Supreme Court justices appear skeptical over Trump's changes to US birthright citizenship rules

[fd-guy]

[69in2it69]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

All my ancestors came here legally. This involved applying for a visa through an American Consulate in their country of origin, sometimes waiting for years for it. This includes being vetted through Ellis Island. Those records are still available.

They lived within the laws of their time and became naturalized citizens through the process of their day. This included registering as a "resident clean" and re-regestgering at the post office every year until they were eligible to apply for naturalization.

For them, each in their day, naturalization included an oath forswearing allegiance to any other country.

My ancestors came here long before Ellis Island was even conceived, much less "naturalization". Does that make me illegal? What about Native Americans who called this home long before us crackers showed up? Your thought process of it being so simple excludes huge parts of the population... Maybe that's why it's in plain black and white "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

My ancestors came here long before Ellis Island was even conceived, much less "naturalization". Does that make me illegal? What about Native Americans who called this home long before us crackers showed up? Your thought process of it being so simple excludes huge parts of the population... Maybe that's why it's in plain black and white "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Have you ever noticed how the MAGA crowd never wants to do alternative readings/understandings of the amendments they like?

[1blackman1]

Firstly, it would require them actually read. We know that’s a high bar for MAGAs, even the smart ones.

[Lantern2814]

Sigh. So nobody actually looks things up (nor reads anything) and sees that when this was passed, the Congressmen involved even stated that this did NOT apply to foreigners giving birth here. It was about citizenship for slaves and their children. Not illegals just running across the border to drop a child to get it "citizenship".

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

Sigh. So nobody actually looks things up (nor reads anything) and sees that when this was passed, the Congressmen involved even stated that this did NOT apply to foreigners giving birth here. It was about citizenship for slaves and their children. Not illegals just running across the border to drop a child to get it "citizenship".

.... Exactly right. ...

#### Salty

[Yssup Rider]

So what says the law “they” passed that these congressmen were interpreting?

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

Sigh. So nobody actually looks things up (nor reads anything) and sees that when this was passed, the Congressmen involved even stated that this did NOT apply to foreigners giving birth here. It was about citizenship for slaves and their children. Not illegals just running across the border to drop a child to get it "citizenship".

Are you sure?

[rooster]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

Sigh. So nobody actually looks things up (nor reads anything) and sees that when this was passed, the Congressmen involved even stated that this did NOT apply to foreigners giving birth here. It was about citizenship for slaves and their children. Not illegals just running across the border to drop a child to get it "citizenship".

Originally Posted by Salty Again

.... Exactly right...

That point is not accurate nor germane. This doesn't matter one damn bit. What matters is the court decisions hence. Look "those things up" and tell us how that worked out for ya....

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Are you sure?

They are not at all. Notice that none of these "Congressmen involved" were actually cited here. And while SOME of those people might have intended that, there were no doubt others who intended quite differently. Either side could cherry-pick that kind of idiocy to make their points. It means nothing. What matters is how the COURTS have determined what the wording means, and the Supreme Court will now provide a more current interpretation. Hopefully it will be complete and decisive, leaving little room for future challenge.
.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

Sigh. So nobody actually looks things up (nor reads anything) and sees that when this was passed, the Congressmen involved even stated that this did NOT apply to foreigners giving birth here. It was about citizenship for slaves and their children. Not illegals just running across the border to drop a child to get it "citizenship".

Originally Posted by Salty Again

.... Exactly right. ...

#### Salty

Interesting perspective – let’s apply it consistently.

The 14th Amendment passed in 1868. The text states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” The interpretation of the phrase has been broad since then, and in particular, it was upheld in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the US to foreign parents was indeed a citizen. This is hardly a liberal perspective on it – it is 126 years of settled law.

However, if we really want to look at original intent, then we need to remember that the Second Amendment was formulated in the time when “arms” consisted of musket firearms that took 30 seconds to reload. They did not think about AR-15 any more than they thought about anchor babies. So if we are looking to the Congressmen of 1868 in their intentions, then maybe we should look equally to the founders in theirs from 1791?

Interesting idea – until it concerns you personally.