[dead]
Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
601–610 of 681 posts
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#602Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are wrong. My ideas aren't "nativist", they are the mean feeling on this subject for 250 years in this country. It has taken a tremendous amount of effort to convince people that things like "borders", "state sovereignty", and "being discerning about who you let into the country" is bad, evil even. That's why you think you can throw around the word "nativist" as a pejorative. I don't like Ronald Reagan for many r…
There simply does not exist a substantial political movement of people whose families have been here for a dozen generations. It can't, because the vast majority of Americans do not satisfy this criterion. My own family is homegrown by any conceivable standard, but we've "only" been here for six generations, although perhaps we might go around telling people it's twelve if we didn't have the records. And again, I'd r…
I don’t understand your point. Is it that because Marco Rubio is Cuban I need to accept unlimited immigration, forever? This isn’t a position held by anyone in this administration, recent immigration history or not. My point is actually really narrow. The actual political movement with power and influence wishes to increase immigration to dilute the voice of the people already here, because the people already here do not vote in the way that the movement prefers and the immigrants do. Your condescending tone aside, I think it’s very easy to observe that my observation is correct because I can do things like “drive around my hometown” or “visit a major city” and the difference between today and, say, 1999 would make the conclusion obvious.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#603Earlier quoted context omitted.
> […] children of diplomats aren't citizens at birth, but U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats for some activities? AIUI, IANAL, US courts and law do not have jurisdiction over diplomats. When a diplomat the 'hosting' government agrees to immunity, so cannot be prosecuted. E.g.: > The collision caused diplomatic tension between British and US officials. [Anne] Sacoolas fled Britain soon after the incident, an…
Incorrect: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity U.S. courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain things, such as suits related to commercial activities.
What happens to a diplomat if they don't show up for the suit or comply with any judgment?
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#604Earlier quoted context omitted.
There simply does not exist a substantial political movement of people whose families have been here for a dozen generations. It can't, because the vast majority of Americans do not satisfy this criterion. My own family is homegrown by any conceivable standard, but we've "only" been here for six generations, although perhaps we might go around telling people it's twelve if we didn't have the records. And again, I'd r…
I don’t understand your point. Is it that because Marco Rubio is Cuban I need to accept unlimited immigration, forever? This isn’t a position held by anyone in this administration, recent immigration history or not. My point is actually really narrow. The actual political movement with power and influence wishes to increase immigration to dilute the voice of the people already here, because the people already here do…
Because Marco Rubio is Cuban, you have to accept that dichotomy between "unlimited immigration forever" and "voice of a dozen generations" is false. The people in charge who you think agree with you do not agree; they're manipulating you for political convenience, and it's convenient for them for you to believe absolute nonsense so that nobody can reason with you. Nostalgia is a powerful force, so nobody will be able to make your hometown feel like it’s 1999 again no matter what immigration policy they enact.
Another thing I'd encourage you to think about: why do you think that the party in control of the White House and Congress wants you to believe that "the actual political movement with power and influence" is their opponents? Normally one would say that controlling the government makes you powerful and influential. Perhaps they're just very humble and self-effacing, or perhaps they don't want you asking too many questions about why their power and influence hasn't achieved what they told you it would.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#605Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The United States is made up of… states. And territories, minor outlying islands, and a federal district. >No, it wasn't. Yes it was, the opinion of the court held that those born in American Samoa were born in the United States. : >“Plaintiffs, having been born in the United States, and owing allegiance to the United States, are citizens by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Waddoups add…
If I get to cite losing cases, I can win any argument of this nature.
You don't get it: the case winning/losing is irrelevant to the argument being made.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#606Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you being so rude? Please don't put words in my mouth, that is nothing like what I believe. My views are something like what the average American believed in 1910. Were they literally Hitler also?
America had a pretty decent sized fascist movement in the early 1900s.
America had a pretty decent sized communist movement in the early 1900s.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#607Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Surely we’re aware of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 yes? It spells out exactly what they are doing, & where they are going. Eliminating birthright citizenship is a key component dating back decades. https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/feudalism-c...
Thanks for posting that link. I read part of it and their reasoning strikes me as contortionist. Good then that after decades, as you point out, that argument has not won out.
I would love to actually debate this issue with someone who does believe birthright citizenship is not a thing.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#608Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#609Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incorrect: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity U.S. courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain things, such as suits related to commercial activities.
Is the child of a diplomat a US citizen if they are born during a diplomat’s commercial activities?
No. Even the arguments at the time the amendment was passed discuss diplomats and their family being exempt, as well as all the instances since.
Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
#610Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but jurisdiction can be summarized as whoever is subject to the law and the rule of the courts.
Everyone on U.S. soil is subject to the law and rule of the courts to some extent, including diplomats. Diplomats are immune to prosecution for crimes, but that's different than being outside the jurisdiction of U.S. laws. For example, in 2013 several Russian diplomats were indicted for Medicaid fraud: https://abcnews.com/US/russian-diplomats-scammed-medicaid-15... . They had diplomatic immunity, so the U.S. had to g…
> Everyone on U.S. soil is subject to the law and rule of the courts to some extent, including diplomats.
> They had diplomatic immunity, so the U.S. had to get the Russian government to waive the diplomatic immunity.
Your example literally spells out that THE ONLY WAY they would be subject to the law and rule of the courts is if their immunity was removed.
Their immunity was total.