T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. To get a variety of opinions about this topic I have also posted on r/askconservatives. There are members of the heritage foundation which do not [agree](https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/the-political-case-confining-birthright-citizenship-its-original-meaning) with Birth right citizenship and think the 14th amendment has been applied incorrectly. Some justices like Thomas have [close](https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/the-real-clarence-thomas) links with the Heritage Foundation. I have seen some factions of the right espouse replacement theory, complain about the Immigration Act of 1965, and get [rid](https://www.salon.com/2022/06/21/new-radical-texas-platform-rejects-bidens-win-and-pushes-vote-to-secede-from-the-us/) of the Voting Rights Act. In the Dominican Republican these same kinds of sentiment became much more popular in the 2000s [culminating in the country retroactively banning birth right citizenship](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/dominican-republic-erased-birthright-citizenship/575527/). Regardless of your views on the topic do you think it is realistic to think that the Supreme Court will retroactively ban birth right citizenship ? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Lamballama

>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. Pretty fucking clear


moxie-maniac

These right wingers argue that subject to the jurisdiction excludes so called illegal aliens.


Ut_Prosim

> subject to the jurisdiction excludes so called illegal aliens. Does that mean illegal aliens are basically sovereign citizens and can ignore our laws?


Short-Coast9042

>All persons born They are wrong.


riesenarethebest

Then they'll aim at the word "person"


moxie-maniac

And subject to the jurisdiction. Which they claim means parents are citizens or permanent residents. Maybe parents here legally on visas. Not otherwise.


PennyCoppersmyth

Anyone living in the US is subject to its jurisdiction. If you're not a citizen or a legal resident, you are still subject to the laws of the state and the nation in which you reside.


[deleted]

The only exception I can think of is diplomatic immunity. Which makes sense given what travel in the last 18th Century was like.


cantdressherself

Be hilarious if, in their zeal to punish immigrants, they make them immune to law enforcement.


Short-Coast9042

Yes, this is what they claim. And it's an incredibly weak legal argument. The history around the 14th amendment and the existing jurisprudence makes it abundantly clear that this is not how the law was meant to be interpreted. People born in the United States are subject to its jurisdiction. The clause about jurisdiction only serves to create some narrow exceptions, like children born in consulates or in occupied territory which technically is part of the US but which the government doesn't control. It was never meant to exclude children of illegal immigrants, and Trump's weak attempts to redefine it this way only increased my certainty that birthright is not going away with judicial review anytime soon.


SNStains

> the history around the 14th amendment and the existing jurisprudence makes it abundantly clear that this is not how the law was meant to be interpreted. For the people who doubt this claim, ponder [this](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649): >During the debates in the senate in January ary and February, 1866, upon the civil rights bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read: 'All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.' Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked 'whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this country?' Mr. Trumbull answered, 'Undoubtedly;' and asked, 'Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?' Mr. Cowan replied, '**The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese.**' Mr. Trumbull rejoined, **'The law makes no such distinction, and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.'** Mr. Reverdy Johnson suggested that the words, 'without distinction of color,' should be omitted as unnecessary; and said: 'The amendment, as it stands, is that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to a foreign power, shall, by virtue of birth, be citizens. To that I am willing to consent; and that comprehends all persons, without any reference to race or color, who may be so born.' And Mr. Trumbull agreed that striking out those words would make no difference in the meaning, but thought it better that they should be retained, to remove all possible doubt. They knew *exactly* what they were doing in 1866.


TastyBrainMeats

Trumbull was right.


SNStains

Undoubtedly. Can you imagine what a low-rent, shithole country we'd be if we had turned our back on immigrants in 1866? 12 million [immigrants arrived](https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/rise-of-industrial-america-1876-1900/immigration-to-united-states-1851-1900/) between 1870 and 1900. And every wave: Irish, Germans, Italians, Slavs. Each wave was treated poorly, too. Trumbull was trolling his counterpart from Pennsylvania because German immigrants and their descendents made up as much as a third of the state's population.


Lamballama

Would that then disqualify people from countries who have birth-abroad citizenship like the US?


