re: Trump has officially petitioned the SCOTUS to allow him to END birthright citizenship

quote:

---

Why would we amend a law which says anchor babies are not citizens?

Read the words.

---

This is what I voted for.

Get these little bastards out of here.

quote:

---

SlowFlowPro

---

Hey SFP - I have a solution that we should both agree on.

Allow the baby to have citizenship but deport the parents immediately - they have the option of what to do with their child - take it with them, or leave it with some legal resident who is willing to support them.

End of problem.

I do not care about the 'citizenship' angle per se - but what I DO object to is that the PARENTs of that new citizen having any rights at all that they didn't have a moment before its birth.

Deport them immediately - their choice of how to be best parent for their child.

quote:

---

I realize you have several conversations going but please try and engage in honest discourse

---

The fricking irony

Holy shite

quote:

---

I think first and foremost it makes clear that anyone here temporarily, say on a visa, is not permanently domiciled here and therefore this ruling would not apply. And all that you could confidently take from that fact is SCOTUS would not have to overrule any precedent to find people born in the US to visa holders are not citizens.

---

That probably would work on WKA alone, but later cases/policies likely account for that.

quote:

---

Second, by emphasizing the permanent domicil and residence of the parents the Wong Kim Ark appears to leave a pretty wide opening for a later Court to find that by the very nature of not following the statutory law of the U.S. in coming here (being undocumented, illegal, or without status) that permanent domicil cannot be established - or something along those lines.
I am not saying a later Court has to find it that way, just that the Wong Kim Ark court, by emphasizing the permanent domicil/residence of the parents leaves such a potential opening.

---

It' s not emphasized or really discussed in any detail in the actual analysis, but, regardless, there's a simple response: legal status is not required for domicile, and at the time of writing the 14A, this was even more true (as there was no real federal law determining status in that way so there would be no possible way to distinguish domicile, federally).

There's also the whole analysis portion of what "subject to the jurisdiction of" means. The circular logic of the talking points goes something like this

1. We don't know what "subject to the jurisdiction of" means.

2. Read Wong Kim Ark. It analyzes that in great detail and gives you an originalist answer with historical-textual analysis going back a few centuries of English Common Law.

3. That's just dicta.

4. Where else would you find that analysis responding to your comment in #1?

5. Well, we need to know what "subject to the jurisdiction of" means.

quote:

---

Already done in WKA

---

I think you are misunderstanding the argument of others and using rather circular logic in your haste to post.

I don't think they are debating that case with you to see if your understanding of the holding is better. They are specifically asking for an interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". To that extent, you are citing a case that interprets the phrase based on the common law meaning of the term "at the time the country was formed" and not "at the time of ratification". In the same series of arguments, you are berating them for focusing on the "founders" (presumably reading that to mean the original signatories to the constitution) and not the legislators or ratifiers at the time of the 14th Amendment. Indeed, the distrinction between "originalism" and "textualism" (with both being subcategories of "formalism") actually reads on their posts. A strict textualist would not look at legislative history; an originalist would.

In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the justices in their wisdom, did not look at the legislative history of either the constitution or the 14A, but instead searched for the common law meaning of "citizen" at the time of constitution ratification.

Others have pointed out that justices sometimes have discovered potential error of their predessors and overruled decisions. This happened recently when the justices taught us, that in fact, there is no "right to privacy" in any constitutional amendment.

While an originalist approach to the 14th Amendment could lead to the same result as Wong Kim Ark, it would at least have to acknowledge statements in Congress related to the introduction of the Bill, such as Sen. Trumbull's, "“What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ . . . Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2892-93, 2893 (1866). Indeed, this is the reason the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was used instead of "Indians subject to tax" as there was objection to states making someone a citizen just by taxing them.

As you have noted, Wong Kim Ark is able to be distinguished because Wong Kim Ark's parents were not subject to the same legal framework as exists under modern immigration law.

This does not mean that a modern court could conclude that the common law definition of the term still rules, and does so, even with an examination of the Congressional history of the 39th Congress. Nevertheless, failing to meet that argument on its terms is a bit dishonest.

I'd expect a low chance of a consensualist definition of the terms, as the concept of birthright citizenry has reached that same mythos of "right to privacy" and "innocent until proven guilty" as believing these terms are directly in the constitution as opposed to interpretation of the secret meaning of the constitution. Nevertheless, it seems to just cut off meaningful discussion to reject such arguments with hubris.

This sets up a fight between Congress and the SCOTUS. The environment is right to force congress to pass a law stopping it.

quote:

---

They are specifically asking for an interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". To that extent, you are citing a case that interprets the phrase based on the common law meaning of the term "at the time the country was formed" and not "at the time of ratification".

---

It does both.

quote:

---

In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the justices in their wisdom, did not look at the legislative history

---

Yes. Their analysis was textual in nature. I've never disputed that.

quote:

---

but instead searched for the common law meaning of "citizen" at the time of constitution ratification.

---

Originalism. Which, prior to this discussion, has been the preferred Constitutional analysis on here for at least 20 years.

Again, why I reference Scalia so often in this discussion.

quote:

---

As you have noted, Wong Kim Ark is able to be distinguished because Wong Kim Ark's parents were not subject to the same legal framework as exists under modern immigration law.

---

Not quite my argument.

My argument is that Congress cannot create a status that overrules the Constitution.

The "status" distinction is Congressional and not a factor that can distinguish WKA from today.

quote:

---

While an originalist approach to the 14th Amendment could lead to the same result as Wong Kim Ark, it would at least have to acknowledge statements in Congress related to the introduction of the Bill, such as Sen. Trumbull's, "“What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ . . . Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2892-93, 2893 (1866).

---

Originalism, the Scalia style, rejects incorporating this. I posted several of his quotes in this thread on this issue.

quote:

---

This sets up a fight between Congress and the SCOTUS.

---

Of all the things that is set up by this conflict, THIS is not one of them.

quote:

---

he fricking irony Holy shite

---

You completely misunderstood/misrepresented what I said. It’s not even debatable. Yet here you are. You have issues bro. Serious, get help.