Why was the fact pattern of Wong Kim Ark not followed?
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, California, in 1873 to parents who were citizens of China and lawful residents of the U.S.
"Lawful residents"
Roberts also gave us the glass half full and wrote a decision based on an argument not argued for Obama Care. He literally recast the argument so he could vote in favor of it.
I don't love that the supreme Court did not uphold Trump's executive order. But I also understand that legally. We need to find a way to change this in our constitution.
SCOTUS could easily have struck down part of the EO and not others, so it’s silly to blame POTUS for anything “maximalist” (especially since Justice Thomas’s opinion was entirely correct).
And mark my words, the political and legal faction that won this case will soon be hard at work ensuring that it is fully extended to U.S. territories. This despite the plain language in the 14th Amendment that the people at issue are “citizens of the state wherein they reside.”
The president went for broke and lost? Are you talking about immigration, Iran, the economy, ballrooms, pools, tariffs, etc. Dementia is a hell of a disease.
The movement on some of the Right to use this case as an excuse to abandon originality for judicial activism is nothing short of a power grab. However, one bit of a paradox here is that the same post-liberals on the Right will spurn the idea that America is a nation founded on an idea for a more European view of blood and soil. Wouldn't that lend itself more to the view for birthright citizenship? Similarly, if you take the view that America is a creedal nation (as many supporting this outcome do) wouldn't that go against the idea that being an American is merely accident of birth?
My point is that neither side is completely following through the logic of their positions and that this issue is being deliberately kept in limbo because we as a country have developed a habit of looking the other way regarding what happens South of our border. Businesses and farmers want the cheap labor, Democrat politicians want the votes and chance to spread their patronage, and third world countries want the remittance payments. Good people are caught in between the mess but also evil people exploit it.
It's not an easy issue to solve and I fear that parts of the Right look at the Supreme Court the same way the Left does, as a super legislature that will definitively resolve issues in their favor that they can't get passed in Congress. Process, original intent, and rule of law matter less to such people than getting the outcome you want. They should have gone through Congress. However, the establishment folks who want open borders are not consistent on the issue either. They push liberal social values on the population that depress our birthrates leading to decline and then offer as a solution importing and exploiting people from other countries who haven't been screwed up by the very culture they've created. They celebrate this as a civil rights win when in reality it punts in an issue that is causing turmoil and populist backlash in every Western country because it builds a helot class of non-citizens who political elites rebuild culture around. They created the backlash that gave us Trump and the celebration of this ruling shows they've learned nothing.
At the time that the 14th Amendment was ratified, the concept of an "illegal alien" did not exist, as the United States maintained a largely open-border policy with no federal restrictions on immigration. Before the late 19th century, it was legally impossible for an immigrant to enter the country "illegally" because there were no federal laws dictating who could enter. This is why all persons born in the United States, other than those of diplomats, were considered to be under the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore were considered to be citizens.
This was interesting. I understand your point and I really wasn’t sure exactly what the Government was arguing for as all we really heard was the President’s railings. I would have thought the more laser focused you argument was would get you a better decision. A shotgun type question will most likely return a shotgun type response. Neither being too specific. My family gets irritated with me bc I need specificity. I don’t like having to try to figure out what they mean. Though, I do feel that being an illegal immigrant should disqualify you from any rights granted by the government. That seems to be a no-brainer. I haven’t read the writings concerning the 14th amendment, but does it specifically say “illegal” immigrants? Were they dealing with illegal immigration then? I agree Trump overplayed his hand and would have been better off just turning this over to the DOJ. The chance of Congress doing anything about it is slim to none. They can’t handle things that are more important to us than this. Just not letting these baby carriers into the country should be enough. Are they getting “Pregnancy” visas? This seems like a much easier problem than they are making it. And, we should go back to not allowing dual citizenship. One thing is for sure times are exciting!
Illegal immigrant "anchor babies" are a drop in the bucket... there are @ 185 specific types of U.S. visas of which there are 20 primary classifications of nonimmigrant (temporary) visas. The U.S. govt gives out @ 11 MILLION visas in total per year and ALL of them have the right to have children in the U.S. who automatically become American citizens. Think about that for a minute while you roast Justice Barrett from the comfort of your keyboard.
Those on temporary visas who have children here shouldn't be considered US citizens. That should be specified within the documents if it's not already.
