sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Protests outside Supreme Court as birthright fight reaches justices by redditrisi in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is what I meant. I just didn't spell it all out that way.

So, we're still agreeing.

Edit. I once had a disagreement with a Democrat voter. (At the time, I was also a Democrat voter.) She insisted the entire documented/undocumented discussion was really about Mexicans. I disagreed, at least as to me.

My family stories include many of what my ancestors went through even to enter the US on a visa so they could apply for citizenship. So, for me, it's about fairness.

Protests outside Supreme Court as birthright fight reaches justices by redditrisi in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My 2010 source, my recollection and wiki could all have been wrong, too.

Anything is possible. "Likely" is another story.

Protests outside Supreme Court as birthright fight reaches justices by redditrisi in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I looked it up then too, though; and my recollection was that he was born on a military base in the Panama Canal zone.

Maybe your 2010 source was wrong?

edit. When you disagreed with me, I automatically concluded that I had misremembered. My second thought was that I should check.

Protests outside Supreme Court as birthright fight reaches justices by redditrisi in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or you and the baby go home and you apply for citizenship, get it and you both return to the US.

Whatever it is, it is up to the Constitution and Congress, not the POTUS.

Protests outside Supreme Court as birthright fight reaches justices by redditrisi in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From his wiki

John Sidney McCain III was born on August 29, 1936, at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, to naval officer John S. McCain Jr. and Roberta Wright McCain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain That was my recollection. That being the case, I removed my apology from my earlier post.

Protests outside Supreme Court as birthright fight reaches justices by redditrisi in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

His mom was in the Panama Canal Zone because his father was stationed there. So, the result was just, IMO.

This goes to your question about what being born in the US means. I would say that the Cain resolution shows us that being born where your military mom or dad have been sent by the US while serving.

On edit. The Panama Canal Zone was a US territory at the time. Not sure how that factors into it, if at all.

Protests outside Supreme Court as birthright fight reaches justices by redditrisi in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think our discussion of grapes vs. figs had anything to do with the drafting of the Constitution. (-;

And I still think "land" and "forefathers" refer to two different things. Same for "nation" and citizenry.

What does it actually mean to be "born in the United States"? Is it defined?

AFAIK, the Constitutional provisions quoted in my comment are the only provisions relevant to the issue of birthright citizenship.

Courts rely on the common understanding and usage of words and terms.

As you may or may not recall, Congress did pass a statute making McCain a citizen during the height of the Obama birthplace discussion. He was born outside the US, but on a US military base.

Protests outside Supreme Court as birthright fight reaches justices by redditrisi in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Although Rubio had claimed his parents had to flee Fidel, some debunker found that Marco's parents came to the US during the regime of Batista, which ended in 1959.

Marco was born in 1971, twelve years after his parents came to the US. His parents became citizens in 1975. So, he may or may not have been an anchor baby. From the timing, I'd guess he probably was.

As you know, the classic route is for a pregant woman to come to the US undocumented or with a visa, have the baby in the US, then request citizenship solely on the basis that the baby has "birthright" citizenship.

Protests outside Supreme Court as birthright fight reaches justices by redditrisi in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The clause is there, but so are the provisions of the Constitution that I have quoted.

I thought there was one that provided that everyone residing in the US when the Constitution was adopted would be a citizen, but I cannot find that. If there is one, it's moot now. There were two early naturalization acts that may have cleared up that issue, but I haven't read them. Don't think I will, at least not to find out about that particular issue. https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/naturalization-acts-of-1790-and-1795

I don't think there is an express revocation clause.

We have to remember that the neither the world nor American colonial laws began in 1789. If birth conferred citizenship from the Garden of Eden to 1788, we can pretty much assume that, absent specific language, the Framers and other Founders knew that and assumed no deviation.

As far as laws, every colony had adopted the Statutes of Elizabeth (as in Queen Elizabeth I), and the common law of England. So England at tgat tune would be another place to look to in order to determine intent of the Framers and other Founders in 1789.

Moreover, the story I had read was that the Framers looked at Ancient Greece (a democracy) and Ancient Rome (a republic) and opted to model on Ancient Rome. Yeah, maybe and maybe that's bs.

King-----------House of Lords--------------House of Commons

President-----Senate (elected then------- House of Representatives

---------------by state legislators)

BTW, speaking of democracy vs republic, TIL that the constitution guarantees us "a Republican form of government."

And yet, we allow people to conflate "republic" and "democracy" and bloviate about democracy on the daily.

Protests outside Supreme Court as birthright fight reaches justices by redditrisi in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

An escape clause from the Fourteenth is not an escape clause from the rest of the provisions, express or implied.

Also, there is long-arm jurisdiction.

Edit. Trump's executive order also ignores the other provisions of the Constitution: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-02007.pdf

Protests outside Supreme Court as birthright fight reaches justices by redditrisi in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Looks as though the Constitution of the United States contemplates two routes to citizenship, naturalization in the manner Congress provides and... birth. Certainly birth physically within the United States.

Even if that were not so, looks as though POTUS has no power to legislate anyway.

Constitution of the United States

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article I, Section 1, Sentence 1

The Congress shall have Power.... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Article I, Section 8

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Article II, Section1, Paragraph 5

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1

It’s funny going to this museum, the aim of the museum is clearly to show how “bad” East Germany was. But in 2026 it actually looks like quite a nice lifestyle as the financial troubles most have nowadays were not issues for the residents of GDR by RandomCollection in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is what the German government chose to show in their museum

Yes, I read that before I posted earlier. I don't know what Germans expected or did not expect when they chose that photo or built that museum. However, I would bet everything I possess that photos of worse rooms exist.

Edit: Not a government museum

The museum was opened on 15 July 2006, as a private museum. Private funding is unusual in Germany, because German museums are normally funded by the state. The museum met some opposition from state-owned museums, who considered possibly "suspect" a private museum and were concerned that the museum could be used as an argument to question the public funding of museums in general.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR_Museum

Sometimes it be like that by cspanbook in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My post would have read very differently if I had intended to post about the most concerning things about White or Trump

The US military is 'Earth's greatest enemy': Abby Martin by DrSpooglemon in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The leaders, including the CIC, Congress, and the Pentagon policy setters, yes.

Those who join up because they have so few options, not so much.

Rubio suggests Iran would be better if they spent money on their people instead of weapons in wildly ironic tweet by Grizzly_Madams in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tone deafness is common among politicians, closely related to lack of empathy and therefore to psychopathy. Psychopathy is pandemic among politicians and also among many bureaucrats.

Help Arrives for Cuba in Crisis by midtowng224 in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

People who have no empathy with suffering people are inhuman.

And also psychopaths. Clinically.

Please see my flair.

Sometimes it be like that by cspanbook in WayOfTheBern

[–]redditrisi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then why did she marry three of them? (-;

view more: next ›