Current Events > Trump vows to end birthright citizenship for children of unauthorized immigrants

(+) Yeah! (+)

brestugo posted...

Just did a quick google and found raids going back to 2013 in L.A. won't bother with the OC but it's kind of known it goes on a lot here.

There were reports in 2017 of Russians using properties in and around Miami, including those belonging to Trump, for this exact thing.

Kradek posted...

Roe v Wade declared a right to privacy, in this case medical privacy. That's why Thomas immediately said he wanted to challenge other cases based off that right to privacy, to end anti-sodomy laws, contraception, and I believe same-sex marriage as well.

And if you think that the Founding Fathers, the guys who made sure to make an amendment saying no forced quartering of soldiers, didn't intend for us to have a right to some sort of privacy just because they didn't literally put it in the Cons. then you are very open to fascism.

This court is legislating off of their Christian Nationalist beliefs, we see that in regards to Roe as well as siding with the football coach praying on the 50 yd line which has been used by TX to justify forcing every classroom to have a large-scale Ten Commandments so they can indoctrinate children.

And recently Thomas was the deciding vote revoking the protections on wetlands because Harlan Crowe's son wants to develop on it.

If you truly believe that this right-wing christo-fascist court actually cares about consistency or even the literal lettering of the law unless it suits them, then I dunno what to tell ya other than you likely agree with how they've been ruling.

We are so fucked if the right wing gets another supreme court justice up there or worse, expands the courts to exclude the ability for a liberal justice to ever get on

Calling it "an interpretation" of the constitution is insane. It's verbatim what the text says then clarifies.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Calling it "an interpretation" of the constitution is insane. It's verbatim what the text says then clarifies.

Originalists pretend they understand what the founders meant in some archaic section of the statute despite not having any historical expertise and being hugely predisposed to their version.

Thats how militias got redefined as any asshole who wants an assault rifle. And how well regulated got turned into a historical footnote while shall not be abridged got bolded and underlined.

famfam posted...

[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,

The supreme court could probably claim that anchor babies fall under this description

That's just the minimum standard. Congress can always decide to go wider, which is what happened with Puerto Rico in 1917.

Questionmarktarius posted...

That's just the minimum standard. Congress can always decide to go wider, which is what happened with Puerto Rico in 1917.

To clarify, I meant the SC could claim that the anchor babies are indeed subject to a foreign power.

This is outright racist and evil.

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

To clarify, I meant the SC could claim that the anchor babies are indeed subject to a foreign power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

That's all I got.

Expected/10.

This has always been what has distinguished his brand of right wing politics, the normalization of bigotry and offense.

He was a New York liberal and enemy of the right until in 2009 he switched sides (deliberately) to lead the birther movement.

He announced his 2015 candidacy with the promise to ban Muslims from many countries.

He paints Biden as in the pockets of the Chinese when in reality Biden is really really antagonistic towards them.

Trumps distinguishing characteristic is his pure ethnonationalism and racism.

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

The supreme court could probably claim that anchor babies fall under this description

That is indeed what most of the developed world does. If you're born in Germany but also have Romanian citizenship from your parents, you're a Romanian citizen rather than a German citizen. In the US you'd have both Romanian and US citizenship.

The only time they offer what we'd consider "birthright" citizenship is when someone is born in the country that for one reason or another cannot claim citizenship anywhere else (refugees who can't prove parentage or previous residence for example).

Sounds like Stephen Miller to me.

Questionmarktarius posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

That's all I got.

Yeah I know that's the precedent. Doesn't matter that much with the current SC though, as mentioned earlier with Roe v. Wade

They could probably make the case constitutionally here, given the language of the amendment. Hard to say.
It is a weird thing to reward the commission of a crime in any case