• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

I read that people in some cities that have been infested with ICE, after a period of school absence, are now sending their kids to school with signs on their backs identifying them as citizens. That, of course, will only last until someone falsifies a sign, whereupon everyone will presumably have to carry papers, which will assure that at least a majority of them won't be mistakenly hustled off by anonymous storm troopers.

If Trump has his way, of course, babies whose parents can't produce appropriate papers will be illegally born, ready to deport to sunny Salvador, and they can make more inspirational videos of the latest crop of demons corrupting America's sacred blood, closeups of their sissy alien tears sopping the righteous wrath of the MAGA mob as they struggle against the tiny little chains.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Miller on why Birthright Citizenship is destructive and ruinous

Stephen Miller
@StephenM
Of all the destructive and ruinous policies aimed at the heart of our Republic, few can compete with “birthright citizenship.”

Every illegal alien, foreign visitor and visa scammer, merely by giving birth on US soil, can access unlimited welfare for life through their “American” child and send the extra cash back home to support their foreign village. That same child is granted full voting privileges upon his 18th birthday, making illegal aliens and their descendants one of the largest voting blocs in the United States.

Under “birthright citizenship” a terrorist and his terrorist wife can commit immigration fraud, come here as tourists, perpetrate a terrorist attack, give birth, and have an “American” child.

“Birthright citizenship” is an atrocity flatly and flagrantly incompatible with any concept of nationhood
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997414190571806998
Click to expand...
Just FYI, Miller has been on this same anti-immigrant jag since his university pest days. Even then, he was known as a full-on white nationalist fascist. So this is actually not very surprising.

Anyway...

Hi Steve! Question: If a baby is born in the USA of non-citizens, does that mean when they grow up then their children are also non-citizens? That is, does this illegality go back generationally?

If so, how far back does this generational illegality extend?

For example, how would you deal with a person whose grandfather came to the USA without citizenship, then started some disreputable businesses and spawned a mafia-adjacent psychopathic offspring, who went on to produce a lazy good-for-nothing New York real estate failure. Is this last person a non-citizen, and not entitled to the responsibilities of citizenship?
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Just FYI, Miller has been on this same anti-immigrant jag since his university pest days. Even then, he was known as a full-on white nationalist fascist. So this is actually not very surprising.

Anyway...

Hi Steve! Question: If a baby is born in the USA of non-citizens, does that mean when they grow up then their children are also non-citizens? That is, does this illegality go back generationally?

If so, how far back does this generational illegality extend?

For example, how would you deal with a person whose grandfather came to the USA without citizenship, then started some disreputable businesses and spawned a mafia-adjacent psychopathic offspring, who went on to produce a lazy good-for-nothing New York real estate failure. Is this last person a non-citizen, and not entitled to the responsibilities of citizenship?
Click to expand...
I hope, probably with excessive optimism in this case, that even our incredibly corrupt and inept neo-fascist Supreme Court, while invalidating a part of the Constitution, might balk at also making a judgment doubly unconstitutional by being retroactive.

You know, when you think about it before the 14th amendment, there was no provision that prevented the children of undocumented immigrants from being citizens. No documentation was required. The amendment was passed to undo the monstrous deprivation of citizenship to slaves and their descendants, not to grant anything to anyone else, because I'm pretty sure one would find that IT WAS ALREADY GRANTED! Before that amendment a non-enslaved person born in the United States had always been presumed by default to be a citizen. Not that this would prevent a new law from setting new boundaries, but it ought to be remembered, I think. Because the argument for nullifying part of the 14th amendment would likely be based on the presumption that the change was not intended to apply to undocumented babies, but the reason for that is that it did not have to. An argument on intent really should address the entire Constitution and its presumed intent.

I don't think a SC judgment would result in a new law on birthright citizenship without legislation redefining it. The amendment states that any law diminishing birthright citizenship would be illegal, but I don't think changing that alone would make a new law. And the Constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto laws, and that's in the main body, not the disputed amendment. So though I can imagine the SC might well be stupid and evil enough to corrupt the 14th Amendment and unleash the panoply of repressions and inconveniences and errors and sins that will almost certainly follow, the Constitution ought, pretty obviously, to limit such legislation to births occurring after the legislation is passed. Until that occurs, the law of the land still applies. Or ought to. Not that it will, because I think we're basically ◊◊◊◊◊◊.. But who knows, maybe there's a pony under there yet....
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
I hope, probably with excessive optimism in this case, that even our incredibly corrupt and inept neo-fascist Supreme Court, while invalidating a part of the Constitution, might balk at also making a judgment doubly unconstitutional by being retroactive.

You know, when you think about it before the 14th amendment, there was no provision that prevented the children of undocumented immigrants from being citizens. No documentation was required. The amendment was passed to undo the monstrous deprivation of citizenship to slaves and their descendants, not to grant anything to anyone else, because I'm pretty sure one would find that IT WAS ALREADY GRANTED! Before that amendment a non-enslaved person born in the United States had always been presumed by default to be a citizen. Not that this would prevent a new law from setting new boundaries, but it ought to be remembered, I think. Because the argument for nullifying part of the 14th amendment would likely be based on the presumption that the change was not intended to apply to undocumented babies, but the reason for that is that it did not have to. An argument on intent really should address the entire Constitution and its presumed intent.

I don't think a SC judgment would result in a new law on birthright citizenship without legislation redefining it. The amendment states that any law diminishing birthright citizenship would be illegal, but I don't think changing that alone would make a new law. And the Constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto laws, and that's in the main body, not the disputed amendment. So though I can imagine the SC might well be stupid and evil enough to corrupt the 14th Amendment and unleash the panoply of repressions and inconveniences and errors and sins that will almost certainly follow, the Constitution ought, pretty obviously, to limit such legislation to births occurring after the legislation is passed. Until that occurs, the law of the land still applies. Or ought to. Not that it will, because I think we're basically ◊◊◊◊◊◊.. But who knows, maybe there's a pony under there yet....
Click to expand...
The Trumpistas want to "throw out" people who are already official citizens, to "de-citizenship" them, on the grounds that they were born on US soil of non-US citizens. The effect is these birthright citizens are no longer citizens. And no longer being citizens, their children born on US soil will also not be citizens. That is, it's generational.

My question was to do with the extent of generationality. If the de-citizenship applies only after any such law comes into effect, as you say, then current US citizens born of non-citizens on US soil should be unaffected. But these are the very people the Trumpistas want the law to apply to. They don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about any subsequent children. They desperately want Omar and Mamdani, etc., gone. So they want the law to apply to them directly, as birthright or naturalised citizens, by virtue of the fact their parents were not citizens.

My question was merely to point out that generational applicability will have massive unforeseen and unintended effects that will shoot themselves in both feet, both legs, both hands, both arms, and then in the head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom