(01-27-2025 01:48 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I'm not in favor of granting temporary legal status except in the specific cases of refugees, etc. The temporary legal status thing began with Democrats stretching the definition of "refugee" past the breaking point.

Yep

Quote:But that's really beside the point, isn't it? End the practice of temporary legal status, and turn people back at the border, and there will still be people managing to get in illegally, and some will have children.

It depends on what someone thinks the point is. More on this in a minute

Quote:You're conflating an argument against allowing illegal immigrants in on temporary status, with an argument for a new interpretation of the 14th amendment with respect to persons born on US soil. These are two separate issues, unless you are arguing that sheer numbers make it necessary to view things differently, but then you are joining the "living document" crowd in their relativism.

First.... 'The executive order specifies that children born in the U.S. will not automatically acquire U.S. citizenship if both parents are either unlawfully present or on temporary visas and neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.'

That essentially means that two wrongs can't make a right, lol.

Second, it does not apply retroactively... so this has nothing to do with children already here.

There are some SCOTUS cases as I understand it that speak to 'intent' in terms of the parents... As i mentioned... Vance alluded to this as well. I don't see that the 14th amendment addresses people here illegally, do you?? We can READ it to do so... but that obviously involves interpretation. I don't think they are actually mentioned.... at the very least we would be debating whether or not their silence was intentional.

The longer someone is here illegally, the more likely they are to have a child here. To me, I see 'temporary status' as being exactly what it is... where you don't have ALL the rights of a citizen, but you also don't have NO such rights. People here illegally have no such rights. That speaks to the 'under the jurisdiction thereof'...

So consistent with the 'legal status' of the parents that imparts no citizenship to diplomats, I'd argue that children of illegal immigrants have no birthright citizenship... but those on temporary status MAY. This would be the starting point for some negotiation.

I'm not sure this is a 9-0 against SCOTUS case. If it is then it is and that's fine. If its not then its likely a 5-4, but could still go either way. The question I see is whether or not someone who 'broke in' to the country is afforded ALL of the protections of the Constitution. People here on most visas can't vote. People convicted of some crimes can't vote. Even legal citizens with no criminal history but residing in US territories can't always vote... and I think most of us consider those to be fundamental rights of citizenship.... so I think there is at least an argument to be made.

In any event, much of the purpose of this has been done already in that it likely has a chilling effect on immigration... especially with the intent of quickly having a child... and beginning the conversations about 'anchors'... which to me is a MUCH bigger issue than the citizenship of the child.

My US niece married a Newfoundlander... here legally... their kids are dual citizens... but neither of the parents are. It's not as unusual as some might think for kids and parents to NOT fully share citizenship. Children born in the US to Mexican nationals are ALSO Mexican citizens.

(01-27-2025 11:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 11:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 11:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 10:38 AM)MOBalum Wrote:  Diplomats have immunity; they are not subject to the jurisdiction of US law. Neither were Native Americans at the time.

If illegal immigrants are not to be subject to the jurisdiction of US law, things will be very different.

Citizenship is not solely about being subject to our laws. There are also obligations that go along with it. Diplomats who break US laws CAN BE barred from remaining in the country. We can't prosecute them here perhaps, but we also don't have to allow them to remain here.... so they are STILL at least somewhat subject to at least some of our laws.

Entering the country illegally is a crime... we may not be able to incarcerate them here for that crime, but we CAN revoke any right they have to be here and return them to their country of origin.... as we can for diplomats.

This is part of the 'game' of ignoring the initial crime... Democrats have MADE illegal aliens 'subject to our jurisdiction' and thus they arguably qualify under the 14th... but as illegal inhabitants/invaders... they would not.

Illegal immigrants have always been subject to our jurisdiction. What form of immunity to they enjoy? Where is it enumerated?

It's not about immunity. It's about the idea that Democrats engage in that they are 'not criminals' just because they crossed the border illegally.

Remain in Mexico would keep people here illegally from being granted 'temporary status' in the country. They wouldn't be here to become 'subject to our jurisdiction'. If you catch them at or very near the border like we're supposed to, they really don't become subject to our jurisdiction, just our sovereignty and are simply returned back across the border.

