“Leftist ideology”? :dubious: Interpreting the 14th amendment the way it was clearly intended by its authors and has been interpreted since its passing now qualifies as “leftist ideology”? The entire purpose of this part of the 14th amendment was giving birthright citizenship to everyone born in the US, in order to counteract the Dred Scott decision. This isn’t controversial. This isn’t something legal scholars hold serious debates about. If you can find a legal scholar who disagrees with this interpretation, the correct response is to ask, “How the fuck do you qualify as a legal scholar, you hack?” It’s like finding a biologist who doesn’t believe in evolution, or a historian who doubts the holocaust - congratulations, you found an idiot whose reasoning is almost certainly grossly motivated. Nice one. It’s not a close one. It’s not that “my side” has the better argument, it’s that the other side’s argument is baseless and insane.
And y’know what? I’m just gonna reiterate my previous statement. The people saying this might not be white nationalists, but they are making the same arguments as white nationalists, are appealing to white nationalists, and are making white nationalists pretty darn happy. :mad: Past a certain point you stop giving these fuckers the benefit of the doubt. This is about keeping America white.
You know what us entitled leftist dilettantes are like. Always coming up with ridiculous whines based on whatever PC terminology is cool that week, like “stop oppressing me with your crypto-fascist bad vibes”, “you are just an agent of the hetronormative patriarchy!”, and “the president can’t revoke a constitutional amendment by executive order”
All totally bonkers, right? We all need to grow up and get a job.
And the current status of legal precedent is that Korumatsu is bad law, under Trump v. Hawaii, and remanded the travel ban to earlier courts to see if the actual order was constitutional, establishing the executive orders are still subject to judicial constitutionality tests.
As current precedent is that the 14th Amendment establishes birthright citizenship, an attempt to overturn this via executive order should therefore be declared unconstitutional. As it is the plain text of the Constitution that establishes this, even textualist/originalist judged should find such.
Do you agree or not that ever since the 14th Amendment was ratified, everyone born in the United States has been treated as a US citizen? Even Negroes?
This is the way the law has been interpreted since it was established. Now you’re saying that we can just change that based on the President’s whim?
Mostly true. But until 1924, with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act, many Native Americans born in the US were not considered or treated as citizens. And we’ve already noted that children of diplomats born here were not.
I’ll concede that it only applies to U.S. Nationals. My confusion was that the Government is using any tangential connection to the United States to exercise jurisdiction.
For example, and I’ll find a cite later, a Mexican national murders another Mexican national entirely in Mexico, but he was part of a drug cartel and some of the drugs enter the United States. The Government will use that nexus to assert jurisdiction over the murder.
Neither of whom are under the jurisdiction of the united states (according to the regular way the word is defined in the English language and US legal tradition, without redefining it to disenfranchise brown people) .
Cases like Ex parte Crow Dog show the Indian tribes were NOT under the jurisdiction of the US. Additionally Native Americans who were under US jurisdiction (as demonstrated, for example by paying taxes) were considered citizens before the Indian Citizenship Act.
Likewise for diplomats, they are absolutely unambiguously not under US jurisdiction (and were like who the framers had in mind when they added the “under US jurisdiction” part)
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
While he couldn’t overrule the Constitution, he could say his interpretation of 14th is that given the parents are here illegally, they are not subject to the jurisdiction, and that any child born to them is also not subject to the jurisdiction, and thus not a citizen. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark his parents appeared to be in the US legally when he was born, as his parents had permanent domicile and residence in the United States.
So would that apply to someone who is breaking immigration law? Trump could say No and setup a supreme court fight. I’m willing to bet he’d lose.
Likewise he could claim (in his executive order making him president for life) that his interpretation of the word “two” in the 22nd amendment is that it actually means “any non-prime number”.
So no overruling Constituion there, move along citizen (sorry “move along temporary resident at the whim of the president for life”)
Plyler v. Doe settled that already. Children born on US soil are US citizens, no matter the status of their parents. Decision and dissent agree on this point.
So no, Trump and UltraVires don’t even have the figment of a legal leg to stand on here.
Did that case settle the citizenship issue of the 14th or just the “equal protection” issue? My understanding is that it was the latter. Citizenship was not at issue in that case.