ragebot

25.5K posts

ragebot banner
ragebot

ragebot

@RageBot_

Flying blind on a rocket cycle.

Beigetreten Mart 2011
123 Folgt521 Follower
ragebot
ragebot@RageBot_·
While Wong Kim Ark tried to limit Elk v. Wilkins to native Americans, it cannot escape two things the direct interpretation of “subject thereto” as it relates to all foreigners - including that the phrase does not mean subject to just a few laws. Frankly, SCOTUS would have to overrule that portion of the opinion. Under the ACLU’s position, if a noncitizen gives birth to a baby while flying in a plane over US airspace, that baby would be a US citizen because the parent and baby would be subject to US aviation laws at the time. It’s ridiculous.
English
0
0
0
24
ragebot
ragebot@RageBot_·
I also think Elk v. Wilkins has some powerful language: The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306. This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
English
1
1
1
35
Daniel Horowitz
Daniel Horowitz@RMConservative·
Thread on the most powerful argument the admin is not making to show how Wong cannot apply to illegals based on years of precedent that those here illegally are literally considered as if they are outside our boundaries. Red state AGs, led by Iowa, made this case in the amicus brief, but it needed to be the central argument.
Daniel Horowitz@RMConservative

Justice Horace Gray was the author of Wong. Justice Gray’s opinions in Nishimura Ekiu v. U.S. (1892) and Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. (1893) make it evident that when he ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that children born to legally “domiciled” immigrants qualify as citizens, he would have staunchly opposed granting the same right to illegal immigrants. Here, I want to focus on a specific point: People in the country without legal status — and in clear violation of multiple laws — are not legally considered within U.S. jurisdiction, even in a semi-literal sense. Even if the 14th Amendment’s directive granting citizenship to those born in the U.S. were not qualified by the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it would still exclude those here in violation of our immigration laws. Legally, it is as if such individuals are not physically present in the country.

English
6
35
89
4.8K
ragebot retweetet
Daniel Horowitz
Daniel Horowitz@RMConservative·
Justice Horace Gray was the author of Wong. Justice Gray’s opinions in Nishimura Ekiu v. U.S. (1892) and Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. (1893) make it evident that when he ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that children born to legally “domiciled” immigrants qualify as citizens, he would have staunchly opposed granting the same right to illegal immigrants. Here, I want to focus on a specific point: People in the country without legal status — and in clear violation of multiple laws — are not legally considered within U.S. jurisdiction, even in a semi-literal sense. Even if the 14th Amendment’s directive granting citizenship to those born in the U.S. were not qualified by the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it would still exclude those here in violation of our immigration laws. Legally, it is as if such individuals are not physically present in the country.
English
18
112
276
12.9K
ragebot
ragebot@RageBot_·
@ChazLuz95 @ryanswalters73 You understand that this is about the interpretation of the law, right? You understand that Congress cannot change the text of this law aside from adopting a new constitutional amendment, right?
English
1
0
0
23
CB
CB@ChazLuz95·
@RageBot_ @ryanswalters73 Not sure why you think there's value in creating ridiculous hypotheticals as if that someone strengthens your point. We need to change the law, we don't need scotus to legislate from the bench. Got it?
English
1
0
0
21
Ryan S. Walters
Ryan S. Walters@ryanswalters73·
Most people have no clue what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. They read the 14th Amendment as if it’s not there. But if birthright citizenship was the intended policy, then that phrase would have been left out. But it was included to clarify who would have citizenship upon birth. Not everyone who is on American soil. Two working brain cells would be enough to understand 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.”
English
74
63
272
6.3K
ragebot
ragebot@RageBot_·
@ClayTravis Under the ACLU’s position, if a noncitizen gives birth to a baby while flying in a plane over US airspace, that baby would be a US citizen because the parent and baby would be subject to US aviation laws at the time. It’s ridiculous.
English
0
0
1
60
Clay Travis
Clay Travis@ClayTravis·
Birthright citizenship BY SOIL only exists in North America — and almost nowhere else in the world — because colonial powers wanted to ensure the children and grandchildren of colonial settlers would remain citizens of the colonial power — England, Spain, Portugal, France et al.
Birmingham Born@MDJD2

@ClayTravis Birthright citizenship dates back to 1608 in British Common law. The US had no problem becoming the greatest country on earth with birthright citizenship. If it is bad then why didn't Reagan, HW, Clinton, W, Obama, Biden, FDR, Nixon or any predecessor of Trump not try to end it?

