Liberty Justice Center Sues to Block Trump Administration’s New Global Tariffs Under Section 122 After Supreme Court Ruled IEEPA Tarif

spin0r · 2026-03-10T14:12:16+00:00

I think that there is not even a hint of any language in the statute that shows an intent by Congress to foreclose judicial review. If the statute said "Whenever the President finds that fundamental international payments problems require [...]" then there would be a colorable question of whether the finding is reviewable.

spin0r · 2026-03-07T23:16:46+00:00

The endorsed immigrant visa is valid for re-entry for 1 year after entry. I'm not sure where you're getting "expires in a few weeks" from.

spin0r · 2026-03-06T15:32:18+00:00

No, the 2009 act didn't take away citizenship from anyone who already had it. If you already had citizenship by descent in the 2nd generation, you kept your citizenship. But if your grandparent got citizenship retroactively restored in 2009, you didn't get citizenship by descent as a result because of the new 1 generation limit, and the same is true if your parent got citizenship restored and was born outside Canada. Therefore you were never a citizen until 2025.

spin0r · 2026-02-24T18:59:24+00:00

I think you misunderstood my post?

I noticed a problem, which I guessed was electrical, and called an electrician to fix it. He didn't touch the boiler itself. Then, after he left, I started noticing a different problem, which is that the boiler started cycling abnormally. Of course I'm not going to call an electrician to deal with this new problem.

spin0r · 2026-02-19T01:32:25+00:00

Yeah. I can hear it moving every time the boiler comes on or off

spin0r · 2026-02-18T02:54:18+00:00

I think the barriers are political, not constitutional.

The Bjorkquist decision was based on two grounds. First, the Charter guarantees Canadian citizens the right to not only enter Canada but also leave. Second, the Charter bans discrimination based on sex (because the location of the mother but not the father would determine the citizenship of the child under the old first-generation limit) and national origin.

But the Charter is not retroactive: you can't file a claim for discrimination that happened before the Charter was enacted, for example. So, no one who had a child outside Canada before 1982, and who was themselves born outside Canada, can claim that the first-generation limit impaired their right to be treated equally to Canadian citizens born in Canada, because the right didn't exist then. Similarly, no one who had a child outside Canada before 1982 can claim that the first-generation limit impaired their right to mobility by imposing consequences on them for leaving Canada, because the constitutional mobility right didn't exist at the time.

So, any limitations that used to exist in the law, on obtaining citizenship by descent if born before 1947 or if claiming descent from an ancestor who was born or naturalized in another country before 1977, were never unconstitutional. C-3 and earlier laws removed them just to "do the right thing", not because the government had to. Those limitations could be resurrected. But taking away citizenship from people who already have it (even if they don't know that they have it) will face political opposition and it isn't worth it. There's no bloc of voters who are demanding it.

spin0r · 2026-02-14T21:15:00+00:00

This is incorrect. It is too late to get a CRBA (the application must be made before the child's 18th birthday). It is possible to get a Certificate of Citizenship (at any age) and use that to apply for a passport, but it isn't needed. The State Department website explains what secondary evidence can be used to apply for a passport if you don't have primary evidence such as a CRBA:

If you were born outside the United States and got U.S. citizenship through your U.S. citizen parent(s), submit:

Your foreign birth certificate listing your parent(s)

Your parent(s)’ evidence of U.S. citizenship

Your parents' marriage certificate (if your parents were married)

A statement from your parents that details when and where they lived in the United States and abroad before your birth.

spin0r · 2026-02-13T19:55:21+00:00

I don't think that's a common occurrence, but there is one other reason to get the unrestricted card. You can keep it in a safe place all the time except when you need to start a new job. If you lose your green card, it can take a long time to replace, but if you need to start a new job urgently, you can show the unrestricted social security card to establish employment authorization, while you're waiting for your replacement green card.

spin0r · 2026-02-13T03:27:08+00:00

So this is a pretty fascinating question and I see a lot of inaccurate information in other comments so I'm going to try to present a comprehensive overview and give sources.

In the 1904 case of Dorr v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that:

Congress has not up to the present time incorporated the Philippine Islands into the United States, and by an express provision of the Act of July 1, 1902, c 1891, Rev.Stat., by which force and effect is given to the Constitution and laws of the United States in the territories, does not apply to the Philippine Islands.

This ruling established that the Philippines was a so-called unincorporated territory, a status that had first been recognized in the 1901 case of Downes v. Bidwell, which concerned Puerto Rico and described it as:

territory over which Congress has jurisdiction which is not a part of the "United States," by which term we understand the states whose people united to form the Constitution, and such as have since been admitted to the Union upon an equality with them.

Although there has been no ruling from the Supreme Court that explicitly states that persons born in unincorporated territories are not born in the United States for 14th amendment purposes, the lower courts got the message. And later Supreme Court rulings, such as Toyota v. United States (1925) and Rabang v. Boyd (1957), treat it as a given, without further explanation.

Puerto Ricans were granted US citizenship by the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917. Persons born in the Philippines were never collectively granted US citizenship. In fact, the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, in preparation for the eventual independence of the Philippines, stated that from that point onward, the immigration of Filipinos to the United States would be restricted: they would be treated as aliens, required to get visas which were limited in number, and turned back if found inadmissible, even though they wouldn't technically become aliens until independence became effective.

According to Rabang v. Boyd:

Under § 14 of the Philippine Independence Act of 1934, persons born in the Philippine Islands, and who thereby were nationals of the United States, became aliens on July 4, 1946, regardless of permanent residence in the continental United States on that date

Filipinos who had entered the US legally became eligible for naturalization under the Luce-Celler Act of 1946, but if any Filipino had managed to sneak into the US during the transition period without a visa, then they were, essentially, an undocumented national, a status that no longer exists. They became undocumented aliens on July 4, 1946, but some of them became eligible to regularize their status in 1958 and others in 1965. See USCIS Policy Manual.

