Not Getting Everything

~ Clarissa

There is no likelihood the Supreme Court will end the utterly unconstitutional “birthright citizenship.” I don’t even think it will be taken away from tourists, let alone illegal migrants.

Yes, it would be great, but I’m not seeing it. It’s okay though. SCOTUS brought some excellent decisions for us in the past week. We’re not getting everything, but we’re getting a lot.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

17 thoughts on “Not Getting Everything”

  1. FWIW, my kid enjoys birthright citizenship in the country where he was born, when we were essentially tourists.

    But we returned to the states anyway because it was too difficult to make a living legally (probably not great illegally either from what we heard). We tried, and would’ve stayed much longer if it had been possible to support ourselves there.

    So… not my chief concern. I think it wouldn’t be a problem if we could end all the entitlement programs.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I agree, this decision is inevitable, but it’s definitely not the end of the world. The one ending TPS was a lot more important in practical terms. Now it’s up to the administration to start the removals.

      The Salvadoran gangs were created by TPS. It took decades to start addressing that problem. TPS is terrible and needs to be destroyed completely.

      Like

      Reply

      1. There are tons of countries that have birthright citizenship and *don’t* have a problem with anchor babies. One of my uncles was born while grandpa was deployed in the mediterranean. Had dual citizenship. Formally renounced it at 16 or so, when keeping it would have required him to join the Turkish army.

        I’m not suggesting the answer is “be more like Turkey so nobody wants to live here if they don’t have to” but… people flood in for the free stuff, lax employment enforcement, free medical. We could just remove those incentives.

        ethyl

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. I read yesterday about a bill that would limit federally guaranteed mortgages to citizens. I’m stunned that this needs to be done legislatively. Of course, people are flocking here when the handouts are so extraordinary.

          I would support the death penalty for people who made it legal to give taxpayer backed mortgages to foreigners.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. At its peak, something like 6% of FHA mortgages were going to illegals. I’m baffled why *ANY* mortgages were going to illegals. But FHA in particular: that is a program to try and help lower-income people finally buy a house.

            One wonders how many other low-income-housing-help programs are being pillaged by noncitizens.

            ethyl

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. We never got a federally backed mortgage and honestly never attempted to get one. It was big news to me that there are mortgages with a 3.5% down payment that require a credit score of only 580. Nobody offered anything remotely like this to us. I’m not saying they should, of course. But yeah, that’s not part of our reality.

              Like

              Reply

              1. I’ve got to wonder if people have seen my physical appearance to ask whether I received a federally backed mortgage. I think the answer is kind of obvious, but maybe I should post more selfies.

                Like

  2. I remember recently Republicans were all up in arms about activist judges. Such hypocrites.

    This shit is literally in the constitution. You wanna fix that change the constitution.

    I definitely don’t agree with it, but it’s worse to let judges make changes to the constitution like this.

    Like

    Reply

    1. The text actually says:

      “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.”

      What is being debated is the meaning of the expression “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Many constitutional scholars believe that this part does not refer to tourists. There is nothing unusual or particularly activist in seeking a clarification from the Supreme Court on what exactly this phrase means in today’s reality of extremely fast and easy travel. I don’t think anybody can argue that the Founding Fathers really thought that birth tourism companies were an excellent idea.

      Like

      Reply

      2. Revising established constitutional precedent going back to the 1800s is the definition of activism that doesn’t belong to the judiciary.

        Like

        Reply

      3. So, let’s set aside the children for a moment. If a tourist robs somebody in the state of Iowa, is he under the jurisdiction of the state of Iowa, or not? Should he be charges or not?

        Like

        Reply

        1. That’s Ketanji Brown’s argument. It’s not a great argument because this was all discussed at great length when the amendment was first passed. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant this is your exclusive jurisdiction. This is why children of, for example, diplomatic personnel born on the territory of the United States do not receive citizenship of the United States, but they will be arrested if they steal a wallet.

          The amendment was passed very specifically to grant citizenship to the freed slaves, and as was actually discussed in great detail at that time, was not meant for anybody else.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment