Birthright Citizenship? | Forum

#1

Birthright Citizenship?

The Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday last to hear argument on Trump’s EO [to end birthright citizenship] since Congress seems entirely unwilling to codify it one way or another - and which is the right way to resolve the issue and not still another Supreme Court precedent, was a fascinating listen. I am afraid the SCOTUS decision is going to be a 6-3 at best, or 7-2 with high probability, and perhaps even a 9-0 may be possible - against the President, whose silent attendance was interestingly on its own.

The argument went sideways relative to domicile issues. There’s a dead end. Another is the central phrase causing all the hardship: “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof..” That should have been easily understood since every single illegal alien, regardless of any other conditions, being here illegally by US immigration laws [yes, we do have them, and no new legislation in that regard is necessary; just enforcement of what we have] but it was ignored during the entire Biden administration. As long as a person has allegiance to another country, but being physically in ours; the only jurisdictional subjectivity for them in the US is the adjudication of their illegality being here, but they should have no other subjectivity at all.

However, the case should not turn on even that disagreement.

What really matters was not brought up by either plaintiff nor respondent: Is citizenship a right, since the respondent had much to say with regard to rights, and that Congress can add rights to US citizens, but they cannot remove them by legislation.

But it begs a question no one, specifically the Justices, ever asked:

Is US citizenship a right or a privilege? One is universally applied; the other is limited application. A driver’s license, for example, is thought of as a right, but, it has limited application. Not everyone, particularly under-age minors, cannot have a DL. Therefore, that is a privilege, not a right. Voting, same thing. It is not a right since it, too, has age limitation. Voting is not a right; it is a privilege. Citizenship, as well, was established as a privilege, not a right. And that should settle the matter for the Court, but not in this case, since no one ever really went there. I am very disappointed by this particular Roberts Court.

Edit comment

Mentions Text*

Birthright Citizenship? The Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday last to hear argument on Trump’s EO [to end birthright citizenship] since Congress seems entirely unwilling to codify it one way or another - and which is the right way to resolve the issue and not still another Supreme Court precedent, was a fascinating listen. I am afraid the SCOTUS decision is going to be a 6-3 at best, or 7-2 with high probability, and perhaps even a 9-0 may be possible - against the President, whose silent attendance was interestingly on its own. The argument went sideways relative to domicile issues. There’s a dead end. Another is the central phrase causing all the hardship: “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof..” That should have been easily understood since every single illegal alien, regardless of any other conditions, being here illegally by US immigration laws [yes, we do have them, and no new legislation in that regard is necessary; just enforcement of what we have] but it was ignored during the entire Biden administration. As long as a person has allegiance to another country, but being physically in ours; the only jurisdictional subjectivity for them in the US is the adjudication of their illegality being here, but they should have no other subjectivity at all.However, the case should not turn on even that disagreement. What really matters was not brought up by either plaintiff nor respondent: Is citizenship a right, since the respondent had much to say with regard to rights, and that Congress can add rights to US citizens, but they cannot remove them by legislation.But it begs a question no one, specifically the Justices, ever asked: Is US citizenship a right or a privilege? One is universally applied; the other is limited application. A driver’s license, for example, is thought of as a right, but, it has limited application. Not everyone, particularly under-age minors, cannot have a DL. Therefore, that is a privilege, not a right. Voting, same thing. It is not a right since it, too, has age limitation. Voting is not a right; it is a privilege. Citizenship, as well, was established as a privilege, not a right. And that should settle the matter for the Court, but not in this case, since no one ever really went there. I am very disappointed by this particular Roberts Court.

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#2

Pakistan is the only Islamic nations thar practiss what it demands from the West in terms of this.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

The US is a definitively secular nation, founded on complete separation of the State and religion. The Left Wing of US realise this but don't realise that pure freedom requires as low tax and free access to guns as possible. The Right Wing of US don't realise that secular pure freedom means the LGBTQ+ and abortion agendas both end up in line with US's liberty-first ethos.

It is left-wing to be pro-life. You are backing poor babies being born at the inconvenience of the already-born. Go figure.

#3

Is US citizenship a right or a privilege?

This is an odd question to ask. I would say neither, because right vs privilege is categorically a different conversation. The constitution defines what a citizen *is*, and being a citizen determines what rights one is entitled to.

I agree the domicile issue was stupid, but when you have no other hand to play…

I would be surprised if a single justice votes along with Trump, in fact that would be a travesty for such a clear cut case. As you eluded to, this entire issue hinges on “subject to the j jurisdiction thereof”, but I don’t think your apparent position on that is ultimately tenable.

The idea that a person who comes into this country from another isn’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not reasonable. And if they’re not subject to our jurisdiction, then whose? Can another country prosecute someone in their country for shoplifting in ours? Is that their responsibility and not ours?

The entire point of this carve out is to addressee two groups of people; foreign diplomats and invading forces. If Russian troops suddenly stormed the coast of California and were subject to the jurisdiction thereof then they would be entitled to due process, but that’s obviously not how that works out how it should.

None of this applies to someone born to parents who are here illegally, so the whole case falls apart. I don’t think any federal judge in their right mind would not be able to see that.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

<blockquote>Is US citizenship a right or a privilege?</blockquote> This is an odd question to ask. I would say neither, because right vs privilege is categorically a different conversation. The constitution defines what a citizen *is*, and being a citizen determines what rights one is entitled to. I agree the domicile issue was stupid, but when you have no other hand to play… I would be surprised if a single justice votes along with Trump, in fact that would be a travesty for such a clear cut case. As you eluded to, this entire issue hinges on “subject to the j jurisdiction thereof”, but I don’t think your apparent position on that is ultimately tenable. The idea that a person who comes into this country from another isn’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not reasonable. And if they’re not subject to our jurisdiction, then whose? Can another country prosecute someone in their country for shoplifting in ours? Is that their responsibility and not ours? The entire point of this carve out is to addressee two groups of people; foreign diplomats and invading forces. If Russian troops suddenly stormed the coast of California and were subject to the jurisdiction thereof then they would be entitled to due process, but that’s obviously not how that works out how it should. None of this applies to someone born to parents who are here illegally, so the whole case falls apart. I don’t think any federal judge in their right mind would not be able to see that.

#4

@fauxlaw

Given that just about everyone that lives in the US is non-indigenous, then all should consider it a privilege to be there...And to assume a superior birthright whereby one is entitled to set the clock and judge the birthright of others is a tad hypocritical to say the least.

Anyway that's certainly Melania off back to Slovenia.

Usha's there by the skin of her teeth...As is Pete the Norse twat...Depending upon where Donny want's to set the birthright clock of course.

Can't go too far back, as Friedrich was a German, who ran away to the US at the age of 16 to avoid military service.

Bone spurs I'm guessing.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#5

@SergeantLynch

"Indigent" for some is better than others. In my father's direct ancestral line, my lineage has been on American soil, first in Boston, and then Maine, since 1625; before it was "American." From France, first, and then Scotland. I'm as native as some "native Americans" and more than most now here.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#6

I'm related to Albert Einstein through the Koch family.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#7

@FLRW

My wife is related to Isaac Newton.

I've never researched my family tree.

Nice to see you back.

Have you been keeping well?

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#8

@SergeantLynch

Thanks brother, I am fine.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

Conversation

Edit comment

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post