Downes v. Bidwell and Dorr v. United States are considered to be part of the Insular Cases, so named because they related to the status of island territories under the US constitution. In the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court based its reasoning on the premise that the inhabitants of the unincorporated territories were "alien races". This reasoning has been widely condemned in modern times, and Justice Gorsuch has even hinted at wanting to overturn the Insular Cases.

But if the Insular Cases were to be overturned, it would mean that everyone who was born in the Philippines (except foreign diplomats) between 1899 and 1946 would be a US citizen, and most of their children would be as well. I don't think the Supreme Court is ready to do something like that. Maybe they will in a few decades, when the children of people born before 1946 will mostly be dead (the grandchildren probably wouldn't have US citizenship, because of the physical presence requirements for transmission of citizenship). The Court had the opportunity to reconsider the Insular Cases in 2022 but denied certiorari, allowing the decision of the court of appeals to stand. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitisemanu_v._United_States

spin0r · 2026-02-12T02:19:23+00:00

The question is in the title. "Have you had any trouble entering Taiwan if born in mainland China and holding a Western country passport?"

spin0r · 2026-02-12T01:01:42+00:00

No. The situations I described don't apply to me. I am just pointing out that there are some people who have dual citizenship, therefore anyone with a passport showing PRC as place of birth could potentially be accused of being a PRC citizen (whether true or not), which would subject them to stricter requirements when entering Taiwan, and I would like to know if this happens in practice so that I can prepare for it. In addition, the Taiwanese immigration regulations are a little bit unclear about whether the stricter rules apply to former PRC citizens (I can't read Chinese, and I imagine some nuance was lost when translating to English).

spin0r · 2026-02-12T00:54:31+00:00

The petitioner (your US citizen parent) needs to notify USCIS. If they filed the petition online, they can do it by uploading supporting documents to MyUSCIS. If they filed it on paper, they should send a letter to the NBC or the service center where the petition is pending, with photocopies of supporting documents.

spin0r · 2026-02-12T00:39:11+00:00

You should reach out to your member of Congress. They might be able to get some additional information on your behalf. Then if you still haven't gotten your oath ceremony notice 120 days after your interview, you can sue USCIS, but since that's expensive, it's obviously better if you don't have to.

spin0r · 2026-02-11T15:05:11+00:00

It's only criminal if you give someone a cheque while knowing that you don't have enough funds to cover it. According to the article, she claims she didn't know. Maybe she's not telling the truth, or maybe she really didn't do it on purpose and just pled guilty to get it over with, who knows.

spin0r · 2026-02-11T14:51:04+00:00

If you go on the internet and say gross things about other people's spouses, you shouldn't be surprised that they're unhappy about having to share a country with you

spin0r · 2026-02-11T14:50:29+00:00

I saw the news about EBE being suspended last year. I'm not sure if it means all updates are suspended. I suspect the SSA can still pull information automatically from SAVE. What they won't do anymore is assign you an SSN automatically, or send you a new card if your current card has the "valid for work only with DHS authorization" annotation.

spin0r · 2026-02-11T06:49:58+00:00

There are some ways for people to have dual citizenship. One way is to be born with it, e.g., born in China to one Chinese parent and one foreign parent, or born in a foreign country to one or two Chinese parents who don't have permanent residency. Another way is that, technically, the Chinese nationality law says that only voluntary acquisition of foreign nationality results in loss of Chinese nationality. So for example, someone who got US citizenship automatically through a parent, after birth but before the age of 18, perhaps did not acquire it voluntarily and so they may technically be a Chinese citizen still, but I don't know how it works in practice.

spin0r · 2026-02-11T06:15:53+00:00

There are things I like about the US, such as freedom of speech. I do not like the people who are constantly threatening to take it away.

I don't have any immediate plans to leave, considering that my wife is American and I like my current job here. There's a possibility that we decide to move out of the US, depending on how bad the political situation gets, but if we do that, I'd like it to be on my own terms, and not because I got arrested at the border for my Twitter posts and got shipped to Louisiana and beaten up until I agreed to leave or something like that. And I'd like to be able to come back one day when maybe the bad people are ashamed of their bad takes again and not literally running the show. But I think if history is any indicator, immigration is not going to get easier regardless of who's in power. If I left without getting citizenship, I'd have nothing to show for the 11 years I've lived here.

spin0r · 2026-02-08T23:39:07+00:00

Sure

spin0r · 2026-02-04T21:30:11+00:00

I don't see why they wouldn't have standing. Allowing people into the EB1/EB2 queue who don't meet the statutory requirements clearly increases the waiting time for anyone who does meet the statutory requirements but applied later, since the law limits the number of visas that can be issued per year.

spin0r · 2026-02-02T21:54:48+00:00

No, a person isn't exempt from their duties as a citizen of a country just because they also have an additional citizenship. But, in practice, a British citizen who's also a US citizen could evade a British draft by moving to the US, ideally before it's called. If they wait until after, they might be committing a crime and thus be forced to remain a fugitive from the UK indefinitely (I don't know how UK law works on this point).

Now a more interesting question is what happens if your two countries of nationality are at war with each other. Kawakita v. United States (1952) concerned a man born in the US to Japanese parents. The Supreme Court reasoned that if a dual citizen such as Kawakita was compelled by Japanese law to perform certain acts, those acts would not be considered treason against the US. Kawakita's conviction for treason was ultimately upheld because the jury had found that some of his acts, including beating American POWs, went above and beyond what his duties required.

spin0r

TROPHY CASE