The issue of course is that if they're already here illegally... or even temporarily... what do you do if they break a law and become incarcerated? NOW we have to feed and house them... and their children and spouses will argue that they need to stay to be near them etc... this is the very quagmire that has been created... intentionally IMO.

I'm talking about the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing about illegal entry, breaking laws, or getting incarcerated. The text of the amendment is simple. If you're born here and you are subject to our laws, you're a citizen.

Everyone is of course welcome to agree or disagree as to whether that's a good policy. Our Constitution can be amended. But until it is, birthright citizenship is the law of the land.

(01-27-2025 02:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 12:47 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 12:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 11:58 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 11:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Wowza. Every single one of them? What happens to the ones born off the reservation?

I must admit, I am unclear on when, where and how tribal jurisdiction differs from state or federal jurisdiction. When I travel to Oklahoma to play at the Indian casinos there, the speed limits right up to the casino are enforced by Oklahoma State Troopers or local law enforcement. The drugs in the drug stores there are governed by the FDA. The medical doctors are licensed by the state. I have to pay OKLA state tax on winnings over certain amounts, and report them on my 1040. But if I get rowdy and thrown out of the casino, I am subject to a tribal court.

It is a complex subject, and I don't claim to know under what circumstances in the mid-19th century an American Indian would or would not be considered a US citizen. But clearly there were exceptions, and they were particular to Native Americans and not persons in general, which is the point. The argument that specific exceptions negate the general rule is extremely weak. "All X except for X=A,B,or C" cannot logically be used to imply that every X=A,B,C.

I think the fact that there were exceptions noted to birthright citizenship, adjudicated after the passage of the 14th amendment, indicates that intent was to provide citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants and nothing more. If the wording does not adequately convey that intention, that is what is known as a "loophole". I think it is time to close that loophole, especially since it is being abused by noncitizens.

What you think has NEVER been how the 14th Amendment was actually applied, before or after adjudication. Exceptions have always been understood and put into practice.

Repeating what was quoted from the link:

he first time the nation’s highest court opined on the meaning of the Citizenship Clause — in the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872 — it stated that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excluded "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

The Court confirmed this understanding in 1884 in Elk v. Wilkins, denying birthright citizenship to an American Indian because he "owed immediate allegiance to" his tribe and not the United States.

Do these not imply a different view of the 14th in 1872 and 1884 than now?

No.

The verbiage you quote from the majority opinion of Slaughter-House was a justice writing for the majority affirming that the then-current practice of excluding children of diplomats was a correct interpretation. That has not changed. The court substantively reversed the "citizens... of foreign states" part in 1896 - a very long time ago.

In Elk vs. Wilkins, the justices were upholding a then-current practice of not recognizing American Indians as citizens. American Indians were all made citizens of the United States by act of Congress in 1924, one hundred years ago. Their citizenship status changed between 1872 and now, but the principle behind not including their children as citizens never changed.

The court rulings have always been in the direction of clarifying and sharpening the definition of exceptions to the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction". It was never understood to be broadly exclusive of everyone but children of current citizens and children of former slaves. It was understood to be inclusive to begin with, and the courts have ruled in the direction of making it more inclusive.

(01-27-2025 03:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So consistent with the 'legal status' of the parents that imparts no citizenship to diplomats, I'd argue that children of illegal immigrants have no birthright citizenship... but those on temporary status MAY. This would be the starting point for some negotiation.

The starting point of negotiation is that children of illegal immigrants that are born in the United States are U.S. citizens. That's the law of the land.

(01-27-2025 03:07 PM)MOBalum Wrote:  I'm talking about the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing about illegal entry, breaking laws, or getting incarcerated. The text of the amendment is simple. If you're born here and you are subject to our laws, you're a citizen.

I think the argument being made is that children of people who are here illegally... operating 'outside' of our laws... are not... especially in that children aren't usually responsible for much of anything. Their parents are.

I think it's the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' line that is being challenged.... as in if you are arrested overseas, one of your fist calls might be to your embassy.

(01-27-2025 03:15 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 03:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So consistent with the 'legal status' of the parents that imparts no citizenship to diplomats, I'd argue that children of illegal immigrants have no birthright citizenship... but those on temporary status MAY. This would be the starting point for some negotiation.