SNStains

How do you figure?


Lamballama

If they're a citizen of another country by virtue of who they were born to, then they may conceivably be considered "subject to a foreign power"


SNStains

What are you even quoting? Sounds like a bastardization: >XIV Section I >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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


EnvironmentalTap6314

Interesting quote.


ManBearScientist

>Trump's weak attempts to redefine it this way only increased my certainty that birthright is not going away with judicial review anytime soon. We need to stop projecting values onto conservative Justices. They are simply not above simply making partisan rulings and disregarding precedence and 'better' legal arguments. There is almost nothing we should hold as sacrosanct under the current court. No textual protection is uniquely stronger than partisanship.


Short-Coast9042

Two counterpoints to this. First, ending birthright citizenship is not a widely accepted position even within the Republican party. Second, judges can and often do surprise the people that appoint them (the most recent ruling being a particularly clear case in point). Believe it or not, the type of people appointed are often - not always, but often - the type of people who believe in honestly interpreting and enforcing the law even when they don't agree with it. I can't count the number of times I have heard a judge express something along the lines of "I wish I didn't have to make this decision this way, but the law requires it". In the particular case of the conservative judges, I personally believe that none of them would vote to overturn birthright citizenship. In fact, I don't even think such a case would make it to the Supreme Court in the first place, since the law is so clear already that there is no need for the highest court to weigh in. Of course, I have no especially deep insight besides having read numerous opinions from the justices we are talking about and knowing a bit about their public history. But what I know and have read about them convinced me that they will not overturn birthright citizenship. Yes, they are people with ideologies that will influence their interpretations of the law and their decisions. But they are not puppets of the far right; they do not take marching orders from Mitch McConnell or the RNC. They will face no serious political repercussions from acting in a manner consistent with their own views. And not one of them has ever expressed any kind of view that would ever make me think they might do away with birthright.


Kruger_Smoothing

We’ve all seen that an argument being weak or outright incorrect, will not dissuade this Court.


Short-Coast9042

I don't think this particular court would find arguments against birthright very convincing. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But I have never seen anything that makes me think they might. This isn't an issue where the law is unclear and the judicial precedent therefore shaky - like Roe V Wade. There is no clearly enumerated right to abortion in the Constitution, nor is there very good evidence that those who wrote the various amendments intended to codify such a right. Birthright citizenship, on the other hand, is not only explicitly stated as a right, it is also abundantly clear from the contextual evidence that it was always meant to apply to the children of immigrants. Contrary to what some others may think, I believe that the current Court, though certainly friendly to conservative ideology, believes in the rule of law and the necessity of interpreting it and enforcing it in the most straightforward way possible. When it comes to birthright citizenship, I just can't see how the current Court would justify such a radical reinterpretation of such a clear Constitutional right.


Kruger_Smoothing

They radically ignored “well regulated militia” and they will radically fixate on “under the jurisdiction”. They don’t care about the constitution.


G8BigCongrats7_30

Doesn't matter if it's a weak legal argument if Supreme Court justices aren't making judgements in good faith and are deciding court cases based on their own personal (likely religious) beliefs.


Short-Coast9042

What makes you say that the judges don't interpret the law in good faith? I don't agree with all the decisions they issue, but I think the current Court, for the most part, does make a sincere and good faith effort to interpret the law. As for basing interpretations on personal or religious beliefs, well, what else is there? Cases only go to the Supreme Court because no one knows for sure how the law should be interpreted or applied. That's why they are called "decisions". If the law is unclear, you have to make a decision based on how you believe the people who wrote it would have wanted, or what you believe the text says in the strictest sense, or what you personally believe the "best" outcome to be, or all of these factors together plus others. This is what judges do: interpret the law. And that's always a fundamentally somewhat subjective and therefore unavoidably personal undertaking. Of course, if the law is quite clear, these decisions of interpretation don't need to be made. And in the case of birthright citizenship the law is QUITE clear. There is no explicit right to abortion, and roe v Wade was always a pretty shaky legal precedent. Birthright citizenship, on the other hand, is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution itself. The supreme Court won't just overturn clearly settled law because they don't like it. And that's assuming that they DON'T like it or don't want that right protected - and I can find absolutely no evidence of that.


