That's an interesting argument. I think you might need a comma, in between State and "where in they reside" to help that argument, but I'd make it. You'd also have to do some research on what "reside" meant in 1868.I’d also use the phrase “wherein they reside,” and argue that is an expressed residency requirement for the states as a very strong implied residency requirement for the U.S.
Why are you in trouble? Are you an illegal?
Don't worry, once we set the precedent that there is no settled law, everything is up to the whim of a president, you will love President AOC. Personally I don't want her as President, but seeing your enthusiasm for her is nearly enough to change my mind. Not quite though.
It’s not just her, it’s the Democrats in general. Their immigration policy is the biggest danger to our way of life. More than Trump, more than the economy, or anything else you can name. Your disdain for the Supreme Court doesn’t mean they’re at the whim of the POTUS, you just don’t like their makeup & decisions.
I think it'll be up in the air. I wouldn't be comfortable if I was one of those people even if Trump says he's not coming after you. What happens when polling numbers dip under a future admin and they see kicking more out (Somalians, e.g.) as a way to win elections or maintain power?@bradstevens ok lawyer, as I understand it, one consideration is how big of a mess does overturning precedent set. So if the court overturns it, what happens to the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, who thought they were citizens but suddenly aren't? Some for decades. How about their children?
As a simply policy matter, I think it's insane that we allow the illegal immigration we do and that a child born here to parents not here legally should not be an automatic citizen. But the Constitution says what it says and there are a lot of reliance interests built on the current interpretation. So push for an amendment.
@bradstevens I suspect even I would support an amendment, but I would want to hear out both sides.
I think it'll be up in the air. I wouldn't be comfortable if I was one of those people even if Trump says he's not coming after you. What happens when polling numbers dip under a future admin and they see kicking more out (Somalians, e.g.) as a way to win elections or maintain power?
As a simply policy matter, I think it's insane that we allow the illegal immigration we do and that a child born here to parents not here legally should not be an automatic citizen. But the Constitution says what it says and there are a lot of reliance interests built on the current interpretation. So push for an amendment.
I concur. I've never liked birthright citizenship, but I also don't think the President can change it by Executive Order and until recently I didn't think there was a chance that the SCOTUS would approve that. It's a closer call than it was based on recent decisions, but I still think the SCOTUS won't approve this. I'd be all onboard an amendment push.
I think it'll be up in the air. I wouldn't be comfortable if I was one of those people even if Trump says he's not coming after you. What happens when polling numbers dip under a future admin and they see kicking more out (Somalians, e.g.) as a way to win elections or maintain power?
As a simply policy matter, I think it's insane that we allow the illegal immigration we do and that a child born here to parents not here legally should not be an automatic citizen. But the Constitution says what it says and there are a lot of reliance interests built on the current interpretation. So push for an amendment.
I concur. I've never liked birthright citizenship, but I also don't think the President can change it by Executive Order and until recently I didn't think there was a chance that the SCOTUS would approve that. It's a closer call than it was based on recent decisions, but I still think the SCOTUS won't approve this. I'd be all onboard an amendment push.
They would have to defy precedent, texturalism, and originalism.
I don't put it past them.
There must be an executive order to get the issue to the supreme court. That is necessary to fulfill the case or controversy requirement.
Birthright citizenship as applied for all these years is broader than what Wong Kim Ark seems to require. I think that part of it will survive the challenge, but I expect the Supreme Court to apply limits.
No there doesn’t have to be one. States could have sued over it.There must be an executive order to get the issue to the supreme court. That is necessary to fulfill the case or controversy requirement.
I don’t think that can possibly work. Have you read or heard a legal “expert” explain this? Link? I’d be interested in reading it.
Why not?I don’t think that can possibly work. Have you read or heard a legal “expert” explain this? Link? I’d be interested in reading it.
- Challenging Federal Policy: Blocking new federal regulations or executive actions seen as infringing on state powers (e.g., environmental rules, immigration enforcement).
- Protecting Funding: Suing to prevent the withholding or termination of federal funds for state programs (like SNAP, Medicaid, EPA grants).
- Upholding State Laws: Defending state laws (like California's identity protection laws) against federal challenges.
- Ensuring Federal Compliance: Forcing federal agencies to follow established laws, such as using contingency funds during government shutdowns to maintain benefits.
- Protecting Citizens: Suing over federal demands for private voter data or rules that create barriers to healthcare access. [1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8]
- SNAP Benefits: States sued the USDA for suspending food stamp benefits during a federal shutdown.
- Immigration Restrictions: Lawsuits challenged federal rules limiting public benefits for non-citizens and federal attempts to mandate immigration status checks for state programs.
- Funding Cuts: Multiple states sued to stop the federal government from slashing billions in funding for various state programs.
- Election Data: States pushed back against DOJ demands for sensitive voter information.
- Planned Parenthood: Lawsuits challenged federal budget provisions blocking Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood. [2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10]
- State Attorneys General (AGs): Act as lead plaintiffs, often forming bipartisan or partisan coalitions.
- Federal Agencies: Target agencies like the USDA, HHS, DHS, EPA, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). [1, 2, 7, 8, 11]
- Federalism: States argue they have standing to protect their sovereignty and the balance of power between state and federal governments.
- Unlawful Action: Claims often cite violations of federal law, such as improper use of agency authority or failure to follow congressional mandates. [5, 7, 8]
State suits against the feds need some federal action to trigger the cause of action. You can’t just wake up on a Monday morning and decide to file a case when the feds hadn’t done anything.
It's absolute insanity to believe the 14th Amendment was ever intended to apply to people entering our country illegally. Laws are in place to encourage good behavior. As it currently stands you are encouraging and rewarding people for breaking the law. Crazy to argue that was ever the intent.
The intent of whom? Which interpretive method is that relevant to?Crazy to argue that was ever the intent.
Birthright citizenship per the constitution and in federal law requires states to consider the children of illegal immigrants to be US citizens (with all the benefits that come with that) and state residents (and all the benefits that come from that), so why can't states file lawsuits challenging that? Isn't that what has happened with state lawsuits about the 2nd amendment and recognizing mixed and same sex marriages that have been recognized by other states?State suits against the feds need some federal action to trigger the cause of action. You can’t just wake up on a Monday morning and decide to file a case when the feds hadn’t done anything.