Is the any cogent argument against this?

[msc545]

Th 14th Amendment states, in part:

"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. "

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

Updates

1 y

This is important:

www.nytimes.com/.../...birthright-citizenship.html

[goaded]

No, of course not. The only argument is whether naturalised citizens should be allowed to become president; if they have the same rights under the law, doesn't that supersede the original requirement?

(By the way, I expect most naturalised citizens would willingly give up that right if it meant excluding Musk!)

[jshm2]

No. In every country in the world, you ARE the citizen of the country you are born in. It's just simple facts.

How the fuck do you legally explain a kid born in the USA to Mexican parents, for example, being a "Mexican" citizen?

What next? All Americans with Irish heritage being deported to Ireland?

[dustybiker2]

It's called dual nationality.

[WindAtMyBack]

Everyone should remember Dread Scott from school. Even if they don't remember what it was about, they should at least remember that it was a major case in US history.

Dread Scott was about people who were LEGALLY born in the United States and legally resided here. It said that even if they were completely legal, they could still be denied citizenship. It was aimed at freed slaves and allowed them to be denied citizenship - slaves whose ancestry had LEGALLY been in the US for many generations.

The 14th Amendment was aimed specifically at Dread Scott. It specifically countered Dread Scott. It was never meant to be used for people who were not legally born in the country.

Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with abolishing birthright citizenship. At this point, I'm not completely for it or against it. I think it's potentially a slippery slope. Just as birthright citizenship is used in ways that were not intended, revoking it could also be used in ways that were not intended.

I think revocation needs to be very seriously considered. I think it needs to be thought through, and considered in as broad a way as possible to make sure it is not abused and used in a wrong way.

Revocation is catering to people against illegal immigration and immigration in general, which includes myself. I have not seen the numbers, but I don't believe it will affect a significant number of people. I think it's for show and politics, but will not make any significant difference.

I think the political currency of this could be spent in better ways.

[msc545]

It does not say that it was not meant to be used for people who were not legally born in the country. Had the author intended that, I am certain that he would have said so and written it that way and he did neither. We cannot ask him, and it has been treated as good law since it was written. We are unlikely to amend our Constitution in order to pander to a racist felon or his followers.

No offense to you intended at all; I appreciate your response.

[WindAtMyBack]

It doesn't need to say that. It was very clearly aimed at Dread Scott.

Like everything else in the Constitution, the wording is brief. It doesn't go into detail and discuss every possibility. It doesn't attempt to micro-manage. As I understand it, judges are required to consider the intent as well as the letter of the law. The intent of that portion of the 14th is pretty clear. Just like the intent of the other portions are clear.

Overall it was meant to counter opposition to reconstruction by using all kinds of shenanigans that were contrary to the intent of reconstruction. Dread Scott was a big one, but there were a number of things the states and courts did to counter the intent of reconstruction.

You could argue that everything in the 14th should have been settled in the courts without needing an amendment. But Dread Scott WAS a court ruling at the highest level. We will never know what would have happened if the 14th amendment was not passed. It probably would have worked itself out, but would have taken a lot longer. Even as it was, it took a long time.

[WindAtMyBack]

Whoops

Dred Scott not Dread Scott

[msc545]

It may have been aimed at the Scott decision, but it was not restricted to that, as you know. We cannot really ascertain intent, because, as you note, the wording is sparse. An amendment to the amendment (so to speak) would be a far clearer method of modification although unlikely to happen I think.

Here is an interesting article about a Federal Court that just heard the matter:

www.nytimes.com/.../...birthright-citizenship.html

There is a very sad argument made by some unlucky lawyer who argued that foreign-born people would always have allegiance to their countries of birth to the US and that this would somehow be true of their children as well. The Judge was not having it.

[ProbablyClueless]

yes, there's a very strong one.

The guy who wrote the Fourteenth was named John Bingham and he expressly stated that the purpose of the birthright citizenship was to extend the opportunity to the children of people who had family ties to the US. He said that the right would not apply to illegal aliens.

"Bingham, a staunch abolitionist, was the driver of the 14th Amendment that provided birthright citizenship as a vessel for people born into slavery to have equal rights as Americans after they were freed by the 13th Amendment a few years earlier. "

https://www.theintelligencer.net/news/community/2019/07/john-binghams-role-in-14th-amendment-still-resonates-today/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fourteenth-Amendment

[msc545]

If Bingham said what you say he said, why didn't he write them in this amendment? We cannot read the mind of a man now dead.

You have nothing that can reasonably be relied on, and what you do have instead is far from a cogent argument.

[ProbablyClueless]

I have plenty that can be reasonably relied on. Read from pg 10-13 of ideaexchange.uakron.edu/.../viewcontent.cgi

and then.

pages 12-13 of openyls.law.yale.edu/.../...eLJ57_October1993_.pdf

These are both very scholarly sources that speak to a tendency of Bingham to view the Fourteenth Amendment as applying to citiizens, and not "all persons" by it's broadest understandings.