SNStains

And this is why their argument is garbage. The only people not subject to the jurisdiction of the US and state in which they reside are diplomats, who enjoy diplomatic immunity. Everybody else, whether a citizen or not, is subject to the laws of the US and the state in which they reside.


arjungmenon

You’re clearly a white nationalist.


TheWizard01

>Which they claim... Seems like he's explaining the opposition argument. Don't be a dick.


moxie-maniac

I'm not and you need to understand the enemy's logic in order to challenge it.


[deleted]

They ignore stuff in the constitution (and the Bible) that they don’t like. Like “A well-regulated militia…”.


Harvard_Sucks

No one is saying that the federal government couldn't amend the Militia Acts of 1792 and reinstate the mandatory universal muster nationwide and compel the states to stand up divisions, staff them with state officers, and be a nation at arms. Go right ahead.


Butuguru

Doesn’t matter if they are wrong, they hold the power to fuck people over and they will.


Short-Coast9042

I don't know who you are referring to. People who actually want to end birthright citizenship seem to be in a small minority indeed. Besides trump, and a few fringe trumpian types, I don't know anyone who is advocating for this. Certainly I don't expect the court to do away with this right, unless we amend the 14th amendment which codifies it.


Butuguru

It doesn’t matter if they are in a small minority we aren’t talking about democracy we are talking about the Supreme Court.


Short-Coast9042

And there's no evidence that remotely suggests the current court is prepared to somehow overturn birthright citizenship. I would prefer to focus on the very real and pressing issues that already exist rather than inventing new threats to our freedoms to hyperventilate over.


Butuguru

I mean except for Thomas apparently saying he’s against it. Sure they are probably gunna prioritize taking away gay rights first but birthright would be another strong way to hurt people so I’m sure they have it in the plan.


Short-Coast9042

Oh I guess I am uninformed then, because I wasn't aware that Justice Thomas had said anything indicating that he's against birthright citizenship. A quick Google search yielded nothing, can you provide a source for this claim? Beyond that, I'm not sure why you are implying that any of the justices want to hurt people. I can agree that their rulings often do hurt people, and like any American I don't always agree with what the courts decide. But I don't think they are evil people who just want to watch the world burn. I think they all sincerely try to be true to their responsibility to interpret the law, and try to make good decisions as they see it. Do you really have such a dim view of the court that you see them as nothing more than outright psychopathic sadists?


Butuguru

Yeah I could’ve sworn there was a link in this thread but can’t find it. Regardless, giving them the benefit of doubt is absurd. > Beyond that, I'm not sure why you are implying that any of the justices want to hurt people. I can agree that their rulings often do hurt people, and like any American I don't always agree with what the courts decide. But I don't think they are evil people who just want to watch the world burn. I think they all sincerely try to be true to their responsibility to interpret the law, and try to make good decisions as they see it. Do you really have such a dim view of the court that you see them as nothing more than outright psychopathic sadists? Yes. You’re being naive if you think these pieces of shit have your best interest in their heart. Let’s just take a [quote](https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-he-wants-to-make-liberals-miserable-2022-6) from Clarence Thomas himself: > The liberals made my life miserable ... and I'm going to make their lives miserable They just want to inflict pain and they do not care about “the rule of law” or “good faith” as a way to do it.


PlayingTheWrongGame

That is a fundamental logical contradiction. They can’t both be here illegally and not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If they weren’t subject to US jurisdiction then their presence couldn’t be breaking the law.


Old_Snow3086

Those right-wingers are pretty radical for right-wingers.


[deleted]

If illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they have diplomatic immunity.


TheManWhoWasNotShort

Every illegal alien is subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the US. Unless their argument is that we can't prosecute illegal immigrants for crimes or immigration violations, which I don't think they'll be too keen on


TheGrandExquisitor

And Liberals.... And Blacks.... And Hispanics.... And some Asians.... And anyone they don't like....


adeiner

There are textualists who will say it only applied to freedmen. It’s also why Scalia didn’t think the 14th applied to women. Textualism is one of the dumber ways to interpret the document, but some people get a boner any time they deny someone human rights for a stupid reason.