English
50
83
794
125.7K
ragebot
ragebot@RageBot_·
@willchamberlain Under the ACLU’s position, if a noncitizen gives birth to a baby while flying in a plane over US airspace, that baby would be a US citizen because the parent and baby would be subject to US aviation laws at the time. It’s ridiculous.
English
1
0
5
136
Will Chamberlain
Will Chamberlain@willchamberlain·
American Indians don't have birthright citizenship. The children of diplomats don't have birthright citizenship. Both have a duty to obey American law. So "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" must mean something different.
English
169
330
2.9K
214.2K
ragebot
ragebot@RageBot_·
@ryanswalters73 @ChazLuz95 According to vibe lawyer looney logic, if a noncitizen gives birth to a baby while flying in a plane over US airspace, that baby would be a US citizen because the parent and baby were subject to US aviation laws at the time. It’s ridiculous.
English
1
0
0
37
Ryan S. Walters
Ryan S. Walters@ryanswalters73·
@ChazLuz95 Go read the solicitor general’s arguments today. He explained it perfectly.
English
5
0
6
327
James Surowiecki
James Surowiecki@JamesSurowiecki·
@HansMahncke Children born in the US reside in the U.S. at the time of their birth, regardless of who their parents are (unless they're diplomats).
English
13
5
59
3.3K
Hans Mahncke
Hans Mahncke@HansMahncke·
“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.” Most of the 14th amendment debate fixates on “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” on the assumption that it must be doing meaningful work, and that is true. But the more you read the sentence, the more it becomes obvious that the real key word is “reside.” The way it’s placed almost makes it look like an afterthought, which is probably why it hasn’t received much attention. But when examined closely, any honest reader would firmly conclude that birthright citizenship is meant for residents, not illegal aliens or tourists.
English
120
125
583
34.3K
ragebot
ragebot@RageBot_·
@adamscochran @foadoffoadhall But your reading renders the phrase meaningless, which is a big red flag indicating your interpretation is wrong. Simply by being in the US when born, the baby would have to be subject to some level of US jurisdiction.
English
0
0
1
16
Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth)
Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth)@adamscochran·
@foadoffoadhall Being subject to your jurisdiction does not require you be subject to all nuanced components of the law. An 80 year old retiree with no income isn't subject to tax laws or select service either. If we wanted such abstract clauses, we'd have written the law that way.
English
3
0
6
276
Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth)
Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth)@adamscochran·
If we can apply our laws to you (such as arrest and detain you), you are subject to our jurisdiction. The carve out is written this way, because children of diplomats do not get birthright citizenship as diplomats are *not* subject to our jurisdiction while being in the US. A non-US citizen who is visiting, legally or illegally, is still subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States whilst in this country.
Jack Posobiec@JackPosobiec

"Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" means those who have primary allegiance to the United States and not a foreign power The 14th Amendment does not apply to foreign citizens on US soil and never did

English
70
30
166
89.6K
ragebot
ragebot@RageBot_·
Question for @RandyEBarnett: Under the ACLU’s position, if a noncitizen gives birth to a baby while flying in a plane over US airspace, would that baby be a US citizen? The parent and baby certainly would be subject to US aviation laws at the time. I ask because it’s ridiculous.
English
0
0
0
50
ragebot
ragebot@RageBot_·
1. This is an incorrect reading and understanding. Read Elk v. Wilkins for the meaning. Even a Native American born off the reservation was not a citizen. And while some cite to Wong Kim Ark, the parents were legal residents. At the time of the 14th Amendment, there was no concept of an illegal immigrant - the US had open borders. 2. Subject to the jurisdiction of USA = not subject to foreign jurisdiction of another nation. 3. 14A does not say “at the time of birth” - you added that. Even Wong Kim Ark examined if there was a subsequent indicators of non citizenship. 4. Being here legally is a key component to birthright citizenship. 5. A person is subject to complying with US an aviation laws while flying over US airspace. Are you claiming a baby born in a plane while over US airspace is a US citizen?
English
0
0
0
35
Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth)
Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth)@adamscochran·
The constitution does not say they are not subject to that nation nor does it say they must only be subject to one nation. It simply says they must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US at the time of birth. Here's an easy test for that: - Does the US have the authority to arrest and detain said person? Yes. Because they are in America and subject to its jurisdiction and laws. If they are here, and subject to our jurisdiction at the time of birth - that's it, that's all the 14th amendment requires. It does not require they be devoid of any other jurisdictions or capacities.
Geiger Capital@Geiger_Capital

Justice Alito once again nails it… If a Chinese or Iranian person enters our country illegally and has a child here, their child is automatically a citizen of that foreign nation, and is even required to fight for that nation. How are they not "subject to" a foreign nation?

