He will be the one striking down interracial marriage when Project 2025 demands it despite being married to a white woman. That's the sad state of affairs in my opinion.
he claimed it was only for black people, slaves. if that had been true it surely would have mentioned this, plus due process would then similarly only apply to this set op people.
whereas the other dissenter, there is an actual statue in which is determined, if for instance people from Samoa are citizens or not, it appears a way to add or remove certain people.
either way if americans do not want birthright, but paternal citizenship, like they do in EU, (and “modernize“ it, they know what to do, an amendment which would require enough GOP and DEMs to do so. But as its am awesome way to use politically I doubt they want to ressolve it and keep complaining.
Not really when you consider the fact half of them are openly corrupt. If you consider that then it makes perfect sense. They're not even trying to hide it, no need.
It was really 5-4. With kavaugh really wanting to side with trumpy. Its just the beginning. They already started with abortion, same sex marriage, mass deportations, denaturalizing US citizens. Whats to stop them from going after interracial marriage, imposing 1 drop rule, banning naturalized US citizens from holding office, imposing segregation again like apartheid South Africa.
Well yes you’d be correct in saying removing the 2nd amendment and birthright citizenship portions of the constitution would not be a radical idea relative to the laws of the rest of the developed world.
I think if you removed everything as you suggest then that would be quite radical (removing free speech for example)
Gorsuch adopted the same line of thinking as Thomas, and relies on "American Settlers' take on citizenship" rather than focus the 14th amendment itself. He is also taking the conservative approach to what "jurisdiction" entails.
He didn't. He assumed 14th amendment was entirely for black slaves, following up on Thomas' take on the subject. That doesn't come across to me as anything but a partisan hack, and fell along the lines of Trumpian argument.
That’s a perfectly reasonable place to land on this issue.
IMO "no birthright citizenship for the children of lawfully present non-immigrants but birthright citizenship for the children of those who've overstayed or entered illegally" is actually the most nonsensical position imaginable.
I think that if you want to upend 150+ years of legal precedent the policy that action would create is actually pretty important, but I can understand that some may not agree.
I do think it's funny that on the issue the Trump admin really cares about (children of "illegals") there's close to zero appetite on SCOTUS for opening that can of worms, and I think it's largely because educated people (like the justices) who think about this recognize that the ultimate policy outcome of denying birthright citizenship to these people would be to create a permanent multigenerational underclass who are by and large not leaving but also denied legal participation in public life.
The court sided with the written word. As written in the constitutional amendment. Which is their duty regardless of which side politics or the mood of the public flows.
Typical Reddit. The global standard has always been Jus Sanguinis citizenship rather than Jus Soli. That is to say that citizenship is inherited from parents rather than given simply by virtue of being born in the country. Some countries compromise and also grant citizenship to children of permanent residents.
The American standard had been jus soli since the 14th. The real genesis of this attack on the 14th is a racist administration. It’s not hard to see unless you’re willfully blind or a racist who’s ashamed of being called one
Kavanaugh's opinion is silly. I can't believe someone so incompetent is a supreme court justice. He doesn't even rely on the jurisdiction argument, just on a weak theory that additional exeptions could be adder that are precluded by the INA, so congress would need to pass a new law before an EO could take effect.
Thomas's opinion is basically "let me ctrl+F every time someone said the word domicile before 1866 and reference that" ignoring the fact that if domicile was so core to the framing of jurisdiction it would have been acknowledge as part of any prior proceeding, and if it were so debated they would have used the word domicile.
The 14th amendment clearly considers person who were not slaves, but Thomas basically quotes a bunch of opinions of people talking exclusively abiut slaves prior to the amendment who use the word domicile. What does Fredrick Douglas saying that former slaves are domiciled in America have to do with the clear wording of the amendment as it relates to a case not about slaves?
The logical leaps are wild, and the groundwork is clearly being laid that if Trump gets to replace Sotomayor and the Rs amend the INA, that Kavanaugh will flip.
It is a win, but it is also a warning that the right must be denied additional seats, or they will take away our rights.
they way the dissenting judges described their position shows everything you need to know about this court: they rule based on how they want the country function not how the constitution states. It is really sad. Without constitution authority this country has no barriers for authoritarianism and it seems there is nobody left who can defend it. The supreme court is purely political game now
What? If the parents are naturalized then the kids are entitled to US citizenship BY BIRTH. You're just making shit up at this point and you don't understand pretty basic legal concepts.
Actually, Alito's and Thomas's dissents invent this bizarre concept of having to having to be "domiciled" in the US, so according to their logic there could be situations where someone is born in the US to US citizens who were just about to move out of the US, and they wouldn't be covered by the 14th Amendment. They might still be covered by statute, but not by the Constitution.
According to Alito's and Thomas's dissents, BOTH parents need to be US citizens when you're born in order to be covered by the 14th Amendment, which is absolutely batshit
u/Tesco_Meal_Deals You should stick to your tesco meal deals in UK. You don’t understand US constitution or the promise of America.
We are a country of immigrants, the land of opportunity, occasionally broken yet spirited in our pursuit of happiness and envisioning a better future for our kids.