Alito's mistake is trying to apply what would be good policy today to an Amendment that was written 150 years ago. We do not want the SCOTUS to do this on the 2nd Amendment, and for the same reasons we do not want them doing it on the 14th. If you want to change the policy, pass a revision of the 14th to allow the implementation of the new policy.
Four of the six conservative Justices wrote yesterday that they disagree with your, Roberts', Barrett's, and the three liberal clowns' claim that the 14th amendment requires that kids of illegal aliens are automatically US citizens. Just sayin'.
As I understand it, only Alito was 100% on board with "kids of illegal aliens" part of the decision. Those dissenting were only all on board with birth tourism. I could be wrong. If so, please correct me.
As Erick said, "(h)aving now read the full decision, did you know there were up to eight votes for the idea that illegal aliens could become citizens by being born in the United States? There might have been a ninth. As it were, there were six, not five, votes for the decision."
But that's the easiest decision in the history of the Court, and the opinion didn't even say that. It simply said (though I confess I read it very very quickly) that states *may* ban males from playing on girls' teams without violating our laws. The Court could have simply stated that Title IX obviously bans ALL states from allowing boys to play on girls' teams - since that is 100% of the purpose of Title IX - to give girls equal opportunities to play sports in school. The Court is apparently waiting to address that easy call in a future case. Many (I believe most) Democrat states currently *require* public schools to allow boys to steal spots from girls on girls' teams. The GOP Trifecta can't be roused to ban that.
I recall reading that part of the supporting argument by the administration was the idea that the existing situation could not have been anticipated by the 14th Amendment. That, to me was a grade-school notion and easily compared to the 1st Amendment's historical application to radio, television, and internet. None of that existed or would have been anticipated, yet the principle of the 1A is still held valid to apply to all new forms of cvommunication.
Congress has side-stepped too many issues to either the Executive Branch or the courts to avoid blame. If we could only fire Congress in mass rather than be stuck with so many gerrymandered districts that change is almost impossible.
Erick, I’m curious if you read the 81 page descent by Justice Thomas would you stand by your position and say he was wrong? And if so, why.
"dissent"?
You provide analysis I trust.
Why was the fact pattern of Wong Kim Ark not followed?
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, California, in 1873 to parents who were citizens of China and lawful residents of the U.S.
"Lawful residents"
Roberts also gave us the glass half full and wrote a decision based on an argument not argued for Obama Care. He literally recast the argument so he could vote in favor of it.
LOL@”Calm Down”. How many Karens burned down your in box after you posted this? LOLZ
I don't love that the supreme Court did not uphold Trump's executive order. But I also understand that legally. We need to find a way to change this in our constitution.
SCOTUS could easily have struck down part of the EO and not others, so it’s silly to blame POTUS for anything “maximalist” (especially since Justice Thomas’s opinion was entirely correct).
And mark my words, the political and legal faction that won this case will soon be hard at work ensuring that it is fully extended to U.S. territories. This despite the plain language in the 14th Amendment that the people at issue are “citizens of the state wherein they reside.”
I am thankful for the law, but not thankful for lawyers and judges who try to spin it despite its plain meaning. 😵💫
Law can be a stubborn thing. Be thankful for it.
The president went for broke and lost? Are you talking about immigration, Iran, the economy, ballrooms, pools, tariffs, etc. Dementia is a hell of a disease.
The movement on some of the Right to use this case as an excuse to abandon originality for judicial activism is nothing short of a power grab. However, one bit of a paradox here is that the same post-liberals on the Right will spurn the idea that America is a nation founded on an idea for a more European view of blood and soil. Wouldn't that lend itself more to the view for birthright citizenship? Similarly, if you take the view that America is a creedal nation (as many supporting this outcome do) wouldn't that go against the idea that being an American is merely accident of birth?
My point is that neither side is completely following through the logic of their positions and that this issue is being deliberately kept in limbo because we as a country have developed a habit of looking the other way regarding what happens South of our border. Businesses and farmers want the cheap labor, Democrat politicians want the votes and chance to spread their patronage, and third world countries want the remittance payments. Good people are caught in between the mess but also evil people exploit it.
It's not an easy issue to solve and I fear that parts of the Right look at the Supreme Court the same way the Left does, as a super legislature that will definitively resolve issues in their favor that they can't get passed in Congress. Process, original intent, and rule of law matter less to such people than getting the outcome you want. They should have gone through Congress. However, the establishment folks who want open borders are not consistent on the issue either. They push liberal social values on the population that depress our birthrates leading to decline and then offer as a solution importing and exploiting people from other countries who haven't been screwed up by the very culture they've created. They celebrate this as a civil rights win when in reality it punts in an issue that is causing turmoil and populist backlash in every Western country because it builds a helot class of non-citizens who political elites rebuild culture around. They created the backlash that gave us Trump and the celebration of this ruling shows they've learned nothing.
