Saving you a click:
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?
Heh, anyone pointing out the Trump’s are birthright citizens seems to’ve missed the Trump gold card citizenship racket that’s paired with anything related to citizenship revocation. If they change the law, rich people just pay some money to buy a gold citizenship card. Trump’s family would likely get theirs paid for by tech bros, wouldn’t even need to pay out of pocket.
While white nationalist racists are a part of Trump’s base, and are likely in favour of this law getting changed, thinking it’ll help their agenda… it’s really just another attack on poor/middle class people.
At this point, as a non-American, I’m fine with them disenfranchising most of their population and declaring them non-citizens. For regulated industries, it’d make things like FATCA reporting much simpler, and it’s not as though those ‘citizens’ deserve any respect/special consideration – look at the guy they elected as their leader. Who they still follow. Even as he openly makes moves to strip them of their rights.
Wednesday’s Supreme Court arguments over birthright citizenship went very poorly for Donald Trump.
The phrase “went very poorly for Donald Trump” can pretty much universally be translated as “Went well for literally everyone else”.
It would be fucking hilarious to find out somewhere in this pedophiles family tree that one of his blood relatives is a birthright citizen; therefore nullifying his entire lineage up to himself according to himself. So, his case is stupid. He’s stupid. He’s also a pedophile rapist piece of shit, that part is very important.
His grandfather moved here from germany doing what their family loves to do best, running from their wartime fighting obligations because they’re a family of cowards. He started a whorehouse.
running from their wartime fighting obligations because they’re a family of cowards.
Dodging drafts is the only cool thing any Trump has ever done, actually.
I never have a problem with people doing anything they have to, to avoid an evil institution like the Draft, and I will never question whether they were motivated by morality or cowardice.
What I have a problem with are people like Trump, and most of those in the Bush administration who avoided the Draft, only to grow up and scream for war to kill a different generation of young Americans. Chicken Hawks are literally the worst brand of politician.
His kids are all birthright citizens
Not really, because he was an American citizen, so his kids born on American soil are also citizens, no matter what their mother’s status is. I wish it meant we could deport his weak-chinned, mentally-deficient demon spawn, but alas, they’re legal, even under his rules.
Ivanna was not yet a citizen when she had Don Jr., Ivanka, and Eric Trump.
Trump would be just that. His fucking grandfather was an illegal alien. Which means his father would not have been immergrant. Also learn that all his children mother was not a citizen until long after the last child was born.
Wasn’t Donald’s grandfather a German immigrant?
Let him lose his citizenship.
His dead wife who he buried on a golf course had all their kids before she became a US citizen iirc
So what’s the TLDR? This is paywalled for me.
the gist, as I understand, is that the argument that was presented is basically “the purpose of the 14th amendment was only to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves; children of parents who do not intend to permanently live in the US, or who still feel allegiance to a foreign country, are not intended to be included.” Barrett’s response was essentially “your argument is self-contradictory. many parents of newly freed slaves did not feel allegiance to the US and wished to return to the countries that they or their ancestors were taken from against their will. the amendment cannot have been intended to both include and exclude their children.”
Sauer claims that the birthright citizenship should only apply to people born here who intend to stay, and have no foreign allegiances. He justified that by saying the history of birthright citizenship is specifically to help newly freed slaves after the US civil war, and should not apply to children of illegal immigrants.
Barret noted that most slaves were trafficked here against their will, and undoubtedly some of them wanted to go back to their home, or were still allegiant to their home country. So, Sauer’s test of whether someone is domiciled and has no foreign allegiances would preclude a sizeable amount of freed slaves. Therefore, his test is ahistorical, because in fact all slaces received citizenship regardless of their allegiance or willingness to stay.
The article claims the case will be won 7-2 in favor of birthright citizenship without any loyalty test.
Who are the two dissenters?
/s
