SCOTUS issues ruling regarding lower courts that could be the end for "Birthright Citizenship"

[Occam's Banana]

 

[Voluntarist]

The U.S. Supreme Court Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order. The Court ordered lower courts in New Hampshire, Washington, and Maryland to reconsider the scope of their injunctions that had blocked the enforcement of EO 14160.

Notice that the Trump administration lost, on the merits of "birthright citizenship" in every federal district in which the loss has been appealed. In those districts, Trump's EO is banned. Furthermore the Trump administration did not appeal the decisions of those courts, based on the merits of "birthright citizenship", to the Supreme Court. If the Trump administration was really looking for a Supreme Court ruling on "birthright citizenship", then that's what they would have appealed to the Supreme Court. That the Trump Administration didn't is telling - it indicates they thought the issue of "birthright citizenship" would have gone against them in the Supreme Court - particularly one in which "textualism" reigns in the majority.

With the Trump administration being too chicken to appeal on the merits, what it's going to take for the Supreme Court to make a ruling on "birthright citizenship", is for a federal judge to rule in favor of the Trump administration, and then the plaintiffs in those cases appealing to the Supreme Court.

 

[nikcers]

Notice how you just are refusing to answer a simple question repeatedly.

Are you saying that you believe that every American should provide their DNA to the government to prove who their parents are as a condition of being allowed to be in the country?

I think we already have citizenship and being able to prove it is possible and that you can do it 100% accurately using multiple reliable forms of evidence.

Which method of reliable evidence you use certainly depends on the circumstances.

Yes this is the way I want the government to do it. I want a wall of separation on our national government from other governments and international interest groups.

 

[Occam's Banana]

 

[Voluntarist]

Let's say Trump's order holds for this. Years from now, when someone has to determine if a person who was born in the USA in 2025 is a US citizen, what will be required to prove that person is a citizen. A birth certificate won't suffice. What will?

Quite a conundrum, eh? I think what those opposed to "birthright citizenship" have always pushed for is that one or maybe both parents had to be US citizens. Assuming that's the case, then it starts to get really tricky; because you'd have to show that the those parents were US citizens (and likewise, the parents of those parents, ad infinitum). And ultimately, every family line in the US came from ancestors that were citizens of a country other than the US. It seems the only ancestors that can be proven to be US citizens are those who have been naturalized. So if you can prove that all of your ancestral lines started with an individual that was naturalized, then you could claim US citizenship. LOL

Posted in another thread, but probably applicable here.


I suppose you don't really need to go back to the beginning of time. The 14th Amendment does seem to grant citizenship to everyone born in the US up to that point, if nothing else. You'd just have to trace your lineage back to one of those individuals or to those who have been naturalized since then. (but you'd have to prove they were born after their parents' naturalization was formally completed).

Oh wait - that means that someone born in the US during a visit by their parents to the US which occurred prior to the passage of the 14th amendment would have birthright citizenship. Let me take another toke and dwell on that.

In any event, it's going to require a national ID system. Papers please.

 

[nikcers]

Well its just not as impossible as it sounds.

Without doing so we risk losing the very idea of capitalism.

Special interest groups farm our government programs and send money to other countries and weaken our economy.

This effectively amounts to a tax by foreign nations and foreign interest groups.

The left wing of our country basically says making white people pay for everything is historic justice.

Its like we lost a war and we are paying reparations. Once they destroy our economy they will destroy western civilization and the idea of liberty with it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

 

[Madison320]

Let's say Trump's order holds for this. Years from now, when someone has to determine if a person who was born in the USA in 2025 is a US citizen, what will be required to prove that person is a citizen. A birth certificate won't suffice. What will?

Wouldn't it be in a federal database? That's how you tell if someone is naturalized.

 

[nikcers]

So Canada joins a military partnership with the EU and then immediately attacks us. Its like Canada thinks they can be the king of America.

"We have just been informed that Canada, ...just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country."...

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114756567645919781

 

[Voluntarist]

Let's say Trump's order holds for this. Years from now, when someone has to determine if a person who was born in the USA in 2025 is a US citizen, what will be required to prove that person is a citizen. A birth certificate won't suffice. What will?

