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

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by rooster

...(Christ, I really hesitate to give you any credit for something like that...)...

The Supremes have been know to revisit previous rulings and come to an entirely different conclusion. Not many and certainly not often, as evidenced by Dosbs v Jackson recently. But it is what it is.

You are free to roam about the internets now, as carrion, my wayward son.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by rooster

Is there some circumspect point here...

Yes. I call it the: Chite changes paradigm. But then, I also call the "Birthright" beezwax the Plop-n-Drop Fallacy.

So let's say Fang-Fang goes back to her native country and does the bang-bang with Wong HungLo, another Chinese national. A while later, she comes back to the US, ostensibly to swallow the Swalloswell pole again. But in reality, it was because the Chyyyna was no longer footing her bills, because she wasn't putting out the juicy intel anymore.

Long story short; she plops out a little HungLo and returns home, after having gotten some more leaks and intel from Swalloswell again. While the first question really should be: Why do we allow Swallowswell to remain in our country? The other side at issue is: What level of idiocy would claim the little HungLo is a US citizen? Much less the little HungLo's parents being eligible for citizenship?!?

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Yes. I call it the: Chite changes paradigm. But then, I also call the "Birthright" beezwax the Plop-n-Drop Fallacy.

So let's say Fang-Fang goes back to her native country and does the bang-bang with Wong HungLo, another Chinese national. A while later, she comes back to the US, ostensibly to swallow the Swalloswell pole again. But in reality, it was because the Chyyyna was no longer footing her bills, because she wasn't putting out the juicy intel anymore.

Long story short; she plops out a little HungLo and returns home, after having gotten some more leaks and intel from Swalloswell again. While the first question really should be: Why do we allow Swallowswell to remain in our country? The other side at issue is: What level of idiocy would claim the little HungLo is a US citizen? Much less the little HungLo's parents being eligible for citizenship?!?

"Plop-n-Drop Fallacy." If only catchy names were a substitute for constitutional law — and this particular question was settled before anyone's grandparents were born.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898. The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that a child born on US soil to Chinese immigrant parents — parents who maintained full allegiance to China throughout — was a US citizen at birth. The Court held that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes only children of foreign diplomats and enemy combatants in hostile occupation. Not tourists. Not visa holders. Not anyone else.

Worth pausing on that. The case involved Chinese nationals coming to the United States and having a child here. The Supreme Court considered this exact scenario — not a hypothetical, not an edge case — and ruled on it definitively. In 1898.

So "Fang-Fang" plops out little HungLo on US soil and, per 127 years of settled constitutional precedent, that child is an American citizen. The Court saw it coming and didn't blink.

I realize that distinction may be lost on someone who spent more time workshopping the nickname than reading the case law.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by fd-guy

"Plop-n-Drop Fallacy." ...

Guessing you blew right on past the "Chite changes paradigm".
Are you busting out an Ostridge move on us regarding Dobbs vs Jackson?

[Unique_Carpenter]

My grandma and grandpa on my mom's side were both Canadian.
I can get Canadian citizenship easily.
I even have cousins that will sponsor me.

Sponsorship, that should be the key issue to immigration.

Back in my hotel mgmnt days, signed dozens upon dozens of work visa applications. Every one had a family sponsor in addition to a work sponsor.

Isn't the swim the river issue the key here for parents, before kids are born?

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

My grandma and grandpa on my mom's side were both Canadian.
I can get Canadian citizenship easily.
I even have cousins that will sponsor me.

Sponsorship, that should be the key issue to immigration.

Back in my hotel mgmnt days, signed dozens upon dozens of work visa applications. Every one had a family sponsor in addition to a work sponsor.

Isn't the swim the river issue the key here for parents, before kids are born?

I believe the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 codified in law family reunification and family sponsorship requirements for visas and eventual citizenship.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Omg, a valid statement. ^^^^^

My point being, attempt to toss out all the rules instead of just following them is IMO, an error.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Guessing you blew right on past the "Chite changes paradigm".
Are you busting out an Ostridge move on us regarding Dobbs vs Jackson?

The structural integrity of that argument isn't quite there for a full response — there are at least three unfinished thoughts competing for attention in two sentences. Impressive economy of confusion.

Take your time with it.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by rooster

Exactly. There is no ruling that addresses this....
.

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

Why don't you try looking up the Congressional Record from the debates on that Amendment? You won't because the authors specifically stated this did NOT apply to foreigners. It was for freed slaves. Feel free to waste time and try to dispute the record. Those words matter. Not your bigotry and hatred.

I refuse to respond to any point that you make when you post personal insults. They negate the credibility of anything that you say.

.

[Lantern2814]

Originally Posted by rooster

I refuse to respond to any point that you make when you post personal insults. They negate the credibility of anything that you say.

.

Your inability to refute the Congressional Record is noted. And considering your record of constant personal insults to me and several other posters, you have ZERO credibility.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

Your inability to refute the Congressional Record is noted. And considering your record of constant personal insults to me and several other posters, you have ZERO credibility.

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

Why don't you try looking up the Congressional Record from the debates on that Amendment? You won't because the authors specifically stated this did NOT apply to foreigners. It was for freed slaves. Feel free to waste time and try to dispute the record. Those words matter. Not your bigotry and hatred.

Admirable how convincingly you fake having actually read the sources you name-drop.

The full Congressional debates are worth reading — not just the conservative soundbites. Senator Trumbull's 1866 Civil Rights Act used "not subject to any foreign power." Those same debates explicitly discuss Chinese immigrants in California and Roma communities in Pennsylvania — and extended birthright citizenship to their children anyway. The intent to cover children of aliens is right there in the record you're cherry-picking.

The 14th Amendment debates show the explicit rejection of Senator Edgar Cowan's anti-immigrant sentiment, confirming birthright citizenship could not be revoked from children of disfavored groups. Also in the record. Funny how that part keeps disappearing.

And then the Supreme Court. 1898. United States v. Wong Kim Ark — six justices reviewed the text, the debates, the legislative history, all of it — and ruled 6-2 that children of immigrants born here are citizens. That is the actual ruling. The one that directly addresses this question. Been law for 127 years.

"Only Court rulings matter." Agreed entirely. There's one.

Funny what you find when you read the whole thing. The Court read all of it. The ruling reflects that.