@AverageJoe1 saidSorry, your ridiculous version of "invasion" is not what rational people like the Framers envisioned. They and non-stupid people can distinguish between a military attack on a nation and movement of folks merely wanting to build a better life in another country.
Could you respect my informative thread...., some might not even know what is going to happen at 10AM tomorrow.
So I put this thread here to apprise them, and me, of that, with a bit of a primer as to the heart of the case.
Whether there is an invasion, it is in the eyes of the beholder. If I behold a person coming thru my front door without my permission...... ...[text shortened]... agraph? Why? To make a certain distinction? What was the distinction? Don't answer that question.
@AverageJoe1 saidFrance does not have birthright citizenship. Canada does, as does much of Latin America.
If the children born here aren’t citizens of other countries, you say…..then what are they?
Follow me marauder,… If I am in Paris with my American family, and my wife has a baby while I am there, I will ask you the same question…What country will my new baby be a citizen of?
Please not be clever or sarcastic, tell us. I am a USA citizen, …………..Is the baby born ...[text shortened]... rtful dodger…is the baby a citizen of France, or of the USA.??
Anyone? He will not answer.
@Soothfast saidMy post says nothing about 'birthright citizenship' ,,, and you do not answer the question. Of which country, France or the USA, is this child (baby) considered a citizen?
France does not have birthright citizenship. Canada does, as does much of Latin America.
There are two possible answers,,,,,discussion would. be quite superfluous.
@no1marauder saidSorry, you evade my question. Is the unapproved entry into my house an invasion from my perspective? They don't need weapons, either. They simply cross my threshold, they could be carrying a knife but that is not the point, is it.
Sorry, your ridiculous version of "invasion" is not what rational people like the Framers envisioned. They and non-stupid people can distinguish between a military attack on a nation and movement of folks merely wanting to build a better life in another country.
I win this one. I have established an invasion, and once you agree, we will apply it to the aliens who cross the river.
Wanting 'to build a better life' ,,their intent, is quite irrelevant. If I rent a house from someone and 'want to have that house for a better life', should the landlord sell me the house? What if he does not want to?
@AverageJoe1 saidThis absurd analogy of yours has been discussed here dozens of times.
Sorry, you evade my question. Is the unapproved entry into my house an invasion from my perspective? They don't need weapons, either. They simply cross my threshold, they could be carrying a knife but that is not the point, is it.
I win this one. I have established an invasion, and once you agree, we will apply it to the aliens who cross the river.
Wanting ...[text shortened]... e that house for a better life', should the landlord sell me the house? What if he does not want to?
A country isn't like some person's personal property.
Get over it.
@no1marauder saidWSJ has an article today that tries to summarize the arguments on both sides. Here's a link to the archive version:
One could correctly say that Roe was somewhat controversial from its inception.
By contrast, Wong Kim Ark has been accepted law for more than 125 years and only recently has there developed fringe theories questioning it.
https://archive.is/JxPh9
Here's what it says about U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:
----------
Opponents of the executive order claim that “jurisdiction” simply refers to the applicability of ordinary civil and criminal laws. They invoke U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), in which the high court granted birthright citizenship to a man born to Chinese parents. They read Wong Kim Ark and other sources as having incorporated British common-law doctrine deeming anyone born in the British Empire a subject of the crown. But Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota has shown that the common-law materials are more complicated. The older cases and treatises turned not simply on place of birth, but on protection, allegiance and the sovereign’s acceptance of the parents’ presence. Mr. Wurman also shows that the status of temporary sojourners was contested by the 19th century.
Most important, Wong Kim Ark’s parents weren’t in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. As Justice Gray put it for the court: “The question presented by the record is 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 domicil and residence in the United States, . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”
The government isn’t asking the court to disturb Wong Kim Ark’s treatment of children born to lawful permanent residents—who nowadays have green cards. Mr. Trump’s executive order maintains birthright citizenship for the children of green-card holders while excluding those whose parents are in the U.S. illegally or on nonresident visas.
------------
1 edit
@Sleepyguy saidWong's parents were considered permanent residents even though they had returned to China years before the litigation.
WSJ has an article today that tries to summarize the arguments on both sides. Here's a link to the archive version:
https://archive.is/JxPh9
Here's what it says about U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:
----------
Opponents of the executive order claim that “jurisdiction” simply refers to the applicability of ordinary civil and criminal laws. They invoke U.S. v. Wong Kim A ...[text shortened]... while excluding those whose parents are in the U.S. illegally or on nonresident visas.
------------
The majority opinion cited more than a dozen British, colonial and State court decisions invoking the common law rule of jus soli prior to enactment of the 14th Amendment. This shows that the intention of its Framers were almost certainly in line with such a long accepted common law practice.
@no1marauder saidDont make me write another analogy, an invasion is an invasion. Fox invades a chicken coop, for god sake.
This absurd analogy of yours has been discussed here dozens of times.
A country isn't like some person's personal property.
Get over it.
1 edit
@Sleepyguy saidThat seems obsessively focused on the status of the parents of the kid in the lawsuit, but isn't that beside the point? The ruling itself was super clear about the implications, cites other examples where birthright citizenship applies, and the wording of the constitution itself couldn't be more clear.