At the time that the 14th Amendment was ratified, the concept of an "illegal alien" did not exist, as the United States maintained a largely open-border policy with no federal restrictions on immigration. Before the late 19th century, it was legally impossible for an immigrant to enter the country "illegally" because there were no federal laws dictating who could enter. This is why all persons born in the United States, other than those of diplomats, were considered to be under the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore were considered to be citizens.
"His syncophants will offer up no criticism . . ."
"sycophants"? Or is this a(n understandable) play on words?
This was interesting. I understand your point and I really wasn’t sure exactly what the Government was arguing for as all we really heard was the President’s railings. I would have thought the more laser focused you argument was would get you a better decision. A shotgun type question will most likely return a shotgun type response. Neither being too specific. My family gets irritated with me bc I need specificity. I don’t like having to try to figure out what they mean. Though, I do feel that being an illegal immigrant should disqualify you from any rights granted by the government. That seems to be a no-brainer. I haven’t read the writings concerning the 14th amendment, but does it specifically say “illegal” immigrants? Were they dealing with illegal immigration then? I agree Trump overplayed his hand and would have been better off just turning this over to the DOJ. The chance of Congress doing anything about it is slim to none. They can’t handle things that are more important to us than this. Just not letting these baby carriers into the country should be enough. Are they getting “Pregnancy” visas? This seems like a much easier problem than they are making it. And, we should go back to not allowing dual citizenship. One thing is for sure times are exciting!
Illegal immigrant "anchor babies" are a drop in the bucket... there are @ 185 specific types of U.S. visas of which there are 20 primary classifications of nonimmigrant (temporary) visas. The U.S. govt gives out @ 11 MILLION visas in total per year and ALL of them have the right to have children in the U.S. who automatically become American citizens. Think about that for a minute while you roast Justice Barrett from the comfort of your keyboard.
Those on temporary visas who have children here shouldn't be considered US citizens. That should be specified within the documents if it's not already.
Thank you--this makes a lot of sense and answered questions I was left with after reading other coverage.
You might want to take this up with the great Justice Alito!
"This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake. "
Alito's mistake is trying to apply what would be good policy today to an Amendment that was written 150 years ago. We do not want the SCOTUS to do this on the 2nd Amendment, and for the same reasons we do not want them doing it on the 14th. If you want to change the policy, pass a revision of the 14th to allow the implementation of the new policy.
Four of the six conservative Justices wrote yesterday that they disagree with your, Roberts', Barrett's, and the three liberal clowns' claim that the 14th amendment requires that kids of illegal aliens are automatically US citizens. Just sayin'.
As I understand it, only Alito was 100% on board with "kids of illegal aliens" part of the decision. Those dissenting were only all on board with birth tourism. I could be wrong. If so, please correct me.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf
As Erick said, "(h)aving now read the full decision, did you know there were up to eight votes for the idea that illegal aliens could become citizens by being born in the United States? There might have been a ninth. As it were, there were six, not five, votes for the decision."
And also. The Supreme Court ruled boys can’t play in women’s sports. Let’s remember that was also ruled upon.
But that's the easiest decision in the history of the Court, and the opinion didn't even say that. It simply said (though I confess I read it very very quickly) that states *may* ban males from playing on girls' teams without violating our laws. The Court could have simply stated that Title IX obviously bans ALL states from allowing boys to play on girls' teams - since that is 100% of the purpose of Title IX - to give girls equal opportunities to play sports in school. The Court is apparently waiting to address that easy call in a future case. Many (I believe most) Democrat states currently *require* public schools to allow boys to steal spots from girls on girls' teams. The GOP Trifecta can't be roused to ban that.
I recall reading that part of the supporting argument by the administration was the idea that the existing situation could not have been anticipated by the 14th Amendment. That, to me was a grade-school notion and easily compared to the 1st Amendment's historical application to radio, television, and internet. None of that existed or would have been anticipated, yet the principle of the 1A is still held valid to apply to all new forms of cvommunication.
Congress has side-stepped too many issues to either the Executive Branch or the courts to avoid blame. If we could only fire Congress in mass rather than be stuck with so many gerrymandered districts that change is almost impossible.