politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Sadly SCOTUS has some wiggle room here. They get to interpret what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. If a majority view that the parents having no legal standing to be on US soil and that somehow means they aren't considered to meet that criteria... Well there they go
I do think the portion targeting people with Visas and such couldn't even possibly stand.
If they’re not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then they can’t arrest them. That language is clearly meant to exclude diplomats.
It excludes far more than diplomats, and that's what makes this approach so dangerous.
In a "Red Dawn" situation, local police certainly can arrest members of the invading army. "Enemy Combatants" are not subject to the laws of the United States. Enemy combatants cannot be charged with crimes under US law simply for engaging in hostilities. They can be held indefinitely as POWs. They don't have to involve the judicial system to "repatriate" them to their country of origin, rather than deporting them.
Invading enemy soldiers are not born in the United States. That’s the other important part of the sentence. I don’t think the major issue is pregnant invading soldiers. To be clear, what I meant is that if you have embassy staff with diplomatic immunity and they have kids while in the US, those children do not get birthright citizenship, because as children of diplomats, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
That's because you're using a logical, rational definition of "soldier". Texas isn't, and neither is Trump.
They are treating immigration as an actual invasion. They are saying that "soldiers" are coming in to the US and having kids.
They haven't been quiet about what they are doing, but so far, we have been treating it as hyperbole. It isn't hyperbole. They are acting on it.
They think lots of stupid illogical things. But here in the real world, immigrants are not soldiers, and they’re not ever treated as soldiers by the legal system, so they are, in fact under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Yet another case of Shroedinger’s immigrants. They are simultaneously fleeing their “s***hole” home country for purely economic reasons (not political oppression) while being so loyal to their home country that they will spend their entire lives raising children in a country they are invading.
Note that there were SCOTUS justices that already did this in US v. Wong Kim Ark:
The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".
While the majority at that time did not hold it, we know this SCOTUS has no particular regard for precedence.
That would hold either, because it would mean that ANY visitor, legal or not, is not subject to any federal laws at all. Not just constitutional...ANY. If that's their aim, then free for all on Trump and his team.
Expecting them to be consistent in messaging from one subject to the next is an exercise in futility. They don't even maintain consistency within the same subjects.
They don't care about the rules or laws or Constitution one bit beyond how they can use it as a club to beat anyone that opposes them.
In 1898, some Justices argued that it excluded people that had citizenship to another jurisdiction.. So it has happened, and this SCOTUS doesn't mind overturning precedent one bit.
Never heard of this one. Link?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
The dissent is the part to look at for what I fear the SCOTUS of today will latch onto.
And reading the subsequent interpretations and judgements, it continuously applies the broader language of the 14th as it is intended. SCROTUS is going to have to argue that any and all previous case law related to any of these is wrong, and that's going to open up a can of worms for any other judgements that resulted. That's like saying that a law goes into effect that retroactively ignores all other previous laws related, and everything since this particular case is wrong, and they all need to be revisited. Not gonna happen.
I mean, they discarded decades of settled law over abortion, they certainly have it in them...
Yes. Do you really think a court that has does this in the past will not do it again?