[msc545]

A "personal tendency" is not law as you well know.

[ProbablyClueless]

Well sure... but then we also have the law of the amendment itself which reads "All persons born or naturalized in". The presence of the "or" instead of an "and" indicates a rephrasing or a restatement of an idea. Like a "Anyone born here, you know, the people who are naturalized to the United States," type of deal. Then you pair that with the word "naturalized" indicates that the persons relevant to the amendment are persons who are connected with the country.

The slaves, for example, were Americans by any logical and cultural standard. America was the only country they'd ever known.

[msc545]

"naturalized" pertains to the act of making a person a citizen or "attaching" them to the country. Per the OED:

(of a foreigner) admitted to the citizenship of a country.
"a naturalized US citizen born in Germany"

I don't think you can infer his state of mind based on this, and moreover, ever if you could, he wrote what he wrote and it says what it says.

[msc545]

Just got this:

www.nytimes.com/.../...birthright-citizenship.html

[ProbablyClueless]

Yeah, that block was pretty expected. Even the definition of "naturalized" that you pull up makes reference to the idea of someone being connected to the country. You don't just have random people showing up.

And if you think about it; that makes sense. You'd probably need to have some kind of material connection to a country to infer that someone has citizenship as a birthright.

[msc545]

Perhaps the fact that their parents reside here in the United States or at least the mother does would be a sufficient connection to satisfy your needs?

[ProbablyClueless]

I'm certainly open to that!

[msc545]

Well then, for the child to be born in the US, by definition the mother has to be in the US at the same time.. so...

[ProbablyClueless]

Residing in the US is a lot more than just physically being present.

[msc545]

How so? Residing means living in.

[ProbablyClueless]

Residing has a sense of permanence about it, especially in legal contexts. When you reside in a state and are considered a citizen of that state, you have to show an intention to live in and never leave that state. Someone who is in the country on a student visa, for example, wouldn't be able to reside in the country because a student visa requires a showing that you intend to leave and return to your home country. An illegal immigrant would have a hard time proving they reside in a state because most of them wouldn't have sufficient documentation to demonstrate that they had formally established themselves as intending to be a permanent resident such as holding a bank account or formal employment for a certain number of years..

[msc545]

It does not imply permanence. Her is what the AI thinks:

The term "residing" refers to the act of living or being present in a particular place or location. It can also imply a temporary or permanent stay in that location. For example, "She resides in New York City" means that she lives there permanently or for an extended period. In a more general sense, residing can also refer to being physically present or situated in a particular place, such as "The company resides in a large office building downtown." Overall, residing emphasizes the physical aspect of being in a location."

[ProbablyClueless]

Here's what Black's Law dictionary thinks: "Living or dwelling in a certain place permanently or for a considerable length of time. The place where a man makes his home, or where he dwells permanently or for an extended period of time. The difference between a residence and a domicile may not be capable of easy definition; but every one can see at least this distinction: A person domiciled in one state may, for temporary reasons, such as health, reside for one or more years in some other place deemed more favorable. He does not, by so doing, forfeit his domicile in the first state, or, in any proper sense, become a non-resident of it, unless some intention, manifested by some act, of abandoning his residence in the first state is shown." https://thelawdictionary.org/residence/

[msc545]

So I would defer to Black's definition although I am not sure the Courts will. At least in relation to the Amendment we are discussing, they did not at least once before. If you know the title of that old case I would like to read it. Thanks.

[ProbablyClueless]

Sure thing man. I'll have to look into it, but I'll send it to you if I can find it.

[msc545]

Thanks

[SomothErgai]

the argument is simply tat any amendment can be, well, amended. if enough people agree on the proposed change, then it happens. there really doesn't need to be any deeper argument than that. now whether we "should" amend it is a whole other can of worms

[msc545]

We all know it can be amended, but that is not the question here, nor is it a cogent argument against what the amendment says now.

[SomothErgai]

all arguments for, or against the amendment are going to rely almost exclusively on appeals to emotion. which by definition is going to make it virtually impossible to formulate a solid argument. that's the problem with "should" arguments. They rely on people having the same opinion. if you don't share that opinion my only option is to try to appeal to an emotion. make you scared or angry about a situation and then try to convince you that my proposed solution will fix the problem. There's no room for a cogent argument there. it relies entirely on my ability to manipulate your emotions into agreeing with me.