WSJ has an article today that tries to summarize the arguments on both sides. Here's a link to the archive version:
https://archive.is/JxPh9
Here's what it says about U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:
----------
Opponents of the executive order claim that “jurisdiction” simply refers to the applicability of ordinary civil and criminal laws. They invoke U.S. v. Wong Kim A ...[text shortened]... while excluding those whose parents are in the U.S. illegally or on nonresident visas.
------------
My question is whether a decision to end birthright citizenship would apply to fetal personhood. Like, lets say you get your green card while pregnant. Also, how am I going to prove citizenship before I go to vote when birth certificates aren't relevant anymore? Opens a big can of bureaucracy.
1 edit
@Sleepyguy saidThe actual ruling is exhaustive and comes to this conclusion. I could not find the dissenting opinion.
WSJ has an article today that tries to summarize the arguments on both sides. Here's a link to the archive version:
https://archive.is/JxPh9
Here's what it says about U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:
----------
Opponents of the executive order claim that “jurisdiction” simply refers to the applicability of ordinary civil and criminal laws. They invoke U.S. v. Wong Kim A ...[text shortened]... while excluding those whose parents are in the U.S. illegally or on nonresident visas.
------------
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.
This could be changed, of course, but not through SCOTUS or POTUS. It's not their job. If folks start changing the rule of law via fiat, they prove that the alarmists were right all along.
@AverageJoe1 saidWell it is FKING OBVIOUS for a card carrying racist like you, you ADORE Trump AND all his anti human work. So when TRUMP decides to KILL 250 FKING YEARS of birthright you just fall over backwards and LOVING the way Trump wants to FUK MILLIONS of CITIZENS of the USA and THAT is the goal.
You make a good point, but this is not about revising the constitution, as I might have intimated. It is to decide the one question about an executive order., and I suggest everyone get familiar with the real issue and not allow your minds to stray and waste a great moment to hear some great arguments over one issue.
The suit is to have the justices rule on an execu ...[text shortened]... ly interesting to watch them wrestle with it. I doubt that the executive order will hold up, myself.
EXACTLY like how DOGE and Trump claims MASSIVE voter fraud THEREFORE we HAVE to curtail the rights to vote which BTW is going on AS WE SPEAK so BOTH tracks to eliminate possible democrat majority areas, strip them from voting rights and then citizenship so those kids lose their SS #, can't get jobs unless it is digging trenches in Arizona and you and Trump LOVES the hell out of that outcome.
FKING TRAITORS to the US is what YOU AND Trump are.
@sonhouse saidYou are wrong, voting rights are not being stripped from people who are qualified to vote. So that takes away half of your post.
Well it is FKING OBVIOUS for a card carrying racist like you, you ADORE Trump AND all his anti human work. So when TRUMP decides to KILL 250 FKING YEARS of birthright you just fall over backwards and LOVING the way Trump wants to FUK MILLIONS of CITIZENS of the USA and THAT is the goal.
EXACTLY like how DOGE and Trump claims MASSIVE voter fraud THEREFORE we HAVE to curtail ...[text shortened]... d Trump LOVES the hell out of that outcome.
FKING TRAITORS to the US is what YOU AND Trump are.
Then you say, strip them of them citizenship. What does that even mean. It is quite a rare feet to strip someone from their citizenship. So we are mind blown by your comment.!!! you follow that with Social Security, which everyone who is entitled to Social Security gets their Social Security so we do not know what that means either..
Please proof your posting before you post, as we got nothing out of this one I’m sure you’re a nice person, but your fingers fly a little off the charts
@AverageJoe1 saidFunny this is on April Fool's Day.
I think that the present process of becoming a citizen should be revised.
But , I PREDICT that they will bail, it will be too much for the judges, though they know it is too liberal.
Everybody vote, and enjoy watching the arguments on each side, I am not sure of the time.
So you predict that this court will defend the Constitution? Shocking.
And what about that? Is the US Constitution "too liberal" now? Are the SCOTUS Justices "too liberal" now? I think your concept of "woke" has you by the balls here.
@AverageJoe1 saidAfter following the arguments and questions, I think it's very possible they duck the constitutional issue and rule the EO violates immigration laws passed in the 1940s and 1950s. Kavanaugh mentioned those laws used the 14th Amendment language when they were widely viewed as incorporating the 1898 SCOTUS birthright decision.
I think that the present process of becoming a citizen should be revised.
But , I PREDICT that they will bail, it will be too much for the judges, though they know it is too liberal.
Everybody vote, and enjoy watching the arguments on each side, I am not sure of the time.
@AverageJoe1 saidLet me introduce you to something called "common knowledge" which you do not have, as well as these things called "grammar" and "spelling".
You are wrong, voting rights are not being stripped from people who are qualified to vote. So that takes away half of your post.
Then you say, strip them of them citizenship. What does that even mean. It is quite a rare feet to strip someone from their citizenship. So we are mind blown by your comment.!!! you follow that with Social Security, which everyone who is en ...[text shortened]... nothing out of this one I’m sure you’re a nice person, but your fingers fly a little off the charts
How can you continue to post here and make a huge fool out of yourself, if you have no idea what people are talking about?