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

Of course there are limited governments and limitless government...

We installed guard rails on our government. Separation of powers, and church and state and especially elections.

Here we can write in our newspapers and criticize the government because we have free speech. While in Saudi Arabia you might get chopped up for making the king appear weak and threatening their rule.
All governments are limited by a variety of things, just as all other human beings and groups of human beings are.

One of the most important factors that limits every government is the amount of resources it has at its disposal. The regime in Washington, DC, is probably less hampered by penury than any other regime that has ever existed.
 
I would say we want to do that because it's right, not because it's what other countries are doing. And generally speaking, it isn't. Switzerland is a lot better than most places.

In the case of birthright vs right of blood I think it's more of a technical issue and it appears that most countries seem to be able to pull it off.

By the way Switzerland has "right of blood" citizenship. That's also Ron Paul's position. I'm open to suggestions but what we're doing now is not working. What about restrictions on voting? How about only allowing citizens that pay income tax to vote? That might kill 2 birds with one stone.
 
All governments are limited by a variety of things, just as all other human beings and groups of human beings are.

One of the most important factors that limits every government is the amount of resources it has at its disposal. The regime in Washington, DC, is probably less hampered by penury than any other regime that has ever existed.

Free speech is a big deal its the biggest limit you can put on a government.

Can you imagine telling a king that you are going to say whatever the hell you want and if he doesnt like it then he can pound sand?

A monarchy has unlimited power.

In a monarchy the government has the guns.

If you hold a gun and I hold a gun, we can talk about the law. If you hold a knife and I hold a knife, we can talk about rules. If you come empty handed and I come empty handed, we can talk about reason. But if you have a gun, and I only have a knife, then the truth lies in your hands.
 
Free speech also has nothing at all to do with whether a government is a monarchy versus something else.
Yea it does in a monarchy the truth lies in the governments hands.

You can only say what the king lets you say.

There's no second amendment in a monarchy.
 
I know he's against birthright citizenship. But where has he ever said he was for "right of blood" citizenship?

It's implied:

Grok: Does Ron Paul favor "right of blood" citizenship?

Conclusion​


In conclusion, research suggests Ron Paul favors "right of blood" citizenship (jus sanguinis), evidenced by his legislative efforts to deny automatic birthright citizenship and his focus on parental citizenship or allegiance. This stance, while controversial, reflects his broader libertarian principles and is part of ongoing debates on immigration and national identity. The evidence, drawn from congressional records and public statements, supports this interpretation, though the lack of recent statements leaves room for potential evolution in his views, which would require further investigation into post-2011 materials.
 
It's implied:

Grok: Does Ron Paul favor "right of blood" citizenship?

Conclusion​


In conclusion, research suggests Ron Paul favors "right of blood" citizenship (jus sanguinis), evidenced by his legislative efforts to deny automatic birthright citizenship and his focus on parental citizenship or allegiance. This stance, while controversial, reflects his broader libertarian principles and is part of ongoing debates on immigration and national identity. The evidence, drawn from congressional records and public statements, supports this interpretation, though the lack of recent statements leaves room for potential evolution in his views, which would require further investigation into post-2011 materials.
What you mean is that you inferred this from things Ron Paul said. But he himself has never either said it or implied it.
 
What you mean is that you inferred this from things Ron Paul said. But he himself has never either said it or implied it.

If Ron Paul is against birthright citizenship, and the primary alternative is right of blood, doesn't it follow that he's in favor of right of blood? What else could he be implying?


"A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.

In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It’s the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.

This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.

No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.

Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.

Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.

Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.

I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment."
 
If Ron Paul is against birthright citizenship, and the primary alternative is right of blood, doesn't it follow that he's in favor of right of blood? What else could he be implying?


"A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.

In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It’s the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.

This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.

No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.

Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.

Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.

Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.

I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment."
The words you put in bold weigh pretty strongly against your claim that he supports right of blood citizenship.

If he did, why would he not have mentioned that here?
 
The words you put in bold weigh pretty strongly against your claim that he supports right of blood citizenship.

If he did, why would he not have mentioned that here?
Ok I give up.

Either way he's against birthright citizenship.

