He’s one of those elitists that believe they MUST populate the earth with their genes to help save the future of humanity…
Exactly this entire thread is a political one.
This is for the ones on this website that do not understand why the 14th amendment was even created.
Go ahead and look it up. Does slavery ring a bell?
Again go ahead and understand why it was for. It has nothing to do as ti what five justices voted for. Ot is anazing that these five justices are so historically ignorant for a decision with so much implications.
The National Security implications are massive. The only way to correct this?
Prohibit pregnant women starting at six months.
European countries and others are now adjusting to this threat.
As a country we can’t afford this economically or on a National security level.
3 Likes
Subsequent USSC cases have held differently though, and applied birthright citizenship to far more than just former slaves.
The only recognized exceptions are a) children of foreign diplomats born in the USA, and b) children of occupying foreign armies born in the USA.
Everyone else, even children of illegal immigrants, are considered to be “under the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws,” and as such, covered by birthright citizenship.
There are over century’s worth of USSC precedents and case law in that area.
I’m sorry, but any other interpretation simply isn’t valid.
This USSC decision is completely consistent with prior precedents on the subject.
I personally would support a Constitutional Amendment to create greater limits in that regard, but as a lawyer I know good and well that that is the ONLY way to change this.
And given that you gotta have 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states to do that, I don’t think that any change in that regard is very realistic.
Why was the 14th amendment put into law?
It is an easy question to answer.
Furthermore the constitution has been changed over the years. Never the framers thought of the following:
National City, Chula Vista and other San Diego county hospitals daily receive future mothers that have crossed the border about to give birth.
Who pays for the new mother to have a child in our hospitals?
You think it does not happen ask San Diego county hospitals.
Technically you can have an individual hating America and have a child that is now a U.S. citizen.
The framers never envisioned this.
Yep, it says what it says.
As I mentioned above, lawyers can create all kinds of arguments that sound good but this one has been made clear for over a century. None of this is new.
1 Like
Doesn’t matter.
It says what it says, and there’s no way around it except through a Constitutional Amendment.
The USSC for over a century has applied it to way more than just former slaves, so sorry, that dog doesn’t hunt.
It may bark, but it doesn’t hunt.
3 Likes
And shouldn’t laws be interpreted and applied as written? I mean if you’re a textualism/originalist they should be.
1 Like
Sort of.
I’m a firm believer that there’s rarely such a thing as a “plain language” reading or meaning.
Nearly everything is open to interpretation.
But the USSC’s interpretation on this as extending to more than just former slaves has been consistent for over a century.
Yep, and if it were only meant to apply to former slaves, they could have written that. They didn’t.
The Supreme Court has treated birthright citizenship as settled law for over a century, and it fits with the common-law understanding that existed when the amendment was adopted. Anything new being brought to the table is just that.
That is incorrect. Reread why thd 14th amendment was put in place.
…and ask yourself this question:
Why was this voted into law?
To recognize that slaves are indeed citizens and protected cutizens.
Thomas and Alito were very clear in their dissent.
This is going to get tweeked.
Do we want a border or not?
The law says we do want and have a border. Some are against having borders. I’ll let you decide on that.
1 Like
I can’t wait to use the rights logic against the constitution on birthright citizenship (‘what’s written shouldn’t matter today’) in an attack on the right to bare arms.
2 Likes
I’ve brought that up. You can’t have it both ways (ie care about intent, specific clauses, historical rulings sometimes but not others).
2 Likes
“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.”
Clear as day. It’s lying to say otherwise.
To argue otherwise means you must believe that if someone born in the United States isn’t necessarily a citizen then that should mean they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and can commit any damn crime they want, you know, like diplomats with immunity.
2 Likes
Having both ways?
The 14th amendment was implemented into law to protect and recognized the slaves.
News flash for everyone:
Was there a 14th amendment before this?
The answer will be no and this why it opens the door for amendment to the 14th amendment. It is not going to be easy since some do not want a U.S. border.
That’s not what it says. The words matter. What you think they intended doesn’t. They could have said what you think they intended but they didn’t.
I can make similar arguments about 2nd amendment. They don’t matter though.
4 Likes
The argument that the ‘words are the only thing that matters’, which is what we are doing, is the same argument that has expanded gun rights in the US the last 4 decades.
Funny thing is, there is NO ambiguity in the 14 amendment but there is in the second amendment, which ties the right to bare arms to militias.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
1 Like
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, guarantees birthright citizenship, prohibits states from denying anyone “due process of law,” and ensures “equal protection of the laws”. Passed after the Civil War to protect the rights of formerly enslaved people, it remains one of the most litigated and influential amendments. [1, 2]
Do you understand the intent or you want to ignore it?
Ignoring it is a blatent insult to the African American community.
By ignoring the intent you allow for ANYONE that is pregnant regardless if they are the worst adversary to us to become a U.S. citizen. These are facts and the consequences that follows.
Words matter. It says what it says.
You’re trying to add words that don’t exist. If they intended what you think they intended, they could have added them. They didn’t.
And this connects very well to how this works under common law which an argument against what you think of as their intent. Either way, it doesn’t matter. They wrote what they wrote.
1 Like
America is a land of opportunity by design with equality for all as the goal.
If you deny birthright citizenship you’d end up with an official second class of people.
3 Likes
Then why have borders?