Let me begin by saying I am absolutely not endorsing Trump's effort to eliminate birth-right citizenship, just expressing that I think there may be some misunderstanding of what is at stake.
I think two things are being confused. Trump is making a declaration about the relationship between BIRTH on American soil and AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP,…
Let me begin by saying I am absolutely not endorsing Trump's effort to eliminate birth-right citizenship, just expressing that I think there may be some misunderstanding of what is at stake.
I think two things are being confused. Trump is making a declaration about the relationship between BIRTH on American soil and AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP, i.e. citizenship without any requirements like a period of residency, passing of a test, a formal ceremony, etc. He is seeking to limit automatic citizenship at birth to those children born to American citizens. At least for now, there does not seem to be any distinction between children of naturalized citizens and children of those citizens who were born here
It simply states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
I suspect the argument in court will be that the Representatives who wrote the Amendment didn't intend for it to cover illegals. I've seen this claimed recently.
I am certain that the authors of the 2nd amendment didn't intend it to apply to semi-automatic weapons. I suspect they meant it to apply to well regulated militias formed to help the Army defend our democracy against the British.
That’s an easy claim! Of course they didn’t. Automatic weapons didn’t exist then. However, the Court found in its Heller decision that the right for individuals to arm themselves was not absolute. Like, individuals couldn’t own nuclear weapons to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
There are two predicates for US citizenship, judging from the text of the 14th amendment: those born there, and those naturalized by whatever established process. Your birth certificate in a US territory confers citizenship: there is no non-automatic verification, waiting period, tests etc. Those subsist for naturalization. Note that your birth certificate reports the names of your parents (if known) WITHOUT any indication of their citizenship status. So your "at least for now" is something that you have made up.
Except, of course, the Constitution sets no such limit, makes no sucj distinction--though I am sure that SCotUS will likely try t fid such a distinction or some other tomfoolery to let it slide by.
I totally recognize what the Constitution says. No limits there. But Trump always ignores or fights what he doesn't like, including the results of the 2020 election.
JVL may well be correct that this is "a probing action" to learn how much SCOTUS is willing to oppose him or go along.
Let me begin by saying I am absolutely not endorsing Trump's effort to eliminate birth-right citizenship, just expressing that I think there may be some misunderstanding of what is at stake.
I think two things are being confused. Trump is making a declaration about the relationship between BIRTH on American soil and AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP, i.e. citizenship without any requirements like a period of residency, passing of a test, a formal ceremony, etc. He is seeking to limit automatic citizenship at birth to those children born to American citizens. At least for now, there does not seem to be any distinction between children of naturalized citizens and children of those citizens who were born here
The 14th amendment makes no mention of parents:
It simply states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
I suspect the argument in court will be that the Representatives who wrote the Amendment didn't intend for it to cover illegals. I've seen this claimed recently.
I am certain that the authors of the 2nd amendment didn't intend it to apply to semi-automatic weapons. I suspect they meant it to apply to well regulated militias formed to help the Army defend our democracy against the British.
That’s an easy claim! Of course they didn’t. Automatic weapons didn’t exist then. However, the Court found in its Heller decision that the right for individuals to arm themselves was not absolute. Like, individuals couldn’t own nuclear weapons to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
I don't know why you think there's confusion on this point. No confusion.
There are two predicates for US citizenship, judging from the text of the 14th amendment: those born there, and those naturalized by whatever established process. Your birth certificate in a US territory confers citizenship: there is no non-automatic verification, waiting period, tests etc. Those subsist for naturalization. Note that your birth certificate reports the names of your parents (if known) WITHOUT any indication of their citizenship status. So your "at least for now" is something that you have made up.
Except, of course, the Constitution sets no such limit, makes no sucj distinction--though I am sure that SCotUS will likely try t fid such a distinction or some other tomfoolery to let it slide by.
This, specifically for the reason that without this broad approach, it was all to easy to craft ways to prevent someone from becoming a citizen.
I totally recognize what the Constitution says. No limits there. But Trump always ignores or fights what he doesn't like, including the results of the 2020 election.
JVL may well be correct that this is "a probing action" to learn how much SCOTUS is willing to oppose him or go along.