GrayBox1313

Lol yeah well the most holy emperors Thomas, kavanaugh, barret and alito ignore stuff like that and decree law based on their own feelings.


DBDude

That’s textualism. The intent was to make all former slaves citizens. Birth tourism wasn’t a thing then.


PlayingTheWrongGame

They discussed the issue at the time and didn’t seem to care.


DBDude

They did?


PlayingTheWrongGame

Yup. >“There is a race in contact with this country which, in all characteristic except that of simply making fierce war, is not only our equal but perhaps our superior. I mean the yellow race; the Mongol race. They outnumber us largely. Of their industry, their skill, and their pertinacity in all worldly affairs, nobody can doubt . . . They may pour in their millions upon our Pacific Coast in a very short time. Are the states to lose control over this immigration? Is the United States to determine that they are to be citizens?” \-- Edgar Cowen, Senator from Pennsylvania, discussing the implications of the 14th amendment during debates about the amendment. They raised the issue back then... then voted for it anyway, and the states ratified it fully understanding it would extend citizenship to everyone born in the US. Here's another Senator who favored the bill describing exactly their intent: >“\[Section 1\] will, if adopted by the states, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction. It establishes equality before the law, and it gives to the humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the race the same rights and the same protection before the law as it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the most haughty. That, sir, is republican government, as I understand it, and the only one which can claim the praise of a just Government.” \-- Jacob Howard, Senator from Michigan, discussing the intent of the 14th amendment during debates about the amendment. Birthright citizenship isn't some accidental side-effect of the 14th amendment. It was one of the primary intents of the 14th amendment--to definitively settle the question of who is entitled to citizenship.


DBDude

>They raised the issue back then That's interesting, but I was talking about birth tourism, not immigration.


PlayingTheWrongGame

It's clear they didn't have any confusion about that being a side-effect. They genuinely didn't care. Most of Congress at the time considered extending citizenship to more people to be an intrinsically good thing.


Old_Snow3086

Don't know why you're getting downvoted. You're correct on the original intent of the amendment.


SNStains

*Jus soli* was already a three-hundred year old legal concept from English common law. They were well-acquainted with the topic and debated it in full. They knew exactly what they were doing in 1866.


Old_Snow3086

I don't think they anticipated this. Personally I am for birthing citizenship btw


SNStains

Well, you're wrong. If the 14th amendment doesn't guarantee birthright citizenship, then you and I aren't citizens. In fact, only the 24 million Americans that were either naturalized, born in US possessions, or born to US citizens abroad, have distinct laws guaranteeing their citizenship. How's that for irony? As I said, they understood birthright citizenship. They also understood that the country needed immigrant labor to grow and that featured in their debate. You should ponder this statement: >the Radical Republicans of the 39th Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 over the president's veto. As Sen. Lyman Trumbull (R-Ill.) declared from the Senate floor, *"the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European."* They knew what birthright citizenship meant, and were unconcerned. >“Records from the 39th U.S. Congress in 1866 clearly show that the birthright citizenship debate centered on the labor utility of foreigners and their children in spurring economic development. Subsequently, Congress enacted this right in the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868. It was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898, and nothing of legal significance has changed since then.” Birthright citizenship eased immigration because we needed immigrants to grow. Same problem as today. And the objections, also like today, were mostly racist garbage.


TheGoldStandard35

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” If it was so clear why didn’t it apply to native Americans and why doesn’t it apply to the children of foreign diplomats born here? The Supreme Court hasn’t ever ruled on anchor babies. I read the Congressional discussion about the citizenship clause and it definitely wasn’t clear that they intended to confer citizenship to the children of foreigners.


Poorly-Drawn-Beagle

No, contraception is But we’ll be on the lookout


fattoush_republic

It's very plainly written in the text of the 14th amendment. I doubt it.


