Close Menu
    Politics

    Amy Coney Barrett hat den Fall gegen das Erstgeburtsrecht mit einer Frage aufgedeckt

    Share.
    View 31 Comments

    31 Kommentare

    2. TheHolyOcelot on

      It’s really good to see justices he appointed not being blind sycophants unlike everyone else in his orbit. I suppose it’s because they can’t be removed by him.

    3. anonkitty2 on

      Solicitor General Sauer would try to deny birthright citizenship to people born to people who didn’t intend to be permanently domiciled in the United States and people born to people who were still loyal to foreign governments.  What Judge Barrett asked translates roughly to „How do you know what they’re thinking?“. I will note that ICE has been uprooting domiciles and discouraging people from wanting to be here.  I will note that we had more emigration than immigration last year.  I will note that if birthright citizenship is blocked further than it had been historically, it could theoretically be denied to anyone, at which point America will be without citizens in two generations.  (Read „Starship Troopers“ by Robert Heinlein.  Though ICE does deport former US military, which leaves them stateless…)

    7. gradientz on

      Trump’s dumbfuck attorneys are making the exact same arguments that the Confederate traitors made about the 14th amendment. They are literally citing former Confederate officers in their briefings.

      Imagine arguing that we should adopt the Confederacy’s view of the Reconstruction amendments. Absolutely moronic.

    8. Bangers_n_Mashallah on

      It is funny seeing how the same people who will insist on the most strictly constructionist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment now want to read into the 14th implied language which simply isn’t there.

    9. sakubaka on

      Been making this argument for years after I returned from living in one of the few countries remaining that grant citizenship based on descendancy and percentage of Japanese blood. People here cannot begin to understand the complications such a requirement brings. For example, my wife was born in Japan, only speaks Japanese (and English), had lived the majority of her life just outside of Tokyo.

      Her family was originally brought over to work off a kind of indentured servitude in Japan. It was either go there and „work“ or remain in Korea under Japanese military occupation. There is no reason any regular citizen would raise a question about her and her family’s right to be there. Yet, there are tons of people doing that do just that every day. God forbid someone finds out that she only has around 25% Japanese blood and since that blood is a woman’s blood, it’s counted even less.

      She’s a Zainichi, which is just one group of people whose lives are made more difficult by Japan’s resolution to keep descendancy based immigration. There are so many other cases and unique scenarios that make descendancy-based immigration decisions a muddy as concert grounds following a rainy festival weekend.

      So, yeah, having an administration that fumbles everything and that consistently makes the most horrible decisions, does not inspire confidence.

    10. JohannYellowdog on

      Credit where it’s due, this is a strong argument. Trump’s lawyers are proposing that the 14th amendment’s purpose was only to grant citizenship to former slaves and their descendants, not to grant citizenship to people who travel to the country illegally, who may intend to leave again, or who have allegiances to another country.

      Amy Coney Barrett cleverly inverts this reasoning. Many enslaved people were brought to America illegally; they may have wanted to leave if they could; they may have felt a greater allegiance to their country of origin. So if the purpose of the amendment was to grant citizenship to those people, how can it imply that these same factors are disqualifications from citizenship today?

    13. Warchiefinc on

      The south was never punished their people stayed in office and we shook hands
      No accountability of their actions led to where we our now.
      The fact they can still raise the Confederate flag even tho they lost is wild

    14. gerryf19 on

      A Maga told me the other day the US should not have birthright citizenry because other countries don’t and we should follow what other countries do…

      Other countries have public healthcare, so we should do that, too?

      YOU’RE TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC!!!!!

    15. I_Love_To_Poop420 on

      What happens to a child with no citizenship? They get deported to where? The country their parents are from? They aren’t a citizen there either. This whole executive order is a fast track for child trafficking and somehow I feel like the child rapist at the helm had that intent.

    16. toxiamaple on

      Amy Coney Barrett was a constitutional law professor before she was nominated.

