President Donald Trump’s administration asked the Supreme Court in a series of emergency appeals Thursday to allow him to move forward with plans to end birthright citizenship, elevating a fringe legal theory that several lower courts have resoundingly rejected.
The kind of people who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US include agents of a foreign government, such as diplomats… or invading soldiers.
That’s the problem here: He is trying to put “immigrants” in the same category as “enemy combatants”.
Ok, I get that… but we’re talking about people who were born here. How the fuck is he going to argue that babies are the foot soldiers of an invading force? Granted, I’ve met some unruly 2-year-olds… but I’m not worried about my ability to take them in a fight.
It’s about whether the parents are owed due process in the courts. Its about whether the people taking action against immigrants will be judges, prosecutors, and cops, or soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.
I am not confused about the intent. The intent is pretty clear. What I’m confused about is the legal argument. The reason I am confused is that he is trying to eliminate birthright citizenship; that means that the defendants are all of the people born in the United States to two non-citizen parents. Which also means that his legal argument is that the act of being born under these circumstances on US land means that you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which puts you into the role of diplomat or enemy combatant. So unless he’s trying to say that US-born babies of non-citizens are diplomats of their parents’ respective countries… the only possible interpretation is that they are foot soldiers of some invading army.
Which brings me back to the point of showcasing how utterly ridiculous that argument is, and why I am confident that any functional supreme court would laugh the case out of the building.
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.
This is the entirety of what he cares about:
subject to the jurisdiction thereof
That’s it. He doesn’t care about any other part of the 14th amendment. He doesn’t care whether the kids are citizens or not. Nothing about those kids is relevant at all. The ruling he wants is entirely on those five words.
Ruled in his favor, those five words give him everything he needs to start a shooting war on the southern border.
That means they are “subject of the jurisdiction thereof.” If they weren’t subject to the jurisdiction, that would mean they are not here illegally.
The kind of people who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US include agents of a foreign government, such as diplomats… or invading soldiers.
That’s the problem here: He is trying to put “immigrants” in the same category as “enemy combatants”.
Ok, I get that… but we’re talking about people who were born here. How the fuck is he going to argue that babies are the foot soldiers of an invading force? Granted, I’ve met some unruly 2-year-olds… but I’m not worried about my ability to take them in a fight.
Its not about the kids.
It’s about whether the parents are owed due process in the courts. Its about whether the people taking action against immigrants will be judges, prosecutors, and cops, or soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.
I am not confused about the intent. The intent is pretty clear. What I’m confused about is the legal argument. The reason I am confused is that he is trying to eliminate birthright citizenship; that means that the defendants are all of the people born in the United States to two non-citizen parents. Which also means that his legal argument is that the act of being born under these circumstances on US land means that you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which puts you into the role of diplomat or enemy combatant. So unless he’s trying to say that US-born babies of non-citizens are diplomats of their parents’ respective countries… the only possible interpretation is that they are foot soldiers of some invading army.
Which brings me back to the point of showcasing how utterly ridiculous that argument is, and why I am confident that any functional supreme court would laugh the case out of the building.
You’re not confused. You’re thinking too deep.
This is the birthright citizenship clause:
This is the entirety of what he cares about:
That’s it. He doesn’t care about any other part of the 14th amendment. He doesn’t care whether the kids are citizens or not. Nothing about those kids is relevant at all. The ruling he wants is entirely on those five words.
Ruled in his favor, those five words give him everything he needs to start a shooting war on the southern border.
He’s gonna argue that he’ll owe em one and probably issue them security detail forever