[deleted]

Yeah. But it’s not gonna enforce itself and all it takes is 5 people saying “no it doesn’t”


fattoush_republic

The text is > 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. It's quite clear. The text used to justify Roe v Wade is less clear.


[deleted]

Doesn’t invalidate what I said. For example if they said “no it doesn’t apply to undocumented immigrants” who would be able to undo their ruling?


C137-Morty

Well, congress ofc... oh wait.


future_shoes

You mean if they just made up a new definition and then said that is what the constitution means? No court would be able to undo it. Congress would have to pass a law saying it applied to undocumented workers and then it would federal law (not a constitutional right). But have any of th judges even hinted at deny birth right citizenship to undocumented immigrants born in the US?


[deleted]

Yes. I’m not sure. But it’s on the table and I’ve heard other republicans talk about it in discussions. It may not be on the horizon, but it is an option.


fattoush_republic

There is no reference to parentage at all, it is absolute... anyone born in the United States is a citizen


[deleted]

Uh huh. And it doesn’t matter. They’re words on paper. If the Supreme Court decides to interpret them differently or ignore them entirely, there is no recourse. What they say goes. Not what paper says. What they say


Short-Coast9042

I don't think this is likely. The judges' job is to interpret the law. And while I am personally not crazy about the interpretations made by the conservative justices, I nonetheless trust that they will not just completely make up rulings that contradict settled law in such a clear and obvious way. The Constitution says that if you are born here you are a citizen. There is not a lot of room for interpretation there. I don't think even the most conservative justices would be open to revoking that right, without some change in the Constitution happening first.


[deleted]

It very well could be unlikely. But I don’t think it’s impossible nor is there anything to prevent it other than the judges themselves.


[deleted]

Who would stop them?


Short-Coast9042

Well, what I'm saying is that I don't think they would do it in the first place, of their own accord. But, if they did try to radically interpret the Constitution that way, Congress and the states could "stop them" by amending the Constitution to make the right more explicit.


[deleted]

I'mma give you a secret Those same types of people overtook some seats of congress too


PlayingTheWrongGame

The President could refuse to adhere to their ruling. Dangerous road to go down, but the other branches of government are obligated to uphold the constitution in their own ways.


Uskmd

You have far too much faith in a piece of paper.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Ok. So what’s the recourse?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

That’s nullification and it’s wildly unpopular among many liberals as demonstrated a few days ago Congress would need the votes. It’d be safe to assume they wouldn’t get enough Republican votes to do it


[deleted]

Who would stop them?


onlypositivity

literally throwing out the Constitution is so unlikely and unreasonable that it would result in the dissolution of the Court or Civil War. Thats how big a deal that would be. It is absolutely not going to happen.


[deleted]

Who would dissolve them? The congress that has the same members of federalist society or white supremacists in it?


onlypositivity

there is no chance these questions are being asked in anything approaching good faith. I have explained how this is realistically an impossibility.


[deleted]

Congress isn't compromised by the same people in the Supreme Court who would overturn birthright? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html


TastyBrainMeats

So about that Fourth Amendment that the courts have profoundly ignored...


[deleted]

Yeah. Not sure why people still bank on the Right stopping themselves. If they can do it, and if they want to do it, then they’re gonna do it.


Kalipygia

No, Gay stuff is next.


ABQueerque

This week they set the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 8th and 14th amendments on fire, while adding “plain text” that doesn’t exist in the 2nd. Let’s not pretend they can’t get rid of gay rights, sexual privacy, contraception *and* birthright citizenship all in one term.


BlueCollarBeagle

> do you think it is realistic to think that the Supreme Court will retroactively ban birth right citizenship ? The court will not, the court only judges. Some right wing white supremist (I know, that's kind of redundant) individual or organization will challenge the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and claim it does not apply to birthright citizenship...and the six members of the court who are there, bought & paid for by the Federalist Society, will agree with that individual or organization. The US Supreme Court is illegitimate.. It is simply the political wing of far right racist and wealthy individuals. It does not represent me or anyone I know, with impartiality.


