SCOTUS

[Northwestcoug]

If I am remembering correctly, almost no countries in Africa, Asia or Europe have automatic birthright citizenship. Almost all are in the Western Hemisphere and are post-colonization countries.

Yeah but most of those are shithole countries. Does Trump really want to be like them?

[Maximus]

She does not seem very intelligent.

lol

really down the maga road

[PaloAltoCougar]

If I am remembering correctly, almost no countries in Africa, Asia or Europe have automatic birthright citizenship. Almost all are in the Western Hemisphere and are post-colonization countries.

True, and since Trump regards all of them, including Canada, as shithole countries I guess his point stands. Personally, I don’t think I’d oppose a constitutional amendment stating that going forward, citizenship at birth is granted only to the offspring of U.S. citizens and legal residents. I’m very open to contrary opinions.

[frank ryan]

Highly unusual, but Trump attended today's oral argument on the birthright citizenship issue. Why not try to keep Alito and Thomas in line? Afterwards, Trump declared the U.S. is the only country "stupid" enough to have birthright president. In truth, we're the only country stupid enough to have a person like Trump as its leader. BTW, there are at least 30 other countries that have birthright citizenship.

We are the only county stupid enough to elect Trump to a second after he tried to steal the 2020 election

[All-American]

I just listened to the oral argument. It's not as clean-cut as you might think. There's actually some pretty good points cutting in both directions, and the Justices questioning both sides seemed to acknowledge them. The hardest part is the amount of time that has passed with everyone understanding that children of illegal aliens are citizens. It's a tall order to unwind the clock like the Trump administration is asking.

My guess is that you will see a 7-2 decision rejecting the government's position and maintaining birthright citizenship. You might see a concurring opinion rejecting the argument on statutory grounds instead of constitutional grounds, though both sides acknowledged that the gap between what the relevant statute provides and what the constitution requires is quite small. But there is enough there to peel off Justices Thomas and/or Alito into dissenting.



This isn't the part that anyone will care about, but I found very interesting a question posed to General Sauer, on whether Native Americans are given birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. There's a statute that clearly gives citizenship to Native Americans, so it's not a question of whether they are citizens, but whether there is a constitutional guarantee of citizenship. He gave a very squeamish "I think so", admitting that he hadn't really thought of it. The other side, by contrast, had considered it: the answer was "no," because Native Americans, as members of sovereign tribes, are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States or individual states-- though, again, they unquestionably are citizens by act of Congress even if the Constitution did not make them so. The responses place the two sides almost exactly opposite of what you might have guessed.

[LVAllen]

I just listened to the oral argument. It's not as clean-cut as you might think. There's actually some pretty good points cutting in both directions, and the Justices questioning both sides seemed to acknowledge them. The hardest part is the amount of time that has passed with everyone understanding that children of illegal aliens are citizens. It's a tall order to unwind the clock like the Trump administration is asking.

My guess is that you will see a 7-2 decision rejecting the government's position and maintaining birthright citizenship. You might see a concurring opinion rejecting the argument on statutory grounds instead of constitutional grounds, though both sides acknowledged that the gap between what the relevant statute provides and what the constitution requires is quite small. But there is enough there to peel off Justices Thomas and/or Alito into dissenting.



This isn't the part that anyone will care about, but I found very interesting a question posed to General Sauer, on whether Native Americans are given birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. There's a statute that clearly gives citizenship to Native Americans, so it's not a question of whether they are citizens, but whether there is a constitutional guarantee of citizenship. He gave a very squeamish "I think so", admitting that he hadn't really thought of it. The other side, by contrast, had considered it: the answer was "no," because Native Americans, as members of sovereign tribes, are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States or individual states-- though, again, they unquestionably are citizens by act of Congress even if the Constitution did not make them so. The responses place the two sides almost exactly opposite of what you might have guessed.

That's because one side has actually read the debates both before and after the amendment was adopted, and the other side has only read the soundbites.

Native Americans are pretty clearly excluded by the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because Native tribes are and were sovereign. They weren't subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If they wanted to be taxed, they could be citizens, and about 8% of the population were. It doesn't matter that the tribe was physically located colocally with a state or states. They were an independent sovereign entity, whose relationship to the United States was via treaty.

If you can show me an sovereign outpost of Mexico physically located within the US, I will agree that people born there are not US citizens. Otherwise the government's arguments are bad faith bullshit.

A better comparison is to "straggling" Indians. They left their tribes and lived among non-Natives. They were subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and their kids did have birthright citizenship.

[frank ryan]

That's because one side has actually read the debates both before and after the amendment was adopted, and the other side has only read the soundbites.

Native Americans are pretty clearly excluded by the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because Native tribes are and were sovereign. They weren't subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If they wanted to be taxed, they could be citizens, and about 8% of the population were. It doesn't matter that the tribe was physically located colocally with a state or states. They were an independent sovereign entity, whose relationship to the United States was via treaty.

If you can show me an sovereign outpost of Mexico physically located within the US, I will agree that people born there are not US citizens. Otherwise the government's arguments are bad faith bullshit.

A better comparison is to "straggling" Indians. They left their tribes and lived among non-Natives. They were subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and their kids did have birthright citizenship.

The fact that this is being argued before the Supreme Court shows what matters to this administration. It's built on fears of the Great Replacement theory.

[BlueK]

The fact that this is being argued before the Supreme Court shows what matters to this administration. It's built on fears of the Great Replacement theory.