Wouldn't it be in a federal database? That's how you tell if someone is naturalized.

The naturalization database would have to be updated with data for all natural-born citizens as well. And then all database entries would have to be bio-metrically linked to the individuals in question. Systems without bio-metric linkage (like E-Verify) are notoriously easy to subvert - just look at the recent Glenn Valley Foods case.

The owner of an Omaha food packaging plant that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided this week said Wednesday that his company relied on the government’s web system to verify his workers were in the country legally.

“We did everything we could possibly do,” Glenn Valley Foods owner Gary Rohwer told The Associated Press.

Federal officials arrived at the Nebraska factory on Tuesday to screen nearly 100 people. About 70 employees were taken into custody, as part of President Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown and mass deportation initiative.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[mrsat_98]

Let's say Trump's order holds for this. Years from now, when someone has to determine if a person who was born in the USA in 2025 is a US citizen, what will be required to prove that person is a citizen. A birth certificate won't suffice. What will?

Under state codes of military justice just the intent to become a US citizen makes you subject to the code.

 

[Invisible Man]

Wouldn't it be in a federal database? That's how you tell if someone is naturalized.

First, how does one get into the database in the first place? Being boring in the US no longer would be enough. Would it be up to hospitals to find out the citizenship status of babies' fathers and mothers so that they could enter them into a database as being born here and not being anchor babies? And what about babies not born in hospitals?

Second, this kind of white list approach is problematic. Each person is presumed to be a noncitizen unless they are proven to be a citizen by being in the database. What if someone doesn't know or doesn't want to provide the government data about who their parents were, or to do that for their children? Do they or their kids then get deported on the presumption of being anchor babies? Some here seem to be ok with nationwide mandatory maternity and paternity testing via DNA.

I would be fine with this if citizenship were just something required for privileges like voting. But when its required for getting jobs, or even just living in the country at all and being left alone without risk of having one's right to live here removed arbitrarily on a moment's notice (as some seem to want it to be), then it creates all sorts of problems where the government is injected more into everyone's lives, citizen or not.

When people talk about Ron Paul's view on this, they should keep in mind how it fits with his other immigration related stances. Remember that he is against requiring employers to get proof of their employees' citizenship status. He is against the income tax, which is one of the main vehicles for the government to even know who works where. He is against people being required to show passports to cross our borders and enter the country. He is against having any government agents be authorized to demand papers from people in order to prove their citizenship. Yes, he's against giving citizenship to anchor babies. But the effect of his policies is that these noncitizen anchor babies would still be able to live in the US, exercise all the same basic rights here that citizens can, and come and go unbothered. I'm not sure if there's anything they would be prevented from doing under his preferred policies other than voting and running for office.

 

[Madison320]

First, how does one get into the database in the first place? Being boring in the US no longer would be enough. Would it be up to hospitals to find out the citizenship status of babies' fathers and mothers so that they could enter them into a database as being born here and not being anchor babies? And what about babies not born in hospitals?

Second, this kind of white list approach is problematic. Each person is presumed to be a noncitizen unless they are proven to be a citizen by being in the database. What if someone doesn't know or doesn't want to provide the government data about who their parents were, or to do that for their children? Do they or their kids then get deported on the presumption of being anchor babies? Some here seem to be ok with nationwide mandatory maternity and paternity testing via DNA.

I would be fine with this if citizenship were just something required for privileges like voting. But when its required for getting jobs, or even just living in the country at all and being left alone without risk of having one's right to live here removed arbitrarily on a moment's notice (as some seem to want it to be), then it creates all sorts of problems where the government is injected more into everyone's lives, citizen or not.

When people talk about Ron Paul's view on this, they should keep in mind how it fits with his other immigration related stances. Remember that he is against requiring employers to get proof of their employees' citizenship status. He is against the income tax, which is one of the main vehicles for the government to even know who works where. He is against people being required to show passports to cross our borders and enter the country. He is against having any government agents be authorized to demand papers from people in order to prove their citizenship. Yes, he's against giving citizenship to anchor babies. But the effect of his policies is that these noncitizen anchor babies would still be able to live in the US, exercise all the same basic rights here that citizens can, and come and go unbothered. I'm not sure if there's anything they would be prevented from doing under his preferred policies other than voting and running for office.

