re: If the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship then why ...

quote:

---

Today I learned that Yale Law Grad, Ron DeSantis, also moonlights as a “retard on Twitter”.

---

quote:

---

Happy to help you out bud

Just wait till you hear about Yale Law Grad Sonia Sotomayor

---

I guarantee Robin is done posting in this thread after your reply. Ouch.

quote:

---

Injuns Redskins Redmen

---

Life was so much better before woke.

quote:

---

This is why. The tribes were regarded as other nations whose citizens lived under their sovereign authority

---

Then this would also apply to non-citizens, and the offspring of them.

quote:

---

His attacking the legal opinion of one of the justices likely to be in most complete congruence with his own isn’t the take down you think it is.

---

Well she’s a retard

quote:

---

The bigger question is why you're framing your view like this, instead of looking at the text and a textual analysis.

---

Ok, answer the smaller questions.

And in the meantime, why don't you humor the board and tell us how your textual analyzer is programmed. And don't go running around the room sucking your thumb murmuring "Scalia."

Regardless of which position you take on birthright citizenship, the status and history of American Indians is a non sequitur because of their unique history.

In the landmark 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins (112 U.S. 94), the Court ruled that Native Americans were not automatically U.S. citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court articulated this distinction by stating that tribal members owed immediate allegiance to their own nations rather than to the United States: "The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States. They were in a dependent condition, a state of pupilage, resembling that of a ward to his guardian." The Court further clarified this separation by noting that becoming a U.S. citizen requires formal action beyond simply being born an American Indian: "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, community), are not citizens of the United States..."

All of this is consistent with the unique status of American Indians as recognized in the Constitution. In specific, the Treaty Clause and the Indian Commerce Clause establish tribes as inherently sovereign, self-governing nations.

It was against this legal backdrop that Congress passed the 1924 (I think) statute granting automatic citizenship to American Indians. None of this supports or refutes birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

(In case anyone is wondering, yes I used AI to craft this answer quickly, but I knew the case and Constitution provisions I was looking for, which made it really easy).

quote:

---

Again, and we've been over this many times, there is no difference between an Indian born off the reservation, therefore under US jurisdiction, and an illegal alien from a foreign country born in the US "under US jurisdiction." Yet by your interpretation of Ark, in those identical circumstances, one is a US citizen and one is not. The absurdity is self evident.
---

People are confusing Wong deferring to precedent...

---

No. People are confusing the rationale for Indian set-asides in these issues. Indians are mentioned specifically. Why? Assuming jurisdiction solely entails US prerogative rather than any submission, loyalty, allegiance, intent for long-term domicile, etc. by individuals, foreign citizens are not addressed.

So from 1898 -1924, if an Indian woman allegiant to her tribe, and a female foreigner allegiant to her homeland both had babies on US soil, by your interpretation, one infant would be presumed as a US citizen and one would not. It is an illogical presumption, but that does not seem to bother jus soli birthright proponents.

You refer to this Indian vs foreign difference as an "idiosyncrasy." But the rationale for the supposed "Indian idiosyncrasy" is not then due to allegiance. After all, parental allegiance is the same for both parties.

Given the nature of the 1866 CRA and 14thA, rationale for "Indian idiosyncrasy" cannot legitimately be construed as selectively racist.

In fact, the "idiosyncrasy" can be due to but one unique circumstance, the unique geographic location of Indian nations essentially being on US soil, as opposed to that of other nations. There is no other logical reason to single Indians out. Yet as the birth in question did not occur within the Indian territory, that specification is only relevant in terms of ... wait 4 it .... national allegiance.

... and there is none in either instance.

Let’s get the facts correct

Harvard law grad
Yale baseball player

Cleaning lady from Toronto gives birth in the Russian embassy in DC, what citizenship is the kid ?

quote:

---

The bigger question is why you're framing your view like this, instead of looking at the text and a textual analysis.

It's not about "how is this good?" because that's how liberals think/argue, and why would you want to be a liberal?

---

I didn't present a view at all. In reality, I'm asking for other people's views. There's no "framing" here. They're simple questions. Why must one be a liberal to care about what certain laws say or whether one thinks a law is good or bad?

Pretty much every law is ultimately made, or changed, based on what the public believes is "good" or "right". They're made or changed based on demand from the public, provided that demand is constitutional. Constitutional amendments are much the same way. They're made, or amended, based on public demand provided that demand doesn't undermine democracy itself. I possibly could have phrased this last part better. I'm not interested in your opinion on that phrasing. What maters here, is that amending the 14A in such a way as to strike down birthright citizenship in no way violates or undermines any of the core principles of this country.

I don't disagree with you on what the text says. I do disagree with you, and the SCOTUS, on how it should be interpreted. But there's no point in arguing that either. It is what it is.

What you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that there is a very large chunk of society who wants an amendment to the 14A to strike down birthright citizenship. The question is "why should we NOT want that amendment?" Why won't you answer that basic question?