Jump to content

Senate Republicans introduce bill to reform birthright citizenship, following Trump’s controversial order


Recommended Posts

Posted

This is a constitutional issue, not a legal issue.

Congress cannot pass legislation overcoming a Constitution right protection  

There are conflicting Supreme Court decisions on birthright citizenship with a very narrow decision in favor of no automatic birthright citizenship and a much stronger case for most birthright citizenship (everyone except diplomats).

Posted
45 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

This is a constitutional issue, not a legal issue.

Congress cannot pass legislation overcoming a Constitution right protection  

There are conflicting Supreme Court decisions on birthright citizenship with a very narrow decision in favor of no automatic birthright citizenship and a much stronger case for most birthright citizenship (everyone except diplomats).

We’ll see, sneaking into the country from another country and having a child that is now a citizen was not the intent of the constitution, and there are lots of folks that are very knowledgeable on the constitution that agree, it’s a misinterpretation of the intent. 

No other country on the face of the earth extends this courtesy, and I don’t believe it was the intent when written.

Posted
6 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

We’ll see, sneaking into the country from another country and having a child that is now a citizen was not the intent of the constitution, and there are lots of folks that are very knowledgeable on the constitution that agree, it’s a misinterpretation of the intent. 

No other country on the face of the earth extends this courtesy, and I don’t believe it was the intent when written.

A lot to unpack but here goes….

I consider myself very knowledgeable on the Constitution. In part of that knowledge I know that Article III Sec. 1 and Sec. 2 say that the judicial power of the United States shall be in one Supreme Court and that power shall extend to “all cases arising from the Constitution”.

That means it doesn’t matter what you think, I think, people who are very knowledgeable think or the Town Cryer.

The Supreme Court has rendered a ruling on this issue and it appears as though birthright citizenship is granted under the 14th Amendment. There is a sliver of hope in that ruling because they weren’t quite as adamant as maybe they could have been. Also, like Plessy, v. Ferguson and Roe v. Wade, they can simply reverse themselves.

Over 30 countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship. The “only country” is a fallacy that is often repeated. 

Posted
2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

A lot to unpack but here goes….

I consider myself very knowledgeable on the Constitution. In part of that knowledge I know that Article III Sec. 1 and Sec. 2 say that the judicial power of the United States shall be in one Supreme Court and that power shall extend to “all cases arising from the Constitution”.

That means it doesn’t matter what you think, I think, people who are very knowledgeable think or the Town Cryer.

The Supreme Court has rendered a ruling on this issue and it appears as though birthright citizenship is granted under the 14th Amendment. There is a sliver of hope in that ruling because they weren’t quite as adamant as maybe they could have been. Also, like Plessy, v. Ferguson and Roe v. Wade, they can simply reverse themselves.

Over 30 countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship. The “only country” is a fallacy that is often repeated. 

So it could be argued and interpreted differently at some point, which is my point.

As far as birthright citizenship countries, I stand corrected.

Posted
42 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So it could be argued and interpreted differently at some point, which is my point.

As far as birthright citizenship countries, I stand corrected.


👍🏼

ANYTHING the Supreme Court does can be later overturned by the Supreme Court.

You could actually make a statement like, “The Supreme Court could overturn their own decision” and paste that at the end of any discussion.

 The likelihood might be 96% against it but… “they could….”.

I would welcome such a ruling. I think the odds are stacked against it. Maybe the 6 conservative justices will change it. 

Posted
10 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

We’ll see, sneaking into the country from another country and having a child that is now a citizen was not the intent of the constitution, and there are lots of folks that are very knowledgeable on the constitution that agree, it’s a misinterpretation of the intent. 

No other country on the face of the earth extends this courtesy, and I don’t believe it was the intent when written.

It would take 66 senatorial votes and has to be ratified by all 50 states. Good luck with that.

Posted
2 hours ago, Big girl said:

It would take 66 senatorial votes and has to be ratified by all 50 states. Good luck with that.

Or simply ignore Congress and have 38 states agree. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,258
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ryanbland55
    Newest Member
    Ryanbland55
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...