She did so because the solicitor general was so ill prepared.
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.
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…)
HandSack135 on
Pretty sure I could: can you read that sentence of the amendment?
Done.
OnePotatoTooo on
“OK, so to be clear, Barron Trump is not a Citizen, right?”
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.
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.
Sartres_Roommate on
I mean, my last fart refuted Trump’s position on birthright citizenship, but it’s good someone, even with her unqualified brain, is taking the time to illustrate how stupid Trump is.
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.
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?
SenorPinchy on
This is marked no paywall but it had a paywall.
Automatic_Bus_7634 on
If it was one question it could fit in the headline
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
lu-sunnydays on
Other countries have stricter rules because they want to keep an authentic culture within their country. America was founded on being a melting pot (which everyone forgets) so our debate is totally different than theirs. In truth, if you weren’t born native, then you should go back to your country of origin.
I wonder where we’d be if colonized nations were able to fight back hard. But alas, greed always triumphs.
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!!!!!
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.
toxiamaple on
Amy Coney Barrett was a constitutional law professor before she was nominated.
Sea_Working_80 on
Ray has gone bye bye Egon..what have you got left?
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?**
Aggressive-Delay-420 on
I was self-conscious about my fly-a-way hairs until I looked at this portrait.
lazyFer on
Didn’t need a question at all, the constitution is crystal clear.
disheartenedlefty on
I love how the media is trying to rehab the images of these ghouls. They are complicit in the ascendant fascism of this country.
AceofKnaves44 on
I think he’s going to lose this one but three of these justices seem like they’ll side with him on everything and then he just needs one of them to agree with him too, no?
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.
djazzie on
Now watch the conservative justices who seemed skeptical still rule in favor of Rump
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?
eninety2 on
I still want to know why they heard this case at all and not decided in the shadows. What’s the spectacle for?
pies4days on
How do European countries without birthright citizenship do it?
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”
32 Comments
She did so because the solicitor general was so ill prepared.
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.
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…)
Pretty sure I could: can you read that sentence of the amendment?
Done.
“OK, so to be clear, Barron Trump is not a Citizen, right?”
Has paywall.
Fuck paywalls.
https://archive.ph/8fTq4
Rats leaving sinking ship.
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.
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.
I mean, my last fart refuted Trump’s position on birthright citizenship, but it’s good someone, even with her unqualified brain, is taking the time to illustrate how stupid Trump is.
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.
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?
This is marked no paywall but it had a paywall.
If it was one question it could fit in the headline
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
Other countries have stricter rules because they want to keep an authentic culture within their country. America was founded on being a melting pot (which everyone forgets) so our debate is totally different than theirs. In truth, if you weren’t born native, then you should go back to your country of origin.
I wonder where we’d be if colonized nations were able to fight back hard. But alas, greed always triumphs.
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!!!!!
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.
Amy Coney Barrett was a constitutional law professor before she was nominated.
Ray has gone bye bye Egon..what have you got left?
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?**
I was self-conscious about my fly-a-way hairs until I looked at this portrait.
Didn’t need a question at all, the constitution is crystal clear.
I love how the media is trying to rehab the images of these ghouls. They are complicit in the ascendant fascism of this country.
I think he’s going to lose this one but three of these justices seem like they’ll side with him on everything and then he just needs one of them to agree with him too, no?
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.
Now watch the conservative justices who seemed skeptical still rule in favor of Rump
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?
I still want to know why they heard this case at all and not decided in the shadows. What’s the spectacle for?
How do European countries without birthright citizenship do it?
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”