or else we will add citizenship to drivers licenses. It would be a pain but most of the world deals with that pain.
 
donbosco said:
Great resources for considering Birthright Citizenship and US History.


Blog post from The National Constitution Center on Birthright Citizenship.
Supreme Court to finally hear merits arguments on birthright citizenship | Constitution Center


Wonderful conversation at the National Constitution Center on Birthright Citizenship led by Akil Reed Amar




Born Equal: America’s Founding Promise and the Fight for Equality - Town Hall Video | Constitution Center

Town Hall video for Born Equal: America’s Founding Promise and the Fight for Equality
constitutioncenter.org
Click to expand...

It's very clear that the Constitution allows and creates birthright citizenship. To overturn it would require a constitutional amendment. These people are literally trying to overturn the very idea of what it means to be an American and of what America stands for.
 
Callatoroy said:
There are a host of potential problems that today’s world creates with respect to birthright citizenship given there are companies all over the world specializing in birthright tourism, many in china alone.
Click to expand...
Birthright tourism is an obvious issue. IMO, it should be excluded just as children of foreign ambassadors/diplomats are excluded under the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I would say that children born in the US,when one parent is here illegally, should also be excluded under the "jurisdiction thereof" just as it is for diplomats.
 
ZenMode said:
Birthright tourism is an obvious issue. IMO, it should be excluded just as children of foreign ambassadors/diplomats are excluded under the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I would say that children born in the US,when one parent is here illegally, should also be excluded under the "jurisdiction thereof" just as it is for diplomats.
Click to expand...
Maybe get a handle on what jurisdiction means before coming to a conclusion that depends so heavily on it.

Also, you seem to be suggesting that the child shouldn’t be an American citizen unless both parents are Americans. You actually say that but I’m giving you the benefit by assuming that’s not what you meant.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
Maybe get a handle on what jurisdiction means before coming to a conclusion that depends so heavily on it.
Click to expand...
I think I have a good enough idea of what "jurisdiction thereof" means to form my opinion, even if I'm expanding the application more than others might.
BlooVooDoo said:
Also, you seem to be suggesting that the child shouldn’t be an American citizen unless both parents are Americans. You actually say that but I’m giving you the benefit by assuming that’s not what you meant.
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying that both parents need to be citizens. I was saying that someone here illegally, and their children, should be treated like an diplomat, which is to say that they should still be viewed as not under the jurisdiction of the US, but under the jurisdiction of their home country for citizenship purposes.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
My point was that saying congress should have been the branch that addressed the issue is misguided. Congress cannot edit the constitution through legislation any more than the President can do so through executive order.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with that. Congress will have to find another avenue to address it. Whether its in the visa process, immigration process, or some other way. Eventually it could develop into a national security issue. Maybe that creates possibilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top