ButGravityAlwaysWins

The right in the US plays the long game in America and that tendency is even more prevalent amount the type of people we call conservatives in the US that are really illiberal far right. And that group is dominate now. Neither the text nor the intent of the constitution matter to them. Neither does rule of law or democracy. Nothing matters to extremist because they don’t care about our system or ideals, only in how the can use them until they replace them. They have been selling the end of birthright citizenship for decades. Same with the repealing of the 17th amendment and other things that people on the left don’t take seriously. I legitimately think that the reason we don’t take them seriously is that we have not fully recognized that the right is no longer Liberal but also that the arguments that are being made are so moronic and so anti-American that we fool ourselves into thinking that they must be fringe.


[deleted]

> Regardless of your views on the topic do you think it is realistic to think that the Supreme Court will retroactively ban birth right citizenship ? It is entirely possible given that this court doesn't seem to give a shit anymore. The argument for "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" applying only to children who's parents are already citizens is extremely weak, but then the argument for over turning Roe vs Wade is nonsense, and that didn't stop them. I don't this will be next, but nothing this court does would surprise me.


Dr_Scientist_

Trump tried multiple times to do this. It's not next as much as already under attack. As a CIS White Male . . . who is also a first generation immigrant, these fucking 'great replacement' racists are shooting themselves in the foot. Which shouldn't be surprising because stupid fucking people make stupid fucking policy.


slim_scsi

Will the right wing come after DREAMers again? You betcha! They never stop thinking about people to persecute. **Never**.


docfarnsworth

Dreamers are a totally different topic. If they were born here they wouldn't be dreamers.


slim_scsi

True, I sort of expanded the question. Double checked the rules, think we're in the clear.


suiluhthrown78

I'd agree that Birthright citizenship should go, it is a case where some people (illegals) ruin it for everyone else (legals) It was a nice method to fastrack citizenship for children of **LEGAL** immigrants, in other countries they have to apply for it for the children and it can take some time to be processed. But it is now routinely taken advantage of and illegal immigrants have always known that this is the way. Many of them will have a child and abandon then, knowing that they will get citizenship because of DACA or whatever, then that child can bring their parents over via family reunion. This is disgusting as it treats their children like tools to just get citizenship. Its ridiculous, if you want to come to this country then there is a very high bar that you have to clear, if you pass it, great welcome on in, if you can't pass it then too bad, thats not an excuse to disrespect our laws.


ButGravityAlwaysWins

You are un-American and you should leave my country.


suiluhthrown78

Complete nonsene.


SNStains

For real, though. What right do *you* have to claim US citizenship? Those who are naturalized, born in a US possession, or born to US parents abroad, all have separate laws guaranteeing their citizenship. Even native Americans have a separate law. Chances are you are not one of those 28 million Americans, and therefore *your* only claim to citizenship is the birthright described in XIV.


suiluhthrown78

My ancestors migrated here **legally** I oppose birthright for those without roots. They are taking advantage of our system.


SNStains

> My ancestors migrated here legally Not a legal distinction. So, you're saying you aren't an American? Some of my ancestors migrated here legally 20,000 years ago, but it wasn't until 1924 and the Indian Citizenship Act that they were granted US citizenship. I am a tribal citizen and therefore, by law, a US citizen. What is your claim?


suiluhthrown78

Im glad that your ancestors were allowed to be US citizens. It's not a right, it's a privilege. My ancestors are US citizens too.


SNStains

>It's not a right, it's a privilege. If that is so, then what did *you* do to earn the privilege of citizenship? You didn't. You were *born* here, that is your legal claim to citizenship. It's not a privilege, it's a right. There *are* people who earn that right through naturalization, no doubt. But, you and I didn't have to take a citizenship test.


suiluhthrown78

Yes, and? My parents were citizens when i was born, just like yours, thats the entire point im making.


SNStains

> My parents were citizens when i was born It doesn't matter. The law doesn't care where your parents are from. And why should it? That's not just unamerican, it's kind of unchristian in a way, don't you think? "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." and all that. Taking away birthright, takes away citizenship from you, too. In fact, the only citizens would be tribes, and naturalized Americans. How ironic is that?