Agreed. For Trump it's really about America should be only for what he considers to be "real" Americans. In other words, just plain white supremacy.

[falafel]

Agreed. For Trump it's really about America should be only for what he considers to be "real" Americans. In other words, just plain white supremacy.

Donald Trump is the child of an immigrant. We should pull the whole family up by the root and send them back to the Scots.

[falafel]

I just listened to the oral argument. It's not as clean-cut as you might think. There's actually some pretty good points cutting in both directions, and the Justices questioning both sides seemed to acknowledge them. The hardest part is the amount of time that has passed with everyone understanding that children of illegal aliens are citizens. It's a tall order to unwind the clock like the Trump administration is asking.

But its pretty clean-cut.

My guess is that you will see a 7-2 decision rejecting the government's position and maintaining birthright citizenship. You might see a concurring opinion rejecting the argument on statutory grounds instead of constitutional grounds, though both sides acknowledged that the gap between what the relevant statute provides and what the constitution requires is quite small. But there is enough there to peel off Justices Thomas and/or Alito into dissenting.

Not really going out on a limb there. Although I could see 7-1. At least one of them will say somethin ridiculous, knowing full well it won't mean shit.

This isn't the part that anyone will care about, but I found very interesting a question posed to General Sauer, on whether Native Americans are given birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. There's a statute that clearly gives citizenship to Native Americans, so it's not a question of whether they are citizens, but whether there is a constitutional guarantee of citizenship. He gave a very squeamish "I think so", admitting that he hadn't really thought of it. The other side, by contrast, had considered it: the answer was "no," because Native Americans, as members of sovereign tribes, are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States or individual states-- though, again, they unquestionably are citizens by act of Congress even if the Constitution did not make them so. The responses place the two sides almost exactly opposite of what you might have guessed.

I loved when Barrett slapped him down when he brought up the statue, saying "no no no no we're talking about the Constitution, not a statute" or whatever. John Sauer is a slippery little eel though, isn't he.

[All-American]

That's because one side has actually read the debates both before and after the amendment was adopted, and the other side has only read the soundbites.

Native Americans are pretty clearly excluded by the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because Native tribes are and were sovereign. They weren't subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If they wanted to be taxed, they could be citizens, and about 8% of the population were. It doesn't matter that the tribe was physically located colocally with a state or states. They were an independent sovereign entity, whose relationship to the United States was via treaty.

If you can show me an sovereign outpost of Mexico physically located within the US, I will agree that people born there are not US citizens. Otherwise the government's arguments are bad faith bullshit.

A better comparison is to "straggling" Indians. They left their tribes and lived among non-Natives. They were subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and their kids did have birthright citizenship.

This is pretty clearly shown when you look at the specific idiosyncratic categories of people deemed not to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof": foreign diplomats, invading armies, and, historically, Indians not taxed, etc. Something about each of those categories tied the people within them to a different sovereign government, carving them out for specific treatment under US law (usually including some form of immunity from taxation, prosecution, and so forth). There is just nothing like that for children of illegal immigrants, and there hasn't been for scores of years.

[All-American]

But its pretty clean-cut.

Think like a game against an FCS team, when the FCS team manages to kick a field goal on the first drive to go up 3-0. It's enough to make Cougarboarders wet their pants, but the outcome is not really in doubt.

[LVAllen]

This is pretty clearly shown when you look at the specific idiosyncratic categories of people deemed not to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof": foreign diplomats, invading armies, and, historically, Indians not taxed, etc. Something about each of those categories tied the people within them to a different sovereign government, carving them out for specific treatment under US law (usually including some form of immunity from taxation, prosecution, and so forth). There is just nothing like that for children of illegal immigrants, and there hasn't been for scores of years.

Here's something else to consider - There is this big talking point about "oh, no one else does birthright citizenship" as if that explains what the text of the 14th Amendment says. So let's look at other nations in the 19th century. 14th Amendment was adopted in 1866. The differentiation between jus soli and jus sanguinis was being formally coined in Europe in the 1860s. Since originalists like to focus on the UK and France, let's do that. The UK had long given citizenship to anyone born in its dominions citizenship. It wasn't until 1981 that that changed. France had sort of a mixed system after 1851 and formally went to full-on birthright citizenship in 1889. So to the extent that "originalists" want up to look at how the drafters understood it, and whether they were taking guidance from well-known legal traditions, birthright citizenship is absolutely the correct answer, regardless of parents' citizenship.

[dabrockster]

.
IMG_7799.jpeg

[frank ryan]

Here's something else to consider - There is this big talking point about "oh, no one else does birthright citizenship" as if that explains what the text of the 14th Amendment says. So let's look at other nations in the 19th century. 14th Amendment was adopted in 1866. The differentiation between jus soli and jus sanguinis was being formally coined in Europe in the 1860s. Since originalists like to focus on the UK and France, let's do that. The UK had long given citizenship to anyone born in its dominions citizenship. It wasn't until 1981 that that changed. France had sort of a mixed system after 1851 and formally went to full-on birthright citizenship in 1889. So to the extent that "originalists" want up to look at how the drafters understood it, and whether they were taking guidance from well-known legal traditions, birthright citizenship is absolutely the correct answer, regardless of parents' citizenship.

Let's maybe acknowledge that a lot of these voices, like Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon are pushing this issue because they are afraid are racial demographics castrating the GOP. They are xenophobes. It's not about any other important concern.