Trump Says He’ll Issue an Executive Order Ending Birthright Citizenship — a Constitutionally Protected Right
No provision of the US Constitution can be legally overturned by a presidential decree.
You're viewing a single thread.
IIRC, birthright citizenship isn't quite as cut and dried as it seems. My ex-spouse worked in a passport office, and there are some weird rules about things like how many years you have to have lived in the US depending on exactly where you were born and to which parents. I don't remember all of them, but it's not quite as cut-and-dried as "you're a US citizen if you were born in the US"; you also have to be subject to US jurisdiction. So if you're born in the US, but are raised entirely outside of the US, IIRC you might not be a citizen.
Everyone born on US soil is, by law, a US citizen. If you are within US territory, you are subject to US jurisdiction. That’s how jurisdiction works in every country on earth. The 14th Amendment does not carve out exceptions. You can be born here, and raised elsewhere, and still a US citizen. You remember wrong, and it is as cut and dried as it seems.
Fascists used Ignore Civil Rights
The Constitution doesn’t regard civil rights.
Try knowing what words mean before you use them.
The Constitution restricts the power of the government. In this case, the 14th Amendment was created to restrict the power of the Supreme Court, which had already ruled that former slaves were not US citizens.
Don’t lecture me about knowing what words mean, when you don’t even know why the 14th Amendment exists.
God, dumb people are the worst. Some fuckers can't even Google.
Nice rebuttal
You don't need to rebut basic fact, reality is not a debate.
Scott vs Sandford decision led directly to the 13th and 14th amendment which overruled that same decision.
The due process clause of the 14th amendment prohibited local governments of depriving citizens from life, liberty or property without a due process.
So yeah, 14th amendment does restrict the government, and has been made to overrule the Scott vs Sandford Supreme Court ruling.
Not every country gives citizenship to people born there.
There are two basic models:
In some countries you can be a 3rd or 4th generation resident but not have citizenship if none of your ancestors had citizenship.
In other countries you can be a citizen even if neither you nor any of your parents or grandparents actually lived in the country, but you have an ancestor who did.
Yes, but I didn’t say that’s how citizenship works in every country.
Again - I don't believe that's correct. It a pregnant woman went into labor prematurely while vacationing in the US, and had a baby here, I don't believe that child would be a US citizen.
If you are traveling in the US on a visa, and your child is born while you are here, your child is a US citizen by birthright. Whether you believe that to be correct or not doesn’t really matter.
Wow why would you so confidently lie about this?
Why pretend like our rights don't exist?
Is there some kind of consent you are trying to manufacture?
The exact terms of birthright citizenship are laid out in the 8 U.S.C. § 1401; the way that this is interpreted is up to courts.
According to US statute, if Barack Obama had been born outside of the US (he was born in Hawai'i) to his American mother while she was not married to his Kenyan father (...and they were married at the time he was born) , he still would have been a natural born citizen according to 8 U.S.C. § 1409.c, because she was both a citizen and had resided in the US for at least one year.
Rights are rarely absolute, or nearly as cut and dry as people claim. For instance, the freedom of the press has been interpreted to not include material that is obscene. Freedom of peaceable assembly requires that you pay a fee and get a permit. The right to keep and bear arms has been determined to not include things like buying surface-to-air missiles from Victor Bout. Up until Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), despite the 6th amendment saying that you have the right to "have the Assistance of Counsel for [your] defence [sic]", indigent suspects were not provided with an attorney (...and what use is and enumerated right if you lack the ability to exercise the right?). Under fairly recent court rulings, you must explicitly invoke your 5th amendment right to remain silent; simply being silent is insufficient.
Do I think that Trump is going to be able to revoke the citizenship of people that were born here to undocumented immigrants? No. Do I want him to? Also no. Do I want to see his mass deportations blow up in his face and implode the economy? Oh yeah, definitely. I want people--Trump MAGAts--to see just how much we rely on the underpaid labor of the undocumented people in this country for the necessities of life.
What you fail to understand is you acting like this right is revokable manufacturers consent for revoking rights.
If you were smart you wouldn't play devil's advocate, you wouldn't help the devil
It's called steel-manning, and it's an important way of testing your own claims. You want to make the best possible argument for you opponen't beliefs, and then be ready with a strong counterargument. ...Which does assume good-faith, rational disagreement.
At this point if you don't want to acknowledge that arguing in bad faith is a bad thing to do then you have already chosen your side.
Of course it's a bad thing. But I want my side to work in good faith rather than assuming that everything they disagree with is bad faith. I don't want to be associated with ppl that are also acting largely in bad faith; I want to be better than that.