The starting point of negotiation is that children of illegal immigrants that are born in the United States are U.S. citizens. That's the law of the land.

That's 'the other side's' starting point, for certain.

(01-27-2025 04:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 03:15 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 03:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So consistent with the 'legal status' of the parents that imparts no citizenship to diplomats, I'd argue that children of illegal immigrants have no birthright citizenship... but those on temporary status MAY. This would be the starting point for some negotiation.

The starting point of negotiation is that children of illegal immigrants that are born in the United States are U.S. citizens. That's the law of the land.

That's 'the other side's' starting point, for certain.

Semantics, but in my lexicon, the challenger of the status quo is the "other side".

You DO understand that children of illegal immigrants get birth certificates, SSN's, etc.; and that has been SOP for almost a century? I'm beginning to wonder if you really believe that this is a new thing.

(01-27-2025 04:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 03:07 PM)MOBalum Wrote:  I'm talking about the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing about illegal entry, breaking laws, or getting incarcerated. The text of the amendment is simple. If you're born here and you are subject to our laws, you're a citizen.

I think the argument being made is that children of people who are here illegally... operating 'outside' of our laws... are not... especially in that children aren't usually responsible for much of anything. Their parents are.

I think it's the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' line that is being challenged.... as in if you are arrested overseas, one of your fist calls might be to your embassy.

If you commit a crime while overseas and the locals decide to prosecute you, the embassy won't help you, beyond ensuring that you get adequate representation.

(01-27-2025 03:10 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

Quote:he first time the nation’s highest court opined on the meaning of the Citizenship Clause — in the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872 — it stated that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excluded "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

No.

The verbiage you quote from the majority opinion of Slaughter-House was a justice writing for the majority affirming that the then-current practice of excluding children of diplomats was a correct interpretation. That has not changed. The court substantively reversed the "citizens... of foreign states" part in 1896 - a very long time ago.

In Elk vs. Wilkins, the justices were upholding a then-current practice of not recognizing American Indians as citizens. American Indians were all made citizens of the United States by act of Congress in 1924, one hundred years ago. Their citizenship status changed between 1872 and now, but the principle behind not including their children as citizens never changed.

The court rulings have always been in the direction of clarifying and sharpening the definition of exceptions to the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction". It was never understood to be broadly exclusive of everyone but children of current citizens and children of former slaves. It was understood to be inclusive to begin with, and the courts have ruled in the direction of making it more inclusive.

Edited for the pertinent part. Slaughter-House was not exclusive to diplomats... it said consuls (diplomats) AND 'others'.

I'm pretty sure American Indians born in the US in 1872 were not considered American citizens. Also pretty sure children of slaves born in the US were not considered citizens... until they ALL were.

Citizens of (as an example) Mexico were not, as American Indians and slaves were, all made citizens of the US at any point... thus the parents of these children (and often the children as well) are STILL 'citizens of foreign states'... even to this day. I agree with you that this has been the practice... but I don't see that the SCOTUS ever agreed with that.... or that it was ever challenged.

Again, it would not be my purpose to eliminate birthright citizenship... but it WOULD be my purpose to eliminate the fact that the child is a citizen (as they are often ALSO citizens of another nation) should have any bearing on the parent's legal status in this country.

(01-27-2025 04:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 03:10 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

Quote:he first time the nation’s highest court opined on the meaning of the Citizenship Clause — in the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872 — it stated that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excluded "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

No.

The verbiage you quote from the majority opinion of Slaughter-House was a justice writing for the majority affirming that the then-current practice of excluding children of diplomats was a correct interpretation. That has not changed. The court substantively reversed the "citizens... of foreign states" part in 1896 - a very long time ago.

In Elk vs. Wilkins, the justices were upholding a then-current practice of not recognizing American Indians as citizens. American Indians were all made citizens of the United States by act of Congress in 1924, one hundred years ago. Their citizenship status changed between 1872 and now, but the principle behind not including their children as citizens never changed.

The court rulings have always been in the direction of clarifying and sharpening the definition of exceptions to the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction". It was never understood to be broadly exclusive of everyone but children of current citizens and children of former slaves. It was understood to be inclusive to begin with, and the courts have ruled in the direction of making it more inclusive.