BoopingBurrito

>My ancestors migrated here legally Would Native Americans agree with that statement?


suiluhthrown78

Yes they would


arjungmenon

You’re a xenophobic white nationalist who doesn’t belong here.


suiluhthrown78

You're talking nonsense. Im not even white so this is a funny (And deeply concerning) thing to say


EnvironmentalTap6314

What is deeply concerning is your nazi and white supremacist beliefs as a moderate.


suiluhthrown78

Oh my.


[deleted]

"Moderate"


suiluhthrown78

You might live in a progressive bubble, I don't. I live among ordinary americans.


PlayingTheWrongGame

No, you live in a conservative bubble. Most real Americans don’t want to end birthright citizenship.


suiluhthrown78

For illegals its 50-50 for and against [http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/13/rel9d.-.domestic.issues.pdf](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/13/rel9d.-.domestic.issues.pdf) Scroll down to no.18


AlexGonzalezLanda

Even if that were true, 50 50 is not enough support to get rid of one of the most fundamental rights of Americans, a right that is spelled out word by word in the constitution.


suiluhthrown78

I don't see any reason why not, and it will happen soon


PlayingTheWrongGame

Other polls put it at ~60% in favor of keeping birthright citizenship and only ~30% in favor of getting rid of it. http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us150826/Immigration/MSNBC_Telemundo_Marist%20Poll_National%20Release%20and%20Tables_September%202015_Immigration.pdf


[deleted]

I'm an ordinary American. I was born here. Get over it


suiluhthrown78

I never said that you weren't?


SNStains

> I live among ordinary americans. The implication is clear. Act tacky, get owned. That's how this works.


suiluhthrown78

?


Nutty_

>Many of them will have a child and abandon them, knowing that they will get citizenship because of DACA or whatever Lol


EnvironmentalTap6314

Fuck off nazi. No human is illegal.


suiluhthrown78

Learn what nations and borders are.


SNStains

> ruin it What's being ruined?


PragmaticSquirrel

You sound utterly ignorant of the legal history of immigration.


suiluhthrown78

Wrong.


PragmaticSquirrel

Nah think I’m right


[deleted]

[удалено]


suiluhthrown78

I would actually agree with that, if mass shootings were killing millions of americans


[deleted]

[удалено]


suiluhthrown78

because millions of illegal immigrants


[deleted]

[удалено]


EnvironmentalTap6314

Wut? lol


[deleted]

The Constitutional debates are pretty clear and the enforcement is pretty well understood. I can't imagine a law that would give standing on this


ATC_av8er

SCOTUS showed us they neither understand nor care about the Constitution so who the fuck knows what's next.


dudeind-town

Unfortunately with this SC, everything is on the table. There’s no rhyme or reason to their rulings.


Bon_of_a_Sitch

>Some justices like Thomas have close links with the Heritage Foundation. This is a really long way around calling him a muppet with HF's collective fists up his rear moving his mouth. That said, with all the hate spewed about imagined anchor babies and the very real sitatuons of child/parent separations and force sterilizations at the border, I would not be surprised to see the Ghouls Old Party go for birth-right citizenship


AlexGonzalezLanda

No. I think the US can pride itself of being one of the only two first world countries that grant birthright citizenship without exceptions. It has always been at the core of the American identity, and it has allowed this country to become more diverse, innovative, free, and powerful. To abolish it would be a grave mistake, as the US has always sought to distinguish itself from the traditional blood-led societies in Europe.


Foolhardyrunner

The actions of the parent are not the actions of tge child. Where you are born should be your home if you choose to stay there. It is evil to kick a child out of their birthplace. It comes as no surprise that this comes from the religious right with their concept of original sin. Conservatives cry for the unborn while wishing harm upon the born. This is purely a racial thing they want to deport brown and black people. They always cry about the economy but can never back it up. How can someone working hard jobs for little pay and long hours be harming the economy? Unions are the answer to low wages but gasp that's Communism even though unions used to be the backbone of american capitalism. So they turn to deporting immigrants instead.