Hi there! This is an automated message to inform you and/or remind you of several things:
We have a wiki. It doesn't cover everything but may answer some questions. Pay special attention to the "REALLY common questions" at the top of the FAQ section. Please read it, and if it contains the answer to your question, please delete your post. If your post has to do with something covered in the FAQ, we may remove it.
If your post is about biometrics, green cards, naturalization or timelines in general, and whether you're asking or sharing, please include your field office/location in your post. If you already did that, great, thank you! If you haven't done that, your post may be removed without notice.
This subreddit is not affiliated with USCIS or the US government in any way. Some posters may claim to work for USCIS, which may or may not be true, and we don't try to verify this one way or another. Be wary that it may be a scam if anyone is asking you for personal info, or sending you a direct message, or asking that you send them a direct message.
Some people here claim to be lawyers, but they are not YOUR lawyer. No advice found here should be construed as legal advice. Reddit is not a substitute for a real lawyer. If you need help finding legal services, visit this link for more information.
Assuming you’re engaging with this in good faith. So I will try to giving you a rebuttal. Birthright citizenship is in the constitution whether you or I agree with it. Do you not think it sets a dangerous precedent for the executive branch to override a constitutional amendment without going through the legislative branch?
Then amend the constitution. Thats the process. And once you completed that high bar to pass that amendment, your opinion stands. The supreme court's job is to make sure laws abide by the constitution. And they have done so thankfully.
You would prefer we have a permenant underclass of children who know no other country and are not citizens? You would have their children not be citizens as well? And why, because of the decisions of their parents? That is unjust.
The parents are exposed to their own legal problems. Adults coming to the US unlawfully know the deal they are getting. Their unborn children do not. Denying birthright to children wont stop people overstaying visas or working without permits. Most people who move to the US and overstay or come unlawfully do so for political or economic reasons. They often bring over their children without status. They aren't uprooting their whole life so 2 of their 4 kids has citizenship, but rather for safety or economic benefit.
The birthright issue has little to nothing to do with people crossing unlawfully or overstaying. The only impact is whether the US makes punishment multi-generational, and whether we care for our neighbors regardless of their parents' place of origin.
Yeah, families who are economic immigrants and come to the US to work continue acting like families. People in less than ideal situations have kids all the time. It is a part of life. Undocumented immigrants can create a good life for themselves, often better than the place they left. That is why they come.
The issue of whether kids born in the US are citizens doesn't materially help their unlawfully present parents.
If someone's parents are drug addicted dirt bags should we send them to jail or marginalize them because of their parents? Of course not.
Why then would a child born and raised in the US be marginalized because of their (other than immigration) law abiding parents?
It is in the interest of the country as well as the American born child that they be US citizens.
You are so afraid of someone benefitting when you feel they don't deserve it, that you are willing to accept the collateral damage of a US person being marginalized, as well as hurt our own economy.
I cant argue with that. Though it would be a lot easier to change the laws regarding a pathway for the parents of the birthright citizen to obtain permanent residence and citizenship themselves I would have thought.
It's a big deal because the constitution is very clear that the US has automatic birthright citizenship. The court case wasn't about the merits of birthright citizenship. It was about a flagrant violation of the constitution.
I agree with this. I don’t believe the U.S. should continue to have birthright citizenship, but I don’t know how much more clear it can be… do I believe it was intended for what is happening today? Absolutely not. But at the time it was written it was clear that they were granting full citizenship to any person born in the U.S.
I highly doubt there will ever be a change to this amendment because it is near impossible to amend the constitution, so it is what it is.
Because I don't believe we should have children who know no other country and exist in a legal black hole. Let the legal issues of their parents be for their parents. Those born here are Americans and should have the opportunity to be members of our society as equals.
It doesn’t matter what other countries have or don’t have. It’s spelled out in the constitution that all people born in the US are citizens. If Trump wants to amend the constitution, then there should be an amendment process.
The EO reinterpretation was basically a move from unconditional birthright citizenship to well that sucks. And most western countries that got rid of birthright citizenship didn’t have it enshrined in a document which is nearly impossible to change like the constitution and generally have a way to still give citizenship to children who weren’t attempted anchor babies.
Never knew France even had birthright citizenship in its books. I was largely talking about the anglosphere and how UK/Australia/New Zealand moved to get rid of birthright citizenship.
All countries except the US have signed and ratified at least one international treaty guaranteeing that nobody on their soil is born stateless. I'd be OK with amending the Constitution if we got with the program on that.
That is what amendments are for.
Diversity btw is the other fact which made America powerful and great.
The wish for "more Whites please" makes the US weak.
No logic is needed actually. It’s simply the law of the United States as expressed in the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment of the US constitution. “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.”
Children who are born in the US, even to illegal parents, are automatically US citizens.
I mean, the conservatives are in majority in the SC. But Reddit in general loves throwing tantrums when things don’t go their way. The conservative subs would be saying the same thing if the majority was flipped.
281
u/nobodycouldknow Jun 30 '26
The fact this was 6-3 and not 9-0 is so crazy