Edited for the pertinent part. Slaughter-House was not exclusive to diplomats... it said consuls (diplomats) AND 'others'.

I addressed that. That changed definitively in 1896.

Quote:I'm pretty sure American Indians born in the US in 1872 were not considered American citizens.

They weren't. And nobody said they were, but once they became citizens in 1924 the 14th Amendment was commonly understood to apply to them.

Quote:Also pretty sure children of slaves born in the US were not considered citizens... until they ALL were.

It was the 14th Amendment that made them all citizens.

Quote:Citizens of (as an example) Mexico were not, as American Indians and slaves were, all made citizens of the US at any point... thus the parents of these children (and often the children as well) are STILL 'citizens of foreign states'... even to this day. I agree with you that this has been the practice... but I don't see that the SCOTUS ever agreed with that.... or that it was ever challenged.

If they have all the rights of US citizens and are regarded as such by the law, then they are citizens. That's what I mean by law of the land.

Quote:Again, it would not be my purpose to eliminate birthright citizenship... but it WOULD be my purpose to eliminate the fact that the child is a citizen (as they are often ALSO citizens of another nation) should have any bearing on the parent's legal status in this country.

It doesn't.

(01-27-2025 04:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Semantics, but in my lexicon, the challenger of the status quo is the "other side".

You DO understand that children of illegal immigrants get birth certificates, SSN's, etc.; and that has been SOP for almost a century? I'm beginning to wonder if you really believe that this is a new thing.

Just returning the tone.... You DO understand that there are always (at least) two sides to every position. There is nothing about 'the other side' that implies anything other than being the side opposite 'this one'.

NOWHERE have I suggested that children of illegal aliens are not, until at least Feb 19 and likely much longer as this plays out... citizens of the US who get SSNs etc. Nowhere.

In fact the entire premise of 'anchor baby' is rooted in that very simple fact.

Abortion is a perfect example where it wasn't a Federal right at all for 100 years... then it suddenly was for 50... and now it's essentially a 'states' issue again. Under your definition, which side is 'the other side' depends on timing.

But as I've said... the argument about the citizenship of that child and the disposition of their parents, here illegally are two separate issues.... despite the left frequently arguing that deporting the illegal parents effectively means that you are deporting a US citizen.... hence the term 'anchor'. An issue addressed by the terms of the order... where BOTH parents have to be non-citizens.

The threat of removing this is not without argument. It may ultimately fail miserably and that's fine. As I said... it's not my goal.... but it begins the conversation about the much more pressing (to me) issue... and that is the fact that 'coming here illegally and giving birth' has been used as a means of 'shortening the immigration line'. Forget for a minute that sometimes this child isn't really otherwise 'wanted' and the challenges of raising /feeding a child here while being here illegally... and the costs incurred by society to care for both the mother AND the child... etc etc etc.... those would all be fine.... IF the parents came through the proper immigration channels.

(01-27-2025 04:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 04:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Semantics, but in my lexicon, the challenger of the status quo is the "other side".

You DO understand that children of illegal immigrants get birth certificates, SSN's, etc.; and that has been SOP for almost a century? I'm beginning to wonder if you really believe that this is a new thing.

Just returning the tone.... You DO understand that there are always (at least) two sides to every position. There is nothing about 'the other side' that implies anything other than being the side opposite 'this one'.

NOWHERE have I suggested that children of illegal aliens are not, until at least Feb 19 and likely much longer as this plays out... citizens of the US who get SSNs etc. Nowhere.

In fact the entire premise of 'anchor baby' is rooted in that very simple fact.

Abortion is a perfect example where it wasn't a Federal right at all for 100 years... then it suddenly was for 50... and now it's essentially a 'states' issue again. Under your definition, which side is 'the other side' depends on timing.

But as I've said... the argument about the citizenship of that child and the disposition of their parents, here illegally are two separate issues.... despite the left frequently arguing that deporting the illegal parents effectively means that you are deporting a US citizen.... hence the term 'anchor'. An issue addressed by the terms of the order... where BOTH parents have to be non-citizens.

