"We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright”…
Don’t most countries allow birthright citizenship?
Pretty much the entirety of north and south america do this, probably to ensure the end of slavery and similar colonial practices. The fact Europe doesn’t do this is kinda crazy.
this fact is crazy because it is not true
Yeah, I meant if one of your parents ia a citizen then you are, not if you are born under the jurisdiction. The latter is retarded.
probably to ensure the end of slavery and similar colonial practices
Thank you for this. I never thought of birthright citizenship this way. Where could I read more about this
Idk where I first heard this. I think it was a lawyer podcast where they were discussing the original debate around the 14th amendment.
Basically the 14th amendment was created to overturn the Dredd Scott ruling and codify citizenship to be more similar to english common law. During the discussion many groups came up: chinese laborers, former slaves, etc. The understanding was that the amendment would provide citizenship to all these groups and that it was necessary to prevent a backslide into slavery.
And Chief Justice John Roberts, another conservative on the bench, also had something of a mic-drop moment when Sauer tried to make the point that “we’re in a new world where eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S citizen.”
Roberts replied: “It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”
I expect this is where they pivot next. What does it take to amend the American constitution? Or what does it take to make a new one, given that they will try to justify that an old document does not fit the modern world
It would be impossible in today’s political climate.
You need >66% vote in both House and Senate, or you need a Constitutional Convention called by >66% of the state legislatures. Then you need to ratify the amendment, which requires approval by >75% of state legislatures.
What could pass 75% of states?
In this day and age it amazes me we ever had that level of consensus. Something is super broken.
Currently 94% of states have medical marijuana yet its still federally illegal and scheduled as a drug with no medical value. That’s a good indicator of consensus not meaning jack to the federal government.
Same as how they passed prohibition.
It’s actually quite fascinating even as it is disconcerting.
They lobbied state by state, and focused on a few key legislators, threatening their seat, until the rest fell in line.
They didn’t have to fight them all at once, so they could focus their resources.
Its been broken for a while. Just a reminder that the Equal Rights Amendment of 1972 isn’t technically implemented because Virginia didn’t ratify until 2020 and now there are questions of expired deadlines and recisions.
It’s so wild to think that 8 billion people are just lying in wait, with full wombs, waiting to hop on a plane to have an “anchor baby”, all to pull a fast one on white xtian murica.
That is 8 billion people in tax revenue! Or if you want to get more government about it, 8 billion potential soldiers. More capitalism? That is 8 billion people’s worth of criminals to put in the for-profit prison system.
With no immigration, this country as it politically and economically exists will eat itself from the inside out.
more like trump storms out to create a gaffe at distracting the media from epstein. it happens everytime epstein starts rearing its head, or when something he did was too severe for the media to ignore.
A space launch and the Supreme Court doing its job?
It’s like america has a functioning government!!
/s
It’s April 1st. Maybe it’s just a prank
“Humiliated” “storms out” - this is some tabloidly language.
Gorsuch asked if Native Americans would be considered birthright citizens, and the MAGA lawyer said he’d “have to give it some thought.”
Shouldn’t he have done that BEFORE appearing in front of SCOTUS?
One thing Gorsuch is good on is Native rights
Honestly though, if the Supreme Court were doing their job even slightly properly, the response from the justices to that facile punt of an answer to a very obvious question should have been to utterly excoriate the lawyer - up to, and hopefully including, dismissal with prejudice. The response that fucker gave shows a very obvious lack of preparedness and consideration - or more likely, very thinly veiled contempt of the court.
I would suggest that the minds of Trump’s cronies are rarely troubled by concepts such as “thought”.
He’d have to give it some thought??? Jesus fucking Christ
“Yeah, let me just go home and fire up the Google-Fu, and get back to you, say, uh… how’s next Wednesday? That work for you?”
Yep. And the phrase NATIVE Americans is a fucking clue
Yeah, it’s just a ludicrous situation. Just say Native Americans are obviously citizens, how hard is that? It’s not like there are zillions of them, most Americans don’t know a single Native American person. Are they so Hell-fired up to get rid of anyone who isn’t lily white that they can’t make an exception for these people, who are the only real, actual citizens?
No, the answer is no. They have colorful skin, so they have to go.
FYI: About 35 countries have birthright citizenship, mostly on the American continent. Over 150 countries have citizenship by descent.
Yeah, I always thought that was neat since it’s mostly a happy accident from needing to allow freed slaves citizenship. I much prefer that over some sort of bloodline metric.
interesting numbers, but consider this: Most countries have existed since before written time, evolving into what they are now. Only a few countries have grown entirely based on immigration, Australia, New Zealand, and America among them.
It makes sense that a country that has a culture going back centuries, or even millennia, would base citizenship on descent. Even America does that, but we also recognized that we needed immigration to grow, and fill, our country, and Birthright Citizenship fills that need.
That’s why there are a lot more descent-based citizenship countries, than Birthright Citizenship countries. It’s not because it’s a better or worse idea, it just depends on what works for the historical culture of the individual countries.
Most countries have existed since before written time, evolving into what they are now.
I can’t see a sense in which this is true.
Before written time, none of the countries of Europe or Asia or Africa existed in anything remotely close to their current identity.