For example. the current state of affairs is a concern over the illegal immigrant population in the us. which becomes significantly harder to eliminate if they have children on us soil. if birthright citizenship is eliminated then that problem gets much easier to solve. the thing is, if you don't already agree that we need to go to whatever lengths necessary to eliminate that population then you're not going to support a change to the amendment. i would have to try and scare you, or anger you, into wanted them gone badly enough to agree the amendment needs to be changed. which will never rely on a cogent argument no matter which direction i'm arguing for.

I can pull up statistics, i can pull up economic factors, i can pull up criminal reports. i can do all these things to try and make you feel scared or angry. but these aren't arguments. they're tactics.

This, however, has been a cogent argument for why a cogent argument can't be made. good day sir

[msc545]

Well done, although you did not specify what it is about the original amendment that makes it so resistant to rational opposition. I think it can be attributed to its plain language, but go ahead and sure that point with me if you choose to.

[SomothErgai]

the reason it's resistant to opposition is because there's nothing obviously wrong with it. societies have had a pretty solid feeling for thousands of years that being born somewhere makes you a part of its people. regardless of where your parents come from. so it just "feels" right that if your born here you get to stay. and up until, i'd say the last 10-15 years everyone has been pretty ok with that being the case. But now that concept is being exploited in order to intentionally anchor illegals tot he country. which exposes that the potential for exploitation existed all along.

the folks who do not believe this is an issue and do not mind the amendment being exploited in this way do not see any reason to change it. and will actively resist it being changed. and the folks who do see it as a problem will oppose them. and given the results of the election it's fair to say there is a strong possibility enough people think it's a problem that the amendment will be changed sooner or later.

There's also a strong possibility that as this administration pursues strict deportation efforts those that really don't want to leave will try harder to stay. they may go into hiding to stay under the radar. problem there is, they won't have many options to keep themselves and their families alive so many may turn to crime. if that happens the crime rates from illegals is going to go way up. which will most likely flip anyone who might have been on the fence about this issue to be strongly in favor of increasing effort to eradicate the illegal population.

and then you get a feed back loop. I'm not saying that;s for sure how it will go. but it seems pretty plausible to me. and if it does I feel pretty certain that the amendment is going to be changed.

[msc545]

Good response, thanks! I disagree with your conclusion but I am too tired now to write it all - perhaps.

[exitseven]

There is a lot more language in the 14th amendment. I expect it will be argued in the Supreme Court but I thinkbit will die there unless Trump can pick up a lot more seats in congress for a constitutional amendment.

[msc545]

Yes there is more language - totally and completely unrelated to this question. Read the 14th amendment.

[exitseven]

I read it and also read some of the historical background. I could see an argument could be made but I am not optimistic but Trump will take it to the Supreme Court.
I think the solution is to cut off all welfare benefits and deport the mother and put the baby in the system. It is extreme but once the word gets out that this is what happens these freeloaders will think twice before coming to the US to drop an anchor baby in the hopes of a lifelong vacation.

[msc545]

You are using the same logic that the monster who originated the idea of separating parents and children at the border used. It did not work, but I think as usual the pain and cruelty were the point, and I think they are your point, sadly.

In case you had not noticed, living in the US is not a fucking vacation.

[exitseven]

@msc545 It is a vacation for illegal aliens. What else do you call being put up in a hotel, getting 3 meals a day, free dry cleaning , free healthcare , free Ubers, free legal representation, free iPads and a $2000 visa debit card?
Tom Homan said they are not going to be separating any families. They will deport the whole family.

[msc545]

Those are all lies that you have chosen to believe.

[exitseven]

No it is the truth that you decided to ignore. I know that California is just as crazy as where I live. Maybe more so. I know that there must be hotels that are full of illegals all on the state taxpayers. A also know that there are plenty of criminals that do not get charged because if they did ICE would deport them.

[msc545]

You know nothing about it. You've not been here and you've not seen what is going on. You are just making up stories to please yourself.

[msc545]

Do you have any idea how enraged people are going to get if you start kidnapping babies?

[exitseven]

@msc545 There are two hotels 4 miles from my house that have been leased by the state and filled with illegal aliens. There is a state contract for 3 meals a day for them. The state has a motorhome converted to a dentists office so they get free dental care. Attorneys regularly visit them to provide free legal services. They also get free dry cleaning and free Ubers. They even put big tarps over the signs so the public won't go in looking for lodging. The cops are there 24/7 and the ambulance goes there on a regular basis.
I know this sounds like the twilight Zone but I swear it is true.,
This is an article about what is going on in another town. It is outrageous.
fallriverreporter.com/.../

[msc545]

That is false news. Prove it is true.

[exitseven]

@msc545 This is just one of many newspaper articles about it. This is one a little closer to home
www.nbcboston.com/.../

[Sevenpointfive]

not really. those are the rules. but i can see a stipulation as to the birth giver needing to not be there illegally.

[dustybiker2]

No argument from me.

[Anonymous]

Wasn’t it intended for slaves?