Birth Right Citizenship case should be announced tomorrow... Predictions?

[Yakuda]

You are correct, we need to amend the Constitution relating to guns, but there is a difference... While the word "arms" have evolved into including much more dangerous weapons, the meaning of "Citizenship" and "Jurisdiction" has not changed.

No rational person in the United States believes every individual should be allowed to bear Nuclear Arms.

Those two terms include much more dangerous people all of whom are no less dangerous than.a.nuclear weapon

No rational person is the US believes every individual should be allowed into to stay America if they entered illegally. This is fun

 

[zymurgy]

You are correct, we need to amend the Constitution relating to guns, but there is a difference... While the word "arms" have evolved into including much more dangerous weapons, the meaning of "Citizenship" and "Jurisdiction" has not changed.

this is demonstrably false by court cases


At the time, the 14th amendment language was pulled from the 1866 civil rights act - everyone understood that a foreign born child or native American born here held a difference form of allegiance - and was not in our jurisdiction

 

[Jarod]

Those two terms include much more dangerous people all of whom are no less dangerous than.a.nuclear weapon

No rational person is the US believes every individual should be allowed into to stay America if they entered illegally. This is fun

I am not claiming that every individual should be allowed to stay in America if they entered illegally. I am saying that the Constitution says that people born here are citizens, until or unless that Amendment is changed.

 

[Jarod]

this is demonstrably false by court cases


At the time, the 14th amendment language was pulled from the 1866 civil rights act - everyone understood that a foreign born child or native American born here held a difference form of allegiance - and was not in our jurisdiction

Allegiance and Jurisdiction are and have been two very different words.

 

[zymurgy]

Allegiance and Jurisdiction are and have been two very different words.

so?

the interpetation of jurisdiction has changed over time

entire books have been written about it, explaining how the courts changed the meaning

 

[Jarod]

so?

the interpetation of jurisdiction has changed over time

entire books have been written about it, explaining how the courts changed the meaning

Yes, but some look to original intent and others consider the concept and how it fits into the modern world.

 

[zymurgy]

Yes, but some look to original intent and others consider the concept and how it fits into the modern world.

yes - and those are courts changing the meaning without an amendment

 

[Jarod]

yes - and those are courts changing the meaning without an amendment

there are many ways to address this I am guessing how this Court will do it.

 

[zymurgy]

there are many ways to address this I am guessing how this Court will do it.

you are all over the place

you first claim we must have an amendment. now you agree that the courts can do it without one

 

[Yakuda]

I am not claiming that every individual should be allowed to stay in America if they entered illegally. I am saying that the Constitution says that people born here are citizens, until or unless that Amendment is changed.

Then the parents here illegally will be"separated" from their kids. That's how you want it.

 

[Jarod]

Then the parents here illegally will be"separated" from their kids. That's how you want it.

They do not have to be separated, citizens can live in other countries. Lots of citizens live abroad.

But we are not talking about what we want, we are talking about the law and what it is.

 

[Yakuda]

They do not have to be separated, citizens can live in other countries. Lots of citizens live abroad.

But we are not talking about what we want, we are talking about the law and what it is.

Then the citizen children can take their parent who enters the country illegally to whatever country that like.

 

[FastLane]

My prediction is we will have to wait to find out what SCOTUS decides

 

[Ross Dolan]

To me the Constitution is clear, and the Conservatives are strict constructionists. Because of that, I suspect Roberts and Barrett will side with the Liberals and say that being born here is clearly a basis for automatic citizenship.

I could be very wrong. We will see.

My guess is that the automatic citizenship for anyone born here in the United States will be upheld.

We'll see.

 

[FastLane]

To me the Constitution is clear, and the Conservatives are strict constructionists. Because of that, I suspect Roberts and Barrett will side with the Liberals and say that being born here is clearly a basis for automatic citizenship.

I could be very wrong. We will see.

I do not know what they will decide. But the SCOTUS has already ruled on Birthright citizenship in 1884 19 years after the 14th amendment. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/

They ruled the under jurisdiction clause meant not being under the jurisdiction of another political organization. American Indians BORN IN THE US between 1868 (14th Amendment) and the 1924 (Snyder Act) Were not American citizens.

 

[Damocles]

To me the Constitution is clear, and the Conservatives are strict constructionists. Because of that, I suspect Roberts and Barrett will side with the Liberals and say that being born here is clearly a basis for automatic citizenship.

I could be very wrong. We will see.

Strict constructionists would listen to the intent as well. We've been over this... You cannot say that because you read it that way that is what they will decide, if there is written documentation that it was not the intent of the Amendment to allow illegal immigrants to sneak in and birth citizens, written from the time period, then they will likely side with the intent, especially if it is due to evolved language.

