Proud father, husband, attorney, first responder, and adjunct professor. All opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect the opinions of others.
@kurtlash1 I don't know why we bother having a Constitution when the words are meaningless, and the highest judges in the land can interpret the words to mean whatever they want.
@realsashastone How about, for each child of foreign parents who acquires birthright citizenship, the United States shall impose a tax, through tariffs, on the parents' countries of origin, in the amount of the worst possible case scenario of welfare costs for the life of the child.
@MrLeadslinger That would be funny. Deport all children of single parents lol.
I agree, however, that the breakdown of the American family is a very serious problem.
“To use language to obscure reality—to show indifference regarding the truth—is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens as equals.” (Thomas, J., concurring)
@InezFeltscher This could be the most conservative Court we ever see in our lifetimes. The 6 conservative Justices should be laser-focused on clearly defining the bounds of the Constitution as intended at the time of drafting. Instead, the Court is squandering the opportunity.
@robbysoave "One that promises the full 'dignity and glory of American citizenship' to any child born in this country to parents who have made this Nation their permanent home, regardless of their race, religion, or national origin."
Good Lord, if that doesn't sound like Justice Kennedy.
@theobjectivist You say this as though the economy of the United States is still founded upon human manpower. As if immigrants will be shuffled to the farms, coal mines, and public works to increase productivity, with infinite capacity for employment. That's not how the economy works anymore.
@MattWalshBlog She also meant to use the word "salvo" (a clause reserving a specific right or exception while a broader agreement is made) instead of "salve" (healing ointment).
The Constitution grants the federal government extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against anyone, anywhere on Earth.
"Congress shall have power...
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations[.]"
Why would the drafters qualify citizenship on a quality that automatically applies to everyone on the planet?
@Unit_8200@chriswithans The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" isn't referring to criminal prosecutions.
If Chinese tourists killed an American while in China, the U.S. could exercise jurisdiction and prosecute.
The phrase refers to complete jurisdiction, i.e., subject to draft and taxation.
@ProfDBernstein@andrewkent33 The Constitution doesn't recognize different classes of citizenship. You're either a citizen, or you're not.
Moreover, under the Equal Protection Clause, discrimination by national origin is subject to strict scrutiny review—meaning that it's practically never permitted.
I wish that X inspired more legitimate debate and discourse.
Instead, X has just become a community focused on goading as many responses as possible for engagement.