They aren’t exactly the same politically as they were in the “olden days,” but they are the same “people,” whose culture has evolved.
For instance, modern Italians are the descendants of Romans. They are the same people, even if their governmental system.has changed (and it has changed often in Italy).
But countries like America or Australia aren’t populated by the same people from long ago. The original indigenous inhabitants didn’t become the primary population like they did in Italy, or England, or France, or Ukraine. We grew because boatloads of people came here from all over the world, and settled here.
Modern Italians, British, French, etc. have always been there, modern Americans haven’t. We didn’t come from here, we came from everywhere else.
They’re not at all the same people. We don’t really have strong evidence of writing from the Nuragic civilisation, but the Etruscans left plenty of written evidence and their language was probably not even Indo European. Then there were invasions by the Gauls and the Latins, who built the Roman Empire, but they were taken over by Germanic peoples, who partially integrated. Waves and waves of people speaking different languages, with different religions and customs.
You say that modern English have always been there, but again, after the Celts got taken over by the Romans, there was a long period of Roman rule, with a lot of cultural and ethnic mixing. Then came the Saxons, again a people with completely different language and customs. This was a large mixing of populations and a huge shift in culture. Then there was an invasion of Vikings that was so significant that a huge part of east England was called the Danelaw, because it was under Danish control. You still see that in place names and surnames. Then in 1066 the Norman French came, again massively changing the culture, the language and the political structures.
It’s the same story all over Europe. Wave after wave of invasion, displacement and cultural shift and mixing.
Of course there was mixing, nations didn’t grow in total isolation, but that’s still a lot different from starting with an essentially empty land mass, and filling it with people from all over the world. Obviously, you are going to have a much more varied mix of people that an area that has been primarily homogenous for millennia, with the occasional outside invasion every 100 years of so.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was also appointed by Trump, added to the pressure Sauer faced, asking the seasoned Solicitor General: “Do you think Native Americans are birthright citizens under your test?”
“Ah, I think… so,” he replied, somewhat unconvincingly. “I’ll have to think that through.”
Is that literally the first time he’s thought about that?
It isn’t. All of the “quotes” the SG was using were Indian law cases about denying Natives citizenship. Gorsuch is an expert in Indian law. He was calling that out.
Deport those ungrateful native Americans back to…America???
The Trump admin doesn’t actually care where someone is from, they just get sent to a hole somewhere in El Salvador or South Sudan.
Oh I’m sure he’s thought of it, but can’t say the truth out loud because it will make him look bad.
It could be. The point of bringing a case like this probably isn’t to win it, necessarily, but to demonstrate loyalty to dear leader. Dear Leader wants the case in order to push the Overton window. Its a can’t-lose situation for the regime; they get some benefit from either judicial decision.
The mission is to flood the zone in the hopes that some of their bullshit slips through. The more of it that fails, the better. I don’t think losing this ruling is a mortal blow for MAGA in any sense, but it will be better for Americans if this is one of the ones that fails.
Also just to normalize it in the American zeitgeist. Them entertaining it gives the illusion that there’s some merit to the argument. In a year or two when everyone believes there’s legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue due to it being an issue they keep hearing about in the news, they’ll ratchet it a few steps further toward their goal.
Think is too strong a term here.
Can someone explain this to a clueless European? Are Native Americans not American Citizens by default?
That’s was the point of the question. By birthright they are but under the MAGA interpretation (ie utter bullshit and making things up) they may not be because technically they have tribal affiliation and could be considered beholden to another government. It all makes much more sense when you try not to think about it logically. They are literally trying to argue the clause of the Constitution that says if you are born on USA territory you are US citizen doesn’t mean exactly that. It is the most unambiguous amendment because they knew the former confereracy would try this shit eventually.
It’s complicated, they are citizens in most cases, but they also have distinctly different rights in some cases. It works out to them being a sort of hybrid citizen, as they are ultimately subject to most federal laws, but can’t be subjected to state laws. They are allowed to vote in elections though suppression is common. This status has resulted in them running casinos in most states, as the state can’t prevent them from doing it on tribal land, it’s also expanded to betting apps.
They are citizens in all cases. But because of statute in the early 1900s, technically not birthright citizens by the case law.
I’m not really sure what Gorsuch was getting at with his question, but my understanding is that Native Americans are not citizens by the 14th amendment, because tribes are sovereign entities, and therefore fall into the “not subject to the jurisdiction” part of that amendment. However, they are granted citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Except that they most certainly are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - hell, they pay federal taxes. They aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of any particular state is all.
How is a sovereign entity different from a sovereign nation? If it is different.
There are tribes that refer to themselves as nations, like the Cherokee Nation for example. I don’t really know if there’s a specific meaning to “nation” vs using some other word. I used “entity” in order to try to avoid using a more nuanced word incorrectly. The tribes have sovereignty is all I meant.
I see. I just wondered if there was a technical difference, because tribal sovereignty does seem to be more limited than what you would expect of a sovereign nation. We don’t treat them like separate countries. They’re not usually identified on maps of North America, for instance. And I get that most reservations are relatively small, but the Navajo Nation is about the size of Ireland, so plenty big enough to be identified on a map.
But I don’t mean to interrogate you, I’m just curious about this topic. I think I’ll do some research because I’d like to know more.
