If you shift from being a living constitutionalist to a strict textualist based on the case in question, then what you really are is a machiavellian.
Who did that?
Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
511–520 of 681 posts
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#512Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are in the process of building a new country little by little. Eventually they will openly dismiss the US constitution. Things are really, really bad. We are pretty much in US‘s Weimar period. The fact all of that was predictable makes it just so frustrating to see it play out in real time
> hey are in the process of building a new country little by little. Eventually they will openly dismiss the US constitution. Things are really, really bad. We are pretty much in US‘s Weimar period. Why the scaremongering? What are "they" waiting for?
Durable control of elections, and maybe one or two more justices.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#513Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are in the process of building a new country little by little. Eventually they will openly dismiss the US constitution. Things are really, really bad. We are pretty much in US‘s Weimar period. The fact all of that was predictable makes it just so frustrating to see it play out in real time
> hey are in the process of building a new country little by little. Eventually they will openly dismiss the US constitution. Things are really, really bad. We are pretty much in US‘s Weimar period. Why the scaremongering? What are "they" waiting for?
Without saying I believe the statement above, boiling the frog is a legitimate tactic. Think of all the things considered normal now that would have been absurd before 2016.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Broken borders" is an oxymoron. Something we cannot tolerate. Borders, by their nature, are our definition as a nation and our protection as a country. Broken borders do not exist. We cannot tolerate them. Strong border control must be part and the first part of any comprehensive immigration reform. It's the obligation of our elected officials to keep the American people safe, and our borders are one of our early li…
> It's the obligation of our elected officials to keep the American people safe, and our borders are one of our early lines of defense to do that. Against an invading army, sure. Against the cartel and drug-running, ok, I can see some reasoning there, although I'm not sure we're ever going to win the War on Drugs. But with regards to immigration, I don't see a solid argument that we need strong border control in orde…
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#515Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "subject to the jurisdiction" "obviously" mean, keeping in mind that everyone agrees children of diplomats aren't citizens at birth, but U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats for some activities?
In general countries have jurisdiction over anyone inside their territory unless there is some exception. As far as I know the only exceptions at the time the 14th was drafted and ratified would have been people with diplomatic immunity or similar due to treaties and international agreements. Immediate families of diplomats living with the diplomat are included in diplomatic immunity, hence their children born here w…
The exception listed in Wong Kim Ark are: Indian tribes, children of diplomats, births on public foreign ships, and children of enemy occupiers. These were basically well-understood exceptions under common law and most were discussed during Congressional debate on the 14th.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#516Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Broken borders" is an oxymoron. Something we cannot tolerate. Borders, by their nature, are our definition as a nation and our protection as a country. Broken borders do not exist. We cannot tolerate them. Strong border control must be part and the first part of any comprehensive immigration reform. It's the obligation of our elected officials to keep the American people safe, and our borders are one of our early li…
> it's the obligation of our elected officials to keep the American people safe So if it's the main goal to keep people safe, we need to ban unhealthy foods and massively restrict the operation of automobiles. We need to massively increase regulations on air and water pollution. These things will do far more to save American lives than any number of foreigners we lock up in prisons.
[dead]
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#517Earlier quoted context omitted.
The slow pace of change is a feature , not a bug. It's fine to wait decades or centuries until we have broad consensus before making amendments. While this might seem maddeningly frustrating or unjust in the short term, in the long term it makes our republic more stable. The USA has had an uninterrupted system of government since 1789. How many other major countries can say the same?
> The slow pace of change is a feature, not a bug. To a point. It seems to have ground to a halt . > The USA has had an uninterrupted system of government since 1789. How many other major countries can say the same? Quite a few of them can say "we took those good ideas and built on them".
In what sense has it ground to a halt? Eight amendments have been ratified in the past 100 years. I think some people are taking a very short-term view here and lack a historical perspective.
Let's see how those other countries are doing 100 years from now.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#518Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine being 18 and suddenly discovering you have to prove the citizenship status of a parent you've never met or else you'll be deported to a country you've never been to and who's language you don't speak
Imagine a country extending citizenship to a whole group of people for no reason other than the location of their birth, and then allowing said people to access the benefits of citizenship, including the ability to receive welfare benefits, vote, and run for office.
I live in that country which happens to be the global hegemon.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#519Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine being 18 and suddenly discovering you have to prove the citizenship status of a parent you've never met or else you'll be deported to a country you've never been to and who's language you don't speak
i dont agree with the person you are responding to, but theres a difference between not being a citizen and being deported.
This sounds dangerously apartheidy.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#520Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that sufficient reason to overturn a constitutional amendment by executive order?
No, the EO is dogshit malpractice of executive power. And the amendment is effectively impossible to amend in this day and age. We are stuck with birthright citizenship. Realistically the only option we have that might work is shit-canning most welfare and incentives for non-productive immigrants to enter and make it pointless to pop out the kid unless you have a plan to make both them and yourselves productive membe…
The GOP would never do that because so much of their base milks the same entitlements. Might have to find a different solution.