    18. buddhadoo on

      The „One Question“: **But then Barrett asked: What about slaves who were brought to this country illegally and against their will, as many were? Surely some of them still “felt allegiance to the countries where they were from” and intended “to return as soon as they can.” So wouldn’t their children be excluded from birthright citizenship, too? And if so, doesn’t that just blow up Sauer’s theory that the whole point of this clause was to protect the citizenship of these exact people?**

      More Context from the article: **Mark Joseph Stern: Justice Barrett had a lot of skeptical questions for the solicitor general. And she really drilled down on his theory that children do not receive birthright citizenship if their parents lack “domicile” in the United States or hold “allegiance” to a foreign power. She asked how the government would know whether certain immigrants intended to stay in the country or maintain loyalty to a foreign power. And where would we draw the line? What about, for instance, the child of a woman who’s illegally trafficked into the U.S. then gives birth here? Is that person an automatic citizen?
      Sauer kept returning to his claim that the lone purpose of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was to overturn Dred Scott and grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children. But then Barrett asked: What about slaves who were brought to this country illegally and against their will, as many were? Surely some of them still “felt allegiance to the countries where they were from” and intended “to return as soon as they can.” So wouldn’t their children be excluded from birthright citizenship, too? And if so, doesn’t that just blow up Sauer’s theory that the whole point of this clause was to protect the citizenship of these exact people?**

    20. GamerSDG on

      The Constitution is very clear that anyone born on American soil is an American. Trump is trying to change the Constitution with an EO, which is not the way an Amendment is changed. This case isn’t even really about birthright citizenship; it’s about whether the President has the authority to change the Constitution by EO.

    21. redpiano82991 on

      My favorite line from oral arguments was Barrett saying „Yeah, yeah, yeah, but what about the Constitution?“

      That’s kind of the whole thing in a nutshell, isn’t it?

    22. itshifive on

      I saw a quote that I believe was given in these arguments „if birthright citizenship only applies to freed slaves, then the second amendment only applies for muskets“

    23. Mr602206 on

      If it in only applied to freed slaves than it would have said that in the constitution.

    24. CrazyPlato on

      THE ARTICLE: Justice Barrett asks one simple question that blows apart the case for removing birthright citizenship!

      ALSO THE ARTICLE: *Doesn’t quote the fucking question*

    25. mdruckus on

      Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the government’s argument against birthright citizenship, highlighting the difficulty in determining immigrants’ intentions and loyalty. She pointed out that applying a domicile requirement could exclude the children of enslaved people, undermining the government’s claim that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was solely to grant citizenship to freed slaves. Barrett’s questioning suggests she may not support the government’s position.

    26. PrecedentialAssassin on

      Perfectly brilliant and obvious argument. The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to the children of slaves. The government’s domicile argument tries to elicit that the 14th only applies to people who plan to stay in and hold allegiance to America. Yet slaves were brought here against their will and would most assuredly want to return home if possible and would also hold allegiance to the homes they were torn from.

      This alone should end the government’s argument.

    27. RevolutionAcid81 on

      MAGAs Hate Her! This One Supreme Court Justice Unraveled Birthright Citizenship With One Trick!

    28. jerkcore on

      Well, she says one thing right, but don’t be quick to put her on a pedestal. Barrett still opposes women’s bodily autonomy, interracial relationships, the lgbtq+ community, affordable healthcare, & separation of church & state. She’s still a Trump appointee, after all.

    29. Braincoater on

      > .. Barrett asked: What about slaves who were brought to this country illegally and against their will, as many were? Surely some of them still “felt allegiance to the countries where they were from” and intended “to return as soon as they can.” So wouldn’t their children be excluded from birthright citizenship, too? And if so, doesn’t that just blow up Sauer’s theory that the whole point of this clause was to protect the citizenship of these exact people?

    30. Courwes on

      The fact that this could still be 7-2 is fucking ridiculous. It should be 9-0. There is no good reason for ruling otherwise. I don’t care how partisan you are.

    31. SellsNothing on

      This is supposed to be the Land of the Free.

      The supreme court choosing to entertain this bullshit birthright citizen argument in the first place is a complete disgrace to this nation. Shame

    Leave A Reply