re: Executive Order expected to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants

quote:

---

Prosecuted by the State of Georgia, proving he was subject to the jurisdiction of the US

---

You're willfully ignoring the fact that their simple presence is a crime. They're invaders. Some hostile, some not, but all invaders.

quote:

---

based on their willingness to reverse Roe, I don't see your point.

---

Roe was reversed because it inferred rights that we're not explicitly written in the constitution. In this case you're asking for a definition change to text written. The circumstances are totally different and philosophically misaligned.

quote:

---

Was wondering when you come and cry today. Don't worry... only 4 more years 'till Trump is gone

---

Do you often spend your time thinking of me? I appreciate your thoughts and concerns but I'm doing fine here.

quote:

---

But opponents of that interpretation have pointed to other Western countries like France and the United Kingdom, where citizenship hinges on at least one parent already being a permanent resident.

---

Well here in the UK, there are some big differences. For one thing, there is no true Constitution, i.e. a document that is very difficult to change, with amendments established by a broad consensus, and at times vaguely written to allow for modern interpretation. Here, basically, all you need is a majority of parliament to pass most laws, and the equivalent of Executive Orders are far more powerful. The court is weak, and will basically only overturn those laws if they deem them to violate Human Rights.

Also the UK learned a lot of painful lessons the hard way. There are many safety nets in place, and a swathe of laws to prevent statelessness. The highlights:

* Any child born in the UK who has lived the first ten years of their life in the UK has a lifetime claim to citizenship, irregardless the status of the parents.
* If a child is born in the UK to a parent who later becomes a citizen or permanent resident, they have a very straightforward process for attaining citizenship that's basically a given.
* And very fundamentally, children physically born in the UK, and who never physically leave the UK, are always legally present in the UK, no matter what the status of the parents is.

The idea was to prevent the catastrophe of generations of stateless people just piling up in society along the lines of what happened in Germany during 50's - 80's.

There are caveats. There are good character requirements and native born children have been refused citizenship because of criminal backgrounds (extremely rare - but has happened). And there is even a recent case of a native born citizen having their citizenship stripped away for actions mainly committed as a child, making them stateless (they deserved it, but again this is extremely rare).

If the U.S. wants to change birthright citizenship, I think the most obvious and uncontested way to go about doing it is removing the citizenship clause from the 14th Amendment, and making all immigration implementation a matter of Congressional laws and Executive interpretation. This would truly reflect the way it's done in the UK.

quote:

---

If the U.S. wants to change birthright citizenship, I think the most obvious and uncontested way to go about doing it is removing the citizenship clause from the 14th Amendment,

---

Or you could do an EO, wait on the lawsuit. Bring it to the SC and let them reverse that WKA decision. then WKA isn't the law of the land, the new decision is.

It's interesting to hear people scream you can't do this, its completely settled, when the argument I am making was right there in the 1898 case in the dissent. Obviously some people even then had issues with the case and the opinion of the court and including two on the court. It doesn't seem like its unreasonable that 5 now would think exactly as 2 did back then.

WE will find out won't we?

quote:

---

And amazingly enough the judges on the court are not afraid to reverse course and set new precedent

---

But this wouldn’t go against precedent. This would go against a constitutional amendment and the SC a very very leery of doing that.

Can’t pick and choose. That’s the 2A argument. The writers didn’t intend for all the shite that is a gun nowadays either but 2A protectionists screech about the constitution. Can’t have it both ways.

quote:

---

There will be a court challenge, but this needs to be settled.

They need to make it dependent on if at least one of your parents are already a citizen.

---

That would require (literal) legislation from the bench. There is zero mention of parentage in the 14A. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Nothing.

Other than Diplomats and their families, what subset of foreigners would be not be "subject to jurisdiction?"

Does not the US snatch and grab foreigners that we wish to try for certain crimes such as terrorists?