If your child was born on U.S. soil, that child is a citizen, and nothing about today's ruling changes it. The real battle is over whether it stays that way, and where it goes next.
Mitch - notwithstanding that I have mostly kept AI at arm’s length - I fear that whatever memory or skill I imagine I have reading or writing will atrophy once I start cognitively offloading to AI - I will give this Sidebar AI a try. Actually a great way to dip my toes in the water from a source I’ve quickly learned to trust.
“Privacy in America” has been a real eye opener, and will be the reason I will be slow to replace my 18 year old Hyundai and my wife’s 14 year old minivan, never put in Alexa, Ring or anything “smart” (beyond a dog) into my home. I kinda want to ditch the Hisense TV now . . .
I’ve read enough history to know that the greatest leaders actually serve those they lead, and it is a real privilege to be on your Substack.
In my opinion your third moving forward point regarding the question of “domiciled” would at least be a way of denying citizenship to anyone here on a temporary visa of any kind (especially a tourist visa) even if overstayed, unless they took some action to apply for citizenship first. The details of this could water down the 14th amendment as it is currently interpreted. I am most concerned about this issue.
I can comfortably tell you that as of today, any changes will have to be made in Congress through an amendment. Frankly, because of the mechanics behind the process, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Mitch - thank you for the time that you take to share your legal and your historical analysis, and in explaining SCOTUS’s reasoning with the clarity that you do, in layman’s terms, every time.
Thank you, Daniel. That's the game plan, and hopefully we've rolled this approach over into the new Sidebar AI perk that came out this morning. If you have a chance, let me know what you think.
It's not good at all, but a majority of the court thought otherwise. Now that this circus of a case is done, it's somewhat comforting to know that the true avenue of change is in Congress via a new amendment, and I don't see that happening any time soon.
Thank you Justice Roberts for defending the Constitution, the rule of law, the role of the courts & the authority of Judges & for adhering to your words.
The one question for me, more to enahnce my knowledge than from any ideological feel: if a family is on a visa and sojourning in the United States -- with an anticipation of returning home to the jurisdiction to which they are subject -- when its child is born, ¿why would that child be deemed a U.S. citizen should the family be intending to leave imminently?
¿Does the wiggle-room afforded by Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch create an opportunity to define as permanent residents those undocumented yet law-abiding immigrants living and working in the U.S. for more than, say, a year? One might argue that living and working in the U.S., while adhering to U.S. law, implicitly confers a jurisdiction to which such new-comers are subject.
Simple answer, Ned. They are "present" here in the United States and subject to our jurisdiction."
Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are “citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”
Thank you Justice Roberts for defending the Constitution, the rule of law, the role of the courts & the authority of Judges & for adhering to your words.
What would have happened to little Marco rubio if the justices had ruled opposite? His parents were not citizens and his being born here would not made him a citizen correct?
If the court had ruled the other way, it would have opened up a big can of worms for tens of millions of people located in the United States. It wasn't retroactive, so it wouldn't have worked backwards, but moving forward, it would have been chaos.
Very true. But for that reason alone, I don't think they could have made it retroactive to any past date. If Rubio suddenly was no longer a citizen, then a huge number of people - some already deceased - would be effected. So it would have to be effective from a current time only.
Thanks for your timely response to this! I wish this horrifying issue would never arise again. I'm really curious what Justice Thomas was doing in the capital yesterday. Taking laps, perhaps.
Agree. I thought the Kavanaugh decision and the dissenting opinions were insulting to read and nothing more than paid propaganda for the people and organizations who put them on the court
Mitch - notwithstanding that I have mostly kept AI at arm’s length - I fear that whatever memory or skill I imagine I have reading or writing will atrophy once I start cognitively offloading to AI - I will give this Sidebar AI a try. Actually a great way to dip my toes in the water from a source I’ve quickly learned to trust.
“Privacy in America” has been a real eye opener, and will be the reason I will be slow to replace my 18 year old Hyundai and my wife’s 14 year old minivan, never put in Alexa, Ring or anything “smart” (beyond a dog) into my home. I kinda want to ditch the Hisense TV now . . .
I’ve read enough history to know that the greatest leaders actually serve those they lead, and it is a real privilege to be on your Substack.
In my opinion your third moving forward point regarding the question of “domiciled” would at least be a way of denying citizenship to anyone here on a temporary visa of any kind (especially a tourist visa) even if overstayed, unless they took some action to apply for citizenship first. The details of this could water down the 14th amendment as it is currently interpreted. I am most concerned about this issue.
I can comfortably tell you that as of today, any changes will have to be made in Congress through an amendment. Frankly, because of the mechanics behind the process, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Mitch - thank you for the time that you take to share your legal and your historical analysis, and in explaining SCOTUS’s reasoning with the clarity that you do, in layman’s terms, every time.
Thank you, Daniel. That's the game plan, and hopefully we've rolled this approach over into the new Sidebar AI perk that came out this morning. If you have a chance, let me know what you think.
Thank you for this awesome discussion, as experts who read every instance of abuse accurately, and comfort us with courage to continue speaking out.
Wasn't Ty Cobb awesome? His knowledge of the facts and constitutional law is something special.
What does it mean when a third of the Court wants to blow up the Constitution?
It means we are being ruled by corrupt ultra conservative idealists with no thoughts of how their rulings affect human beings.
This “win” defines the era we are living through. They don’t want a democracy or even a republic they want total control.
A country for the rich, by the rich, of the rich the rest of us are for their amusement.
It's not good at all, but a majority of the court thought otherwise. Now that this circus of a case is done, it's somewhat comforting to know that the true avenue of change is in Congress via a new amendment, and I don't see that happening any time soon.
Thank you Justice Roberts for defending the Constitution, the rule of law, the role of the courts & the authority of Judges & for adhering to your words.
Yes, he stepped up in this one.
The one question for me, more to enahnce my knowledge than from any ideological feel: if a family is on a visa and sojourning in the United States -- with an anticipation of returning home to the jurisdiction to which they are subject -- when its child is born, ¿why would that child be deemed a U.S. citizen should the family be intending to leave imminently?
¿Does the wiggle-room afforded by Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch create an opportunity to define as permanent residents those undocumented yet law-abiding immigrants living and working in the U.S. for more than, say, a year? One might argue that living and working in the U.S., while adhering to U.S. law, implicitly confers a jurisdiction to which such new-comers are subject.
Simple answer, Ned. They are "present" here in the United States and subject to our jurisdiction."
Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are “citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”
Thank you Justice Roberts for defending the Constitution, the rule of law, the role of the courts & the authority of Judges & for adhering to your words.
He got this one right.
What would have happened to little Marco rubio if the justices had ruled opposite? His parents were not citizens and his being born here would not made him a citizen correct?
If the court had ruled the other way, it would have opened up a big can of worms for tens of millions of people located in the United States. It wasn't retroactive, so it wouldn't have worked backwards, but moving forward, it would have been chaos.
Very true. But for that reason alone, I don't think they could have made it retroactive to any past date. If Rubio suddenly was no longer a citizen, then a huge number of people - some already deceased - would be effected. So it would have to be effective from a current time only.
86SM
8647
Thank God for that
Thanks for your timely response to this! I wish this horrifying issue would never arise again. I'm really curious what Justice Thomas was doing in the capital yesterday. Taking laps, perhaps.
Good question. Let's let each other know if we find out.
Agree. I thought the Kavanaugh decision and the dissenting opinions were insulting to read and nothing more than paid propaganda for the people and organizations who put them on the court