(06-30-2026 11:00 AM)bullet Wrote: (06-30-2026 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (06-30-2026 10:41 AM)bullet Wrote: (06-30-2026 09:45 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote: Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship.
Very, very disappointed in Roberts and Barrett. There is just no way you can find anything in the law to support tourism citizenship. I figured they would stick with precendent and ignore intent on the illegals. But there are just so many problems with birthright tourism. They aren't residents. They aren't under our jurisdiction.
When they are in our country, they can be arrested, they can be sued, etc. They are most definitely 'under our jurisdiction'. Kind of plain as day under the normal words themselves.
I find it funny that in days past, most here castigated rulings that brought in policy making, and ignored the plain raw meaning of the words.
Now the same posters castigate rulings that *dont* bring in policy, and strictly adhere to the plain text.
Funny that.
Look -- as a policy matter I agree that tourism citizenship is an issue. But the fix isnt to stick your fingers in your ears and try to redefine plain words. Too many people try and do that with the 2nd amendment, and now the plain words apply. Now the same people who rejoice over the usage and triumph of plain text in the 2nd, now castigate that same objective manner of jurisprudence for this issue. Lolz.
You are ignoring the words. It specifically says "...and of the state wherein they reside...." They are not residents. Illegals are.
As for "under the jurisdiction," its been discussed on here what some of the authors intended with that phrase. But the majority is going with how it has been applied the last 150 years.
The mass of the weight of writing through history backs the current court decision.
And yes, illegals actually reside in a place. They arent ghosts or some ethereal presence.
The illegals that live in plot of land adjacent to my ranch -- reside there. Its simple plain English.
And hate to tell you, they can be sued, they can be arrested by Texas. So they both 'reside' in Texas, and they are subject to the jurisdiction of the State or Texas, and the legal subdivisions.
But please continue with the language contortions you need to have to make a point.
The only thing Im ignoring is the contortions you bring to normal understanding of plain English language. Which view has been backed explicitly from the 1870s -- that is the time when the 14th went into effect.
The historical issue of 'under the jurisdiction' refer explicitly and exclusively to the issues of ambassadors, consuls, and foreign troops occupying US land. That is -- individuals who are, well, NOT subject to the jurisdiction of US law, or state law. That concept has been around since the late 1600s in English law (from where we, and the rest of the world for that matter) concede that those persons are immune from the jurisdiction of national and state authorities.
Finally -- 'droit du sol' has been embedded in the US fabric since before the Constitution. The US has never been a 'droit de sangre' nation. Ever.
The United States adopted droit du sol (traditionally referred to by its Latin term, jus soli) primarily because it inherited English common law, which had recognized territorial birthright citizenship for centuries.
