Trump To End Birthright Citizenship

[Mountain Man]

Since we have 5 originalists on the Court you can be sure that they will look at the intent of the writers. And I don't think there will be any hint of it applying to the children of illegals. There are certainly no past court cases that apply.

This could be Justice Kavanaugh's first big ruling. Oh, how the left will howl if the Supreme Court goes against them.

[seer]

This could be Justice Kavanaugh's first big ruling. Oh, how the left will howl if the Supreme Court goes against them.

I actually think we may be able to win this one...

[Leonhard]

For you guys wondering co-mother is a recently added term. I think it was put in either in 2009 or 2014. In a lesbian relationship where one of the women has a pregnancy, she is the mother, and the other woman is legally termed "co-mother".

[QuantaFille]

For you guys wondering co-mother is a recently added term. I think it was put in either in 2009 or 2014. In a lesbian relationship where one of the women has a pregnancy, she is the mother, and the other woman is legally termed "co-mother".

So, if a gay man (who isn't Danish) who is in a relationship with someone who is Danish, has a child with a woman who isn't Danish, the child won't be Danish? But it works for women in the same situation? Why? I don't understand.

[Terraceth]

Since we have 5 originalists on the Court, you can be sure that they will look at the intent of the writers.

Who? Neither Samuel Alito nor John Roberts are originalists. And as for originalism and intent, caring about original intent (intentionalism) is actually rather rare among modern originalists, which more commonly are textualists, caring about the original meaning of the law, i.e. how its text would have been understood at the time, disregarding whatever the intent of it may have been. As Antonin Scalia said: "We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators."

And I don't think there will be any hint of it applying to the children of illegals. There are certainly no past court cases that apply.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Although, even if we accept that the Citizenship Clause does not apply to children of illegal immigrants (due to textualist understanding, intentionalist understanding, or some other understanding), I'm confused as to what exactly authorizes the president to make any adjustments to citizenship by executive order. Wouldn't that be something for congress to do?

[NorrinRadd]

Who? Neither Samuel Alito nor John Roberts are originalists. And as for originalism and intent, caring about original intent (intentionalism) is actually rather rare among modern originalists, which more commonly are textualists, caring about the original meaning of the law, i.e. how its text would have been understood at the time, disregarding whatever the intent of it may have been. As Antonin Scalia said: "We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Although, even if we accept that the Citizenship Clause does not apply to children of illegal immigrants (due to textualist understanding, intentionalist understanding, or some other understanding), I'm confused as to what exactly authorizes the president to make any adjustments to citizenship by executive order. Wouldn't that be something for congress to do?

Speaking with Martha McCallum eariler, Turley said it's about time the issue was addressed in a way that pretty much forces SCOTUS to rule definitively. He said Congressional action would have been much better than EO.

I think he alluded to the case you cite. If so, in his view it does not apply, since they were not ILLEGAL immigrants. According to him, SCOTUS has never ruled on whether the 14th Amendment protects children of ILLEGAL immigrants.

[Terraceth]

Speaking with Martha McCallum eariler, Turley said it's about time the issue was addressed in a way that pretty much forces SCOTUS to rule definitively. He said Congressional action would have been much better than EO.

I think he alluded to the case you cite. If so, in his view it does not apply, since they were not ILLEGAL immigrants. According to him, SCOTUS has never ruled on whether the 14th Amendment protects children of ILLEGAL immigrants.

That's technically true, but it is worth pointing out that they were not Mexican immigrants, Japanese immigrants, Korean immigrants, Canadian immigrants, Brazilian immigrants, German immigrants, Egyptian immigrants, or Australian immigrants. But it would be absurd to try to argue that the decision does not apply to any of them because of the fact the defendants were Chinese immigrants. One must give an argument as to why the rationale in United States v. Wong Kim Ark does not apply to illegal aliens. The alternative, I suppose, would be to try to convince the Supreme Court to overrule United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that strikes me as something extremely unlikely to happen, so the argument would have to be that the decision does not apply to illegal aliens--which seems dubious to me, as having read through the decision, it all seems to apply just as much to illegal immigrants as legal ones.

A Supreme Court case clarifying the issue would be nice, but unless there's some killer argument I'm unaware of, I expect that they'd rule that United States v. Wong Kim Ark applies to illegal aliens as well and strike down any laws saying otherwise.

[JimL]

Or at least try. I don't think any European country allows this.

