Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can’t see any future Supreme Court retroactively stripping millions of native-borns of citizenship, and without that retroactive feature being included in a court ruling, any chance of significantly altering the “browning of America” becomes moot.
No. Some state might try and if they continue to appeal the US Supreme Court is likely to refuse the case and the initial federal court's ruling throwing out the state's law would stand. Unless they wanted a 9 to 0 decision upholding the lower federal court's decision to send an unmistakable message
Personally, I don't believe a baby should be granted US citizenship when the mother, either legally or illegally, enters the US 8.5 months pregnant and then has a baby.
I believe US citizenship should be granted if one of the parents are US citizens. Otherwise, get in the back of the line.
Never understood why geography mattered when assigning citizenship at birth.
I can't see it being done retroactively, but I can definitely see them upholding the actual text of the 14th amendment "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." for everyone moving forward.
Most of us opposed to the wrong interpretation of the 14th amendment don't care anything about race, just the law. If "brown people" want to come here legally, and have kids who are American citizens, I'm 100% fine with that.
I can't see it being done retroactively, but I can definitely see them upholding the actual text of the 14th amendment "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." for everyone moving forward.
Foreigners in the US aren't subject to US jurisdiction? Why didn't anyone tell me? No speed limits, no tax and I can tear up parking tickets? Woo-hoo!
Why would we want to continue the browning of America via illegal immigration and that's mostly the way it is occurring. That's neither natural nor lawful.
I am completely opposed to birthright citizenship, as it is nothing but a magnet for people with no attachment or loyalty to this country to come in and drop a baby on our soil, and thus stake a claim to our benefits. However, I am also completely opposed to laws being applied retroactively, as this is totally unfair to people who complied with the law as it was written at the time of their acting on it.
I would like to see the Supreme Court overturn birthright citizenship, now, today, immediately. But the ones who already have it, they get to keep it.
" 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." Thus it cannot be divested unless it was obtained through fraud or an unlawful action. The baby did not commit fraud. Right now it would be a stretch to say the baby's citizenship was an act of fraud, but stranger things have happened.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