The threat of removing this is not without argument. It may ultimately fail miserably and that's fine. As I said... it's not my goal.... but it begins the conversation about the much more pressing (to me) issue... and that is the fact that 'coming here illegally and giving birth' has been used as a means of 'shortening the immigration line'. Forget for a minute that sometimes this child isn't really otherwise 'wanted' and the challenges of raising /feeding a child here while being here illegally... and the costs incurred by society to care for both the mother AND the child... etc etc etc.... those would all be fine.... IF the parents came through the proper immigration channels.

You've been arguing for a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment, for purposes of addressing the issue of children being argued as reason for illegal immigrants to remain in the country.

I interpret your last paragraph to mean you don't really care how the Supreme Court ultimately rules on the 14th Amendment as long as the challenge to it stimulates conversation on the immigration issue.

(01-27-2025 05:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  You DO understand that children of illegal immigrants get birth certificates, SSN's, etc.; and that has been SOP for almost a century?

Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) was SOP for 58 years. So what's your point?


SSNs are not a century old, and giving them to babies much less.

I had a DL before I had a SSN. And I was born in the US to US citizen parents.

(01-27-2025 07:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 05:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  You DO understand that children of illegal immigrants get birth certificates, SSN's, etc.; and that has been SOP for almost a century?

Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) was SOP for 58 years. So what's your point?


SSNs are not a century old, and giving them to babies much less.

I had a DL before I had a SSN. And I was born in the US to US citizen parents.

I stated my point: at present, children of illegal immigrants are citizens, and this is not a recent result of Democrat policy or politics regarding immigrants but has been the case for decades.

(01-27-2025 05:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  You've been arguing for a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment, for purposes of addressing the issue of children being argued as reason for illegal immigrants to remain in the country.

Not really. Best I can tell, The SCOTUS hasn't ever ruled on this interpretation. Nobody has challenged it, until now... The court usually requires someone to file a challenge to the law first.

Quote:I interpret your last paragraph to mean you don't really care how the Supreme Court ultimately rules on the 14th Amendment as long as the challenge to it stimulates conversation on the immigration issue.

That's pretty close. I hesitate to say I don't care AT ALL because obviously there are some exceedingly unlikely decisions they could reach that I would be against... like not only are they citizens, but their parents get to stay as well... but I don't care if they decide they meet the requirements of the 14th. I am not against the kids being citizens. I'm only against it creating an 'anchor'. See most any conversation from the left regarding 'family separation' as it relates to illegal immigration. Only some of it is directly related to anchor babies... but ALL of it is related to appealing to 'bleeding hearts' about not putting adults in jail for breaking the law (entering the country illegally) because they have kids.... whom you would have to seperate them from, or put the kids in jail as well. Either way, criminals become the victims.

(01-27-2025 08:00 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I stated my point: at present, children of illegal immigrants are citizens, and this is not a recent result of Democrat policy or politics regarding immigrants but has been the case for decades.

Lots of things have been the case for decades that court decisions have changed. That's all we're saying. Usually because they were not imagined or addressed by the Constitution, and instead they required an interpretation of a statute not written for the specific situation. Every abortion case I can think of fits this mold. I don't think anyone ever SAID that states could regulate abortions before they started to... they just started doing it and nobody challenged them... until they did. THAT court decided that it was an unwritten but intended right... and more recent courts have decided that this isn't a power granted to the feds. Who knows what future courts will decide. Same with this. Just because it has been this way for a long time doesn't mean it will continue to be so... ESPECIALLy (but absolutely not exclusively) if the court hasn't rendered an opinion on this specific situation.

Nobody has said that birthright citizenship is a result of democrat policies. We are saying that democrats, mostly IMO in an effort to maintain population (illegals count in the census) in strong left leaning voting districts to maintain democrat districts in congress and the EC... have been looking for ways to stack this deck. Among them, becoming sanctuary cities... not actively deporting people with final orders... allowing more people in illegally and giving them often years before their cases are adjudicated etc etc etc.

That's why I say it has almost nothing to do with the 14th... and everything to do with democrat policies. The 14th as it has been applied to the children of illegal immigrants is just one of the tools they are using. If the court decides that the 14th doesn't apply, they will STiLL make every other argument they've been making (except that one).