Election time gimmick. Don't think about healthcare and how I and republicans up for election tried to screw you all over by repealing Obamacare, forget about pre-existing conditions and look at and talk about this controversial thing I'm suggesting over here instead. Unconstitutional, can't do it, he's playing you all for fools once again. Congress doesn't get to interpret the Constitution, thats what the Supreme Court is for.

[NorrinRadd]

That's technically true, but it is worth pointing out that they were not Mexican immigrants, Japanese immigrants, Korean immigrants, Canadian immigrants, Brazilian immigrants, German immigrants, Egyptian immigrants, or Australian immigrants. But it would be absurd to try to argue that the decision does not apply to any of them because of the fact the defendants were Chinese immigrants. One must give an argument as to why the rationale in United States v. Wong Kim Ark does not apply to illegal aliens. The alternative, I suppose, would be to try to convince the Supreme Court to overrule United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that strikes me as something extremely unlikely to happen, so the argument would have to be that the decision does not apply to illegal aliens--which seems dubious to me, as having read through the decision, it all seems to apply just as much to illegal immigrants as legal ones.

A Supreme Court case clarifying the issue would be nice, but unless there's some killer argument I'm unaware of, I expect that they'd rule that United States v. Wong Kim Ark applies to illegal aliens as well and strike down any laws saying otherwise.

I'm all in for a Convention of States to fix a lot of things, so might as well add that to the list.

[seer]

That's technically true, but it is worth pointing out that they were not Mexican immigrants, Japanese immigrants, Korean immigrants, Canadian immigrants, Brazilian immigrants, German immigrants, Egyptian immigrants, or Australian immigrants. But it would be absurd to try to argue that the decision does not apply to any of them because of the fact the defendants were Chinese immigrants. One must give an argument as to why the rationale in United States v. Wong Kim Ark does not apply to illegal aliens. The alternative, I suppose, would be to try to convince the Supreme Court to overrule United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that strikes me as something extremely unlikely to happen, so the argument would have to be that the decision does not apply to illegal aliens--which seems dubious to me, as having read through the decision, it all seems to apply just as much to illegal immigrants as legal ones.

A Supreme Court case clarifying the issue would be nice, but unless there's some killer argument I'm unaware of, I expect that they'd rule that United States v. Wong Kim Ark applies to illegal aliens as well and strike down any laws saying otherwise.

Well Turley was on Fox this morning, he is not at all sure that it could/would apply to illegals especially in light of what the writers of the Amendment intended.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/23/...t-citizenship/

[seer]

[Terraceth]

Well Turley was on Fox this morning, he is not at all sure that it could/would apply to illegals especially in light of what the writers of the Amendment intended.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/23/...t-citizenship/

There are two problems with the linked article's arguments.

The first is that its argument relies heavily on legislative history, which is a controversial source for determining a law's intent, particularly for textualists. Obviously, a non-textualist may not have a problem with that, but if one is going to follow that philosophy, legislative history is a dubious source.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, is that its argument is more or less "well, it didn't apply to Indians, so why should it apply to illegals?" The problem is that, as discussed in the decision of United States v Wong Kim Ark (citing heavily the earlier Elk v Wilkins decision), Indians--or rather, those born under tribal sovereignty--were a special case entirely, and the reasons they did not qualify under the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to them, and not to anyone else.

[Mountain Man]

http://www.marklevinshow.com/2018/10...utterly-wrong/

[seer]

There are two problems with the linked article's arguments.

The first is that its argument relies heavily on legislative history, which is a controversial source for determining a law's intent, particularly for textualists. Obviously, a non-textualist may not have a problem with that, but if one is going to follow that philosophy, legislative history is a dubious source.

I'm not sure what your point is. Does not the "textualist" or "originalist" look to the intent of the writer(s)? Scalia certainly did in the Heller case.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, is that its argument is more or less "well, it didn't apply to Indians, so why should it apply to illegals?" The problem is that, as discussed in the decision of United States v Wong Kim Ark (citing heavily the earlier Elk v Wilkins decision), Indians--or rather, those born under tribal sovereignty--were a special case entirely, and the reasons they did not qualify under the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to them, and not to anyone else.

The Indians were only an example, clarification from the floor debate:

"In one sense all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States [they are still expected to obey the laws of the land and be punished for breaking them], but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense [they are still subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government to which they owe allegiance]."

This is the same point that Turley brought up.

[JimL]

http://www.marklevinshow.com/2018/10...utterly-wrong/

All of a sudden you're no longer strict originalists eh. Read the words and weep. Trumps idea it's unconstitutional.