I have too many questions already about how it works. What if you're not born in a hospital now, how does that work? On one hand birth certificates seem like the logical starting point, on the other hand they seem so easy to forge. What if US couple are on vacation in Italy and the wife prematurely gives birth. Is the baby Italian? Do they need to get the baby a passport to get back to the US? Maybe the answer is to focus on the parents that are here illegally. They're the ones that committed the crime. Maybe by default no one has voting privileges and you have to prove one of your parents are citizens. Do all countries have birthright citizenship?

 

[nikcers]

I have too many questions do all countries have birthright citizenship?

No all country's don't.

Its historically reserved for monarchy governments.

The concept is simple. The king would rule everything on his territory and everyone born on his territory were their subjects.

We don't have a monarchy though. We have a constitutional republic where our government grants citizenship where as in the founding fathers said the point of our government was that people weren't happy being British and they didn't consent to monarchy government.

So we fought a Civil War against British and then threw off the monarchy.

So the point of our government therefore as John Adam's said was that we would consent to the government and that it would make us happy.

The point of government therefore wasn't so that anyone coming over the border has a right to tax us and the people aren't happy with that.

The people were polled on election day and the presidential candidate that said he would end birthright citizenship won the vote.

 

[Voluntarist]

If your parents were not citizens when they had you in America, you are NOT an American

One parent or both parents? If two parents then none of Donald Trump's five children are citizens; and by extension, then none of his eleven grandchildren are.

If one parent, then the current Secretary of State (Rubio) is not a citizen. Did you ever notice how Rubio never uses the term "Anchor Baby"? His parents were later naturalized, but were not citizens at the time of his birth. Think of that - the man fourth in line of succession to the presidency is not a US citizen.

Regardless, if you're going by parentage then you also have to prove one or both parent(s) is/are citizens. I mean, you don't just take their word for it, right? And if that citizenship is by parentage, then you'd have to do that process recursively until you find citizenship granted by some other acceptable means (naturalization or some means prescribed by the states in the early years of the American Confederation ... or by being born in the US prior to the 14th amendment ... there's probably other methods as well). And think about the irony of citizenship by parentage if there's one or more members of your lineage that claim citizenship by being born in the US prior to the 14th Amendment - your citizenship is ultimately based upon your ancestor(s) having birthright citizenship.

 

[nikcers]

One parent or both parents? If two parents then none of Donald Trump's five children are citizens; and by extension, then none of his eleven grandchildren are.

If one parent, then the current Secretary of State (Rubio) is not a citizen. Did you ever notice how Rubio never uses the term "Anchor Baby"? His parents were later naturalized, but were not citizens at the time of his birth. Think of that - the man fourth in line of succession to the presidency is not a US citizen.

Regardless, if you're going by parentage then you also have to prove one or both parent(s) is/are citizens. I mean, you don't just take their word for it, right? And if that citizenship is by parentage, then you'd have to do that process recursively until you find citizenship granted by some other acceptable means (naturalization or some means prescribed by the states in the early years of the American Confederation ... or by being born in the US prior to the 14th amendment ... there's probably other methods as well).

The idea isn't to end naturalization of immigrants that are legal.

The idea is to end the concept of birth tourism where as foreign nationals come here to do regime change in our government.

 

[Snowball]

The High Court got it right because the language MAY INDEED be interpreted in various ways, notably, the two of which you're thinking... and the extent to which those positions may or may not be enforced is ALSO an executive power.

The globalists are not going to stop trying to "codify" their agenda, but it's the way it's supposed to be already, because in reality it IS a matter of interpretation AND also it is a Constitutional power of the Federal body, subject to legislation and veto, etc. In the absence of which, the Potus may act or not according to his own mandate or platform.

 

[Occam's Banana]

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://x.com/BobMurphyEcon/status/1939114446317920291