In this case you get the framers, particularly Senator Lyman Trumbull, who emphasized that "jurisdiction" meant owing allegiance to the U.S. For example, children of foreign nationals temporarily in the U.S. might not be considered under full U.S. jurisdiction if their parents owed allegiance to another country. During the 1866 debates on the 14th Amendment, framers like Senator Jacob Howard clarified that "jurisdiction" meant "full and complete jurisdiction," excluding those who owed allegiance to foreign powers or were part of semi-sovereign entities (e.g., tribes).

The amendment was partly a response to the Dred Scott decision (1857), which denied citizenship to African Americans. The Citizenship Clause aimed to ensure that freed slaves and their descendants, born in the U.S. and subject to its laws, were citizens, but it wasn’t intended to automatically include everyone physically present.

If they listen to these things as to inform on intent of the time period due to evolving language they may very well decide differently than you think they will if they are strict constructionists.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

it is laughable to say it is clear

if it is so clear, why was it modified over and over again by courts for decades?

why did Native Americans born here not qualify per this supposedly clear interpretation?

Because Native Americans are a separate class under the US Constitution. They are "Indians not taxed."
It's very clear the foreigners in the US are not "Indians not taxed."

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Strict constructionists would listen to the intent as well. We've been over this... You cannot say that because you read it that way that is what they will decide, if there is written documentation that it was not the intent of the Amendment to allow illegal immigrants to sneak in and birth citizens, written from the time period, then they will likely side with the intent, especially if it is due to evolved language.

In this case you get the framers, particularly Senator Lyman Trumbull, who emphasized that "jurisdiction" meant owing allegiance to the U.S. For example, children of foreign nationals temporarily in the U.S. might not be considered under full U.S. jurisdiction if their parents owed allegiance to another country. During the 1866 debates on the 14th Amendment, framers like Senator Jacob Howard clarified that "jurisdiction" meant "full and complete jurisdiction," excluding those who owed allegiance to foreign powers or were part of semi-sovereign entities (e.g., tribes).

The amendment was partly a response to the Dred Scott decision (1857), which denied citizenship to African Americans. The Citizenship Clause aimed to ensure that freed slaves and their descendants, born in the U.S. and subject to its laws, were citizens, but it wasn’t intended to automatically include everyone physically present.

If they listen to these things as to inform on intent of the time period due to evolving language they may very well decide differently than you think they will if they are strict constructionists.

First of all, Scalia would disagree with you as to looking at intent. He argued you look at the text.

Secondly, past Supreme Court rulings have done a pretty detailed examination of intent and found that those that wrote were very aware it would to apply to all including Asians.

It's possible that the "strict constructionists" could simply ignore the text and ignore the words of those that wrote it and make up what they want but it certainly won't be based on any strict constructionist standard from the past.

 

[Damocles]

First of all, Scalia would disagree with you as to looking at intent. He argued you look at the text.

Secondly, past Supreme Court rulings have done a pretty detailed examination of intent and found that those that wrote were very aware it would to apply to all including Asians.

It's possible that the "strict constructionists" could simply ignore the text and ignore the words of those that wrote it and make up what they want but it certainly won't be based on any strict constructionist standard from the past.

You look at the text as it was written, and what the meaning was of the time period. Again you ignore portions of what they say to try to fit it into what you want them to have said. You are building a strawman.

Secondly... You forget that Roe v. Wade was pretty well argued out and those that wrote it were aware... so forth.

It is possible that the strict constructionists can do what they always do and refer to the text as it was meant at the time it was written and go with intent. It doesn't take ignoring anything other than the simplified and ignorant argument that, "But you said the text!"

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You look at the text as it was written, and what the meaning was of the time period. Again you ignore portions of what they say to try to fit it into what you want them to have said. You are building a strawman.

Secondly... You forget that Roe v. Wade was pretty well agued out and those that wrote it were aware... so forth.

It is possible that the strict constructionists can do what they always do and refer to the text as it was meant at the time it was written and go with intent. It doesn't take ignoring anything other than the simplified and ignorant argument that, "But you said the text!"

The text says this -
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.
The ruling in Elk for Indians was a result of this:

This view is confirmed by the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed."

Indians were a separate class mentioned in the 14th amendment.


The ruling in Wong Kim Ark lays out a rather extensive history of the laws and discussions leading up to the 14th amendment.

During the debates in the senate in January ary and February, 1866, upon the civil rights bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read: 'All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.' Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked 'whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this country?' Mr. Trumbull answered, 'Undoubtedly;' and asked, 'Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?' Mr.C owan replied, 'The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese.' Mr. Trumbull rejoined, 'The law makes no such distinction, and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.'


Then the ruling also points out the groups that do not get birth citizenship.

The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 18b; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent, Comm. 39, 42.


The ruling also points out that Elk only applies to Indians and does not apply to foreigners in the US.

The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African, or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.