English
86
52
489
63.4K
ragebot
ragebot@RageBot_·
@SeanTrende You might want to read Elk v. Wilkins before popping off.
English
0
0
0
73
Sean T at RCP
Sean T at RCP@SeanTrende·
I still think it’s hilarious that with the birthright citizenship MAGA has become living constitutionalists (this is a problem they didn’t consider in 1868!) and lefties have become plain meaning/originalist types.
English
277
117
1.1K
350.6K
ragebot
ragebot@RageBot_·
@IlyaSomin I completely disagree with this take. There is a distinct difference between the two.
English
1
0
1
593
Ilya Somin
Ilya Somin@IlyaSomin·
As we prepare for Supreme Court oral argument in birthright citizenship case, it's important to remember every argument for denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented migrants also requires denial for many freed slaves, thus undermining main purpose of Citizenship Clause. See my @lawfare article: lawfaremedia.org/article/slaver…
English
257
69
283
83.2K
Matt Britton⁷⁶ #GoHabsGo 45-21-10
Matt Britton⁷⁶ #GoHabsGo 45-21-10@GrizzlyHabsFan·
@HadleySheley @atrupar @brettachapman Native Americans were granted US citizenship on June 2, 1924, through the Indian Citizenship Act ( the Snyder Act) granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. who had not yet obtained it, without requiring them to give up their tribal rights or sovereignty
English
1
0
0
53
Aaron Rupar
Aaron Rupar@atrupar·
GORSUCH: Do you think Native Americans are birthright citizens under your test? SAUER: Ah, I think ... so. I have to think that through.
English
1.5K
4.5K
25.5K
7M
Alan
Alan@alan__s66·
@EndWokeness She’s right. The country you are in, even if visiting, the law applies to everyone. You are under their jurisdiction
English
313
14
619
44.6K
End Wokeness
End Wokeness@EndWokeness·
Justice KBJ: "If I steal a wallet in Japan, I am subject to Japanese laws….. in a sense, it's allegiance." Her case for birthright citizenship:
English
5.8K
2.8K
23.9K
7.6M
ragebot retweetet
Jeff Clark
Jeff Clark@JeffClarkUS·
+1 And Kathryn’s tweet shows she didn’t even do basic media due diligence. She just took some leftist type, maybe a law professor, grumbling against Trump as if she’d received a direct channel of Simon’s wisdom on the separation of powers and then reported it to her followers. If she’d talked to a single Republican Supreme Court practitioner, she’d have quickly realized her “hot take” was sub-zero. Was at start of Kelvin level.
Jeff Clark@JeffClarkUS

Correct, Harmeet @AAGDhillon. And Kathryn would know this simple fact if she had even done something as simple as take the Supreme Court tour given by the Court’s personnel where you get to stand inside the argument chamber and are told about the features of the courtroom, including the famous lawgivers’ friezes. You’re told where the President would sit if he opted to attend/see the argument of a case, just like you’re told … wait for it … where the press/media Kathryn is ostensibly a member of sits off to the right (from the perspective of the Justices) during arguments. There are no separation of powers concerns. That’s a phantom issue.

English
3
75
240
6.1K
ragebot
ragebot@RageBot_·
@jadler1969 POTUS can implement via EO as long as it tracks congressional and constitutional language. Agree that this is Roberts’ avenue for ruling without actually ruling. But will the others follow? And what about Elk v. Wilkins?
English
0
0
0
287
ragebot retweetet
Eric W.
Eric W.@EWess92·
Professor @RandyEBarnett , one of the most influential Originalists of all time, has written an article in the @WSJ explaining that President Trump is right on Birthright Citizenship. He is one of the leading libertarian law professors. Originalists agree on this issue.
Eric W. tweet media
English
51
812
2.6K
138.2K

Entdecken

@ChazLuz95 @ryanswalters73 @ClayTravis @willchamberlain @JamesSurowiecki @HansMahncke @adamscochran @foadoffoadhall