What is your suggestion? Or do you think birthright citizenship is a good idea?
 
I love the "we can't move on ending birthright citizenship until we know exactly how these minor exceptions will be handled." Um, yeah we can. If you are a 600 pound fatty, you don't need to map out some grand diet and exercise plan, consult 14 doctors and research the most optimal way to achieve your goal before you change your life. You start by getting on the flippin' treadmill and moving. The rest can be figured out as you go.
 
I love the "we can't move on ending birthright citizenship until we know exactly how these minor exceptions will be handled." Um, yeah we can. If you are a 600 pound fatty, you don't need to map out some grand diet and exercise plan, consult 14 doctors and research the most optimal way to achieve your goal before you change your life. You start by getting on the flippin' treadmill and moving. The rest can be figured out as you go.

Another stupid statist response.

When the only correct solution is to stop the money spigot, stop demanding "legal", and embracing the Bill of Rights and the right to self-determination. You know, the truly libertarian solution which you call lolbertarian.
 
I love the "we can't move on ending birthright citizenship until we know exactly how these minor exceptions will be handled." Um, yeah we can. If you are a 600 pound fatty, you don't need to map out some grand diet and exercise plan, consult 14 doctors and research the most optimal way to achieve your goal before you change your life. You start by getting on the flippin' treadmill and moving. The rest can be figured out as you go.

There's a book about quitting cigarettes and in the first chapter it lists all of the bad stuff about smoking cigarettes all the health problems it causes and then it says in the next chapter it will list all of the benefits and when you turn the page its just a blank page.
 
Another stupid statist response.

When the only correct solution is to stop the money spigot, stop demanding "legal", and embracing the Bill of Rights and the right to self-determination. You know, the truly libertarian solution which you call lolbertarian.
I've noticed this funny thing here on RPF. If you have a criticism of a public figure, political party, or ideology, people who are perpetually online and accomplish nothing in real life to further their beliefs get hilariously personal with you.

I think the reason is that it's easier to personally attack non-public figures online than it is to actually affect change in their community. It's probably why the LP vote share directly corresponds with the autism rate in this country.
 
I've noticed this funny thing here on RPF. If you have a criticism of a public figure, political party, or ideology, people who are perpetually online and accomplish nothing in real life to further their beliefs get hilariously personal with you.

I think the reason is that it's easier to personally attack non-public figures online than it is to actually affect change in their community. It's probably why the LP vote share directly corresponds with the autism rate in this country.

Actually, the problem is, there is more than enough information that I [and others] have posted on this very forum, online, and in print, and yet people like you either 1. completely ignore it -or- 2. justify and/or distort it to suit your own stupid agenda.
 
Actually, the problem is, there is more than enough information that I [and others] have posted on this very forum, online, and in print, and yet people like you either 1. completely ignore it -or- 2. justify and/or distort it to suit your own stupid agenda.
What's my agenda? To annoy the perpetually online autists, I suppose. At least that's my agenda here. I do quite a bit in my community to help shape it in the way I want. Unlike the autists, I'm not afraid of using power to make changes.
 
What's my agenda? To annoy the perpetually online autists, I suppose. At least that's my agenda here. I do quite a bit in my community to help shape it in the way I want. Unlike the autists, I'm not afraid of using power to make changes.

You just reinforced what I was going to say:

However/whatever you "feel" or "think", everything that you say/do strongly promotes/requires government intervention.

End convo here.
 
New Hampshire judge pauses Trump’s birthright citizenship order nationwide via class action lawsuit
A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling Thursday prohibiting President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship from taking effect anywhere in the U.S.

Judge Joseph LaPlante issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s order and certified a class action lawsuit including all children who will be affected. The order, which followed an hour-long hearing, included a seven-day stay to allow for appeal.

The judge’s decision puts the birthright citizenship issue on a fast track to return to the Supreme Court. The justices could be asked to rule whether the order complies with their decision last month that limited judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
...
“This is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order,” said Cody Wofsy, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants. It’s among numerous cases challenging Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.
...
LaPlante, who had issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said while he didn’t consider the government’s arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call” and that deprivation of U.S. citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.

“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” he said. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”

GvgZwnsW8AAYIn0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top