(01-27-2025 08:00 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 07:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 05:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  You DO understand that children of illegal immigrants get birth certificates, SSN's, etc.; and that has been SOP for almost a century?

Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) was SOP for 58 years. So what's your point?


SSNs are not a century old, and giving them to babies much less.

I had a DL before I had a SSN. And I was born in the US to US citizen parents.

I stated my point: at present, children of illegal immigrants are citizens, and this is not a recent result of Democrat policy or politics regarding immigrants but has been the case for decades.

And like "separate but equal" in 1954, maybe it is time for a change in the SOP.

(01-27-2025 04:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2025 03:07 PM)MOBalum Wrote:  I'm talking about the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing about illegal entry, breaking laws, or getting incarcerated. The text of the amendment is simple. If you're born here and you are subject to our laws, you're a citizen.

I think the argument being made is that children of people who are here illegally... operating 'outside' of our laws... are not... especially in that children aren't usually responsible for much of anything. Their parents are.

I think it's the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' line that is being challenged.... as in if you are arrested overseas, one of your fist calls might be to your embassy.

People here illegally aren’t “operating outside of our laws.” They have broken a law, but they are no more operating outside of the law than someone who has committed another type of federal crime - and those criminals have children who become US citizens when born on US soil.

Does “subject to” actually mean that someone is not currently committing, or hasn’t committed, a crime?

(01-27-2025 10:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not really. Best I can tell, The SCOTUS hasn't ever ruled on this interpretation. Nobody has challenged it, until now... The court usually requires someone to file a challenge to the law first.

Interpretation isn't just something the Supreme Court does. Current practice includes a prevalent understanding of the 14th Amendment, in other words an interpretation. What understanding of the 14th Amendment is behind current legal practice? - that's what I mean by interpretation.

Quote:I am not against the kids being citizens. I'm only against it creating an 'anchor'.

Then what do you see as the need for a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment is specific to citizenship, not anchor babies.

Quote:I don't think anyone ever SAID that states could regulate abortions before they started to... they just started doing it and nobody challenged them... until they did.

The Constitution said it, in the 10th Amendment.

Quote:THAT court decided that it was an unwritten but intended right...

Widely regarded, even by pro-choice legal scholars, as one of the greatest blunders of the Supreme Court in history, hence the reversal.

Quote:That's why I say it has almost nothing to do with the 14th...

OK, so why the need for a change by the Supreme Court?

Quote:The 14th as it has been applied to the children of illegal immigrants is just one of the tools they are using. If the court decides that the 14th doesn't apply...

What would a ruling like that look like? The EO calls for an end to birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, so if upheld it will result in that... but you said you weren't opposed to them being citizens... but you want a ruling in favor of the EO, or some ruling relevant to the the Amendment...

You aren't making sense.

(01-28-2025 09:06 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Then what do you see as the need for a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment is specific to citizenship, not anchor babies.

But it is being used to create anchor babies, and they are being used to support illegal immigration, thus the need for a new interpretation.

The mere fact that "anchor babies" is a term we all know and understand tells us there is a need to make a change.

You confuse me. You appear to be arguing that no change should be made because this interpretation has stood for a long time, yet we have given you examples of long-standing interpretations that have been changed. What exactly is the problem with making a change in interpretation?

(01-28-2025 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But it is being used to create anchor babies, and they are being used to support illegal immigration, thus the need for a new interpretation.

No, the practice of allowing parents of anchor babies to stay in the country, after admitting them in large numbers, is supporting illegal immigration. That one follows from the other is a matter of policy, not a Constitutional requirement.

Quote:The mere fact that "anchor babies" is a term we all know and understand tells us there is a need to make a change.

That doesn't follow logically.

Quote:You confuse me. You appear to be arguing that no change should be made because this interpretation has stood for a long time, yet we have given you examples of long-standing interpretations that have been changed. What exactly is the problem with making a change in interpretation?

The method employed. That's been my position consistently. If this were Biden trying to end-run the 2nd amendment with an EO, you'd be squawking your outrage. Where's your outrage at Trump end-running the Constitution? You're only opposed to the method when you disagree with the intended result, it seems.