Started By
Message

re: SCOTUS to decide on taking appeal of birthright citizenship

Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:43 am to
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476976 posts
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:43 am to
quote:

SFP thinks a footnote and a case

Wong Kim Ark is a footnote?

quote:

Congress makes the laws

Only within the limits of the Constitution.

quote:

We wouldn’t be in thos position if Congress hadn’t abdicated its legislative function the executive branch sometime in the early 20th century.

Congress can create a path to naturalization or citizenship of those who aren't given it automatically by the Constitution.

Congress cannot usurp the baseline Constitutional guarantees.

You keep conflating these 2 even after I pointed them out to you.

ETA: and, again, Wong Kim Ark (not a footnote) addresses this specifically:

quote:

The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that '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,' contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,—birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by n abling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

The power of naturalization, vested in congress by the constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. 'A naturalized citizen,' said Chief Justice Marshall, 'becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.' Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of congress, a fortiori no act or omission of congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The fourteenth amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
This post was edited on 11/24/25 at 10:46 am
Posted by Bass Tiger
Member since Oct 2014
55751 posts
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:48 am to
Birthright citizenship should have been a relic of the past 75-100 years ago.

Birthright citizenship made sense in the infancy of the nation and when the nation was in it's rise towards being a global power but that time has long passed.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476976 posts
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:49 am to
quote:

Who gives a shite about dicta.

People who want to see the court's stance on "subject to the jurisdiction" for 140 years or so?

quote:

Dicta don’t make precedent, baw.

Well further cases have adopted it more into holdings, but I digress.

And your comment ignores the specific reference to diplomatic status, which is the only of the 3 remaining

Your distinction requires not only ignoring the bulk of the case (and the analysis creating the ruling) but also requires a distinction that wasn't made in the holding, either.

quote:

no stare decisis argument from the retard section of the court need even be addressed.

Why would a future court address a distinction that wasn't even present in the holding?

Where is "legal status" discussed here?

quote:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.


Permanent domicile =/= legal status

Now this could potentially be an issue for the birth tourism stuff, but nobody is really talking about that specifically.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476976 posts
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:49 am to
quote:

Birthright citizenship should have been a relic of the past 75-100 years ago.

Birthright citizenship made sense in the infancy of the nation and when the nation was in it's rise towards being a global power but that time has long passed.


Again. This is why we have the amendment process.
Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
26512 posts
Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:52 am to
quote:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Nothing to prevent the congress from passing a law defining "jurisdiction in such a manner that would end birthright citizenship.


The only problem is lack of spine among the RINOs.
Posted by deeprig9
Unincorporated Ozora
Member since Sep 2012
75383 posts
Posted on 11/24/25 at 11:05 am to
quote:

Again, assuming this point is true, that's why we have the amendment process.


So citizens should be able to own nuclear weapons until such time the 2nd Amendment is amended.
This post was edited on 11/24/25 at 11:07 am
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 4Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram