Today, 5/15/2025, three consolidated birthright citizenship cases will
be argued before the Supreme Court. Trump v. CASA, filed by immigrants
rights groups and several pregnant women in Maryland; Trump v.
Washington, filed in Seattle by a group of four states; and Trump v. New Jersey, filed in Massachusetts by a group of 18 states, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco.
D. John Sauer is Solicitor General. I recognized the scratchy voice.
He's made these arguments over the years and was clearly hired by Trump
to argue this type of case.
However, Court observers have predicted that most of the time will be
spent analyzing universal injunctions, a practice that has proliferated
over the last several decades.
Sauer repeated an argument he's made before, which I don't think is
supported by any sitting Supreme Court justice, that the citizenship
clause was limited to slaves and their children born in the United
States freed by the Thirteenth Amendment.
May 15, 2025 at 8:50:43 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Today, 5/15/2025, three consolidated birthright citizenship cases will
be argued before the Supreme Court. Trump v. CASA, filed by immigrants >>rights groups and several pregnant women in Maryland; Trump v.
Washington, filed in Seattle by a group of four states; and Trump v. New >>Jersey, filed in Massachusetts by a group of 18 states, the District of >>Columbia, and San Francisco.
D. John Sauer is Solicitor General. I recognized the scratchy voice.
He's made these arguments over the years and was clearly hired by Trump
to argue this type of case.
However, Court observers have predicted that most of the time will be
spent analyzing universal injunctions, a practice that has proliferated >>over the last several decades.
These need to go. What's the point of having a Congress and a president when >one unelected judge can substitute his judgment for all of theirs not just in >the case before him/her but for every case across the nation? The judiciary >doesn't not set public policy. The political branches do.
Nationwide injunctions, qualified immunity, and birthright citizenship all >need to be shit-canned.
Sauer repeated an argument he's made before, which I don't think is >>supported by any sitting Supreme Court justice, that the citizenship
clause was limited to slaves and their children born in the United
States freed by the Thirteenth Amendment.
That's certainly what it was intended for by those who drafted it, wrote it, >and passed it into law.
I used to think it was just an unfortunate oversight that they didn't make >that express in the text of the law and we'd either have to repeal/amend
that clause or just live with illegals birthing babies here so they can
be citizens. But then I was pointed to a whole line of cases that explain
the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the context of
both the time in which it was written and its meaning under the law and
which form persuasive precedent that illegal aliens are not covered by
the 14th Amendment's grant of birthright citizenship.
It is well-settled law** that if you are here without the consent of the >people of the United States as expressed by their duly enacted laws, from a >legal perspective, it is quite literally as if you are not present in this >country. It's absurd on its face to assert that people who are illegally on >our soil through intentional violation of our laws can, strictly by >trespassing on it, achieve the ultimate benefit of citizenship for their >kids.
**United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905): "A person who comes to the >country illegally is to be regarded under the law as if he had stopped at the >limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its >boundaries".
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 15, 2025 at 8:50:43 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Today, 5/15/2025, three consolidated birthright citizenship cases will
be argued before the Supreme Court. Trump v. CASA, filed by immigrants
rights groups and several pregnant women in Maryland; Trump v.
Washington, filed in Seattle by a group of four states; and Trump v. New >>> Jersey, filed in Massachusetts by a group of 18 states, the District of
Columbia, and San Francisco.
D. John Sauer is Solicitor General. I recognized the scratchy voice.
He's made these arguments over the years and was clearly hired by Trump
to argue this type of case.
However, Court observers have predicted that most of the time will be
spent analyzing universal injunctions, a practice that has proliferated
over the last several decades.
These need to go. What's the point of having a Congress and a president when >> one unelected judge can substitute his judgment for all of theirs not just in
the case before him/her but for every case across the nation? The judiciary >> doesn't not set public policy. The political branches do.
The president, who is not a king but an ordinary civilian to whom law applies, cannot decree parts of the Constitution inapplicable or unenforceable.
Yes, I know. There are numerous Biden examples -- student loan debt forgiveness, all-encompassing immigration parole -- but that doesn't
make Trump get to cut clauses out of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Nationwide injunctions, qualified immunity, and birthright citizenship all >> need to be shit-canned.
Heh. I don't think qualified immunity will be raised, and you forgot
civil asset forfeiture.
Sauer repeated an argument he's made before, which I don't think is
supported by any sitting Supreme Court justice, that the citizenship
clause was limited to slaves and their children born in the United
States freed by the Thirteenth Amendment.
That's certainly what it was intended for by those who drafted it, wrote it, >> and passed it into law.
And that law was immediately found unconstitutional by a Supreme Court
If you seriously argue, like Sauer, that the Fourteenth Amendment was a
grant of liberty to the freed men and no one else
then we lose the
entire notion that the Constitution and civil rights law was written in colorblind language. We lose the entire line of reverse discrimination
cases starting with the tax law case that Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously
took to the Supreme Court to more broadly apply the neutral language "on
the basis of sex" to her client, a dude. We lose Bakke. We lose those university admission cases just decided two years ago.
Please tell me you still believe that the Constitution's language is
neutral.
I used to think it was just an unfortunate oversight that they didn't make >> that express in the text of the law and we'd either have to repeal/amend
that clause or just live with illegals birthing babies here so they can
be citizens. But then I was pointed to a whole line of cases that explain
the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the context of
both the time in which it was written and its meaning under the law and
which form persuasive precedent that illegal aliens are not covered by
the 14th Amendment's grant of birthright citizenship.
It is well-settled law** that if you are here without the consent of the
people of the United States as expressed by their duly enacted laws, from a >> legal perspective, it is quite literally as if you are not present in this >> country. It's absurd on its face to assert that people who are illegally on >> our soil through intentional violation of our laws can, strictly by
trespassing on it, achieve the ultimate benefit of citizenship for their
kids.
**United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905): "A person who comes to the >> country illegally is to be regarded under the law as if he had stopped at the
limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its
boundaries".
Yes I know.
Every time you bring up that case, I ask you how the newborn baby
himself violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, even if presuming
his mother did?
You always ignore the fundamental question. Ju Toy cannot possibly apply
to the unborn foetus.
May 15, 2025 at 1:56:27 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote: >>BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 15, 2025 at 8:50:43 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Today, 5/15/2025, three consolidated birthright citizenship cases will >>>>be argued before the Supreme Court. Trump v. CASA, filed by immigrants >>>>rights groups and several pregnant women in Maryland; Trump v. >>>>Washington, filed in Seattle by a group of four states; and Trump v. New >>>>Jersey, filed in Massachusetts by a group of 18 states, the District of >>>>Columbia, and San Francisco.
D. John Sauer is Solicitor General. I recognized the scratchy voice. >>>>He's made these arguments over the years and was clearly hired by Trump >>>>to argue this type of case.
However, Court observers have predicted that most of the time will be >>>>spent analyzing universal injunctions, a practice that has proliferated >>>>over the last several decades.
These need to go. What's the point of having a Congress and a president >>>when one unelected judge can substitute his judgment for all of theirs >>>not just in the case before him/her but for every case across the
nation? The judiciary doesn't not set public policy. The political >>>branches do.
The president, who is not a king but an ordinary civilian to whom
law applies, cannot decree parts of the Constitution inapplicable or >>unenforceable. Yes, I know. There are numerous Biden examples -- student >>loan debt forgiveness, all-encompassing immigration parole -- but that >>doesn't make Trump get to cut clauses out of the Fourteenth Amendment.
He's not cutting the clause out, he's saying it's inapplicable to illegal >aliens, and I agree.
Sauer repeated an argument he's made before, which I don't think is >>>>supported by any sitting Supreme Court justice, that the citizenship >>>>clause was limited to slaves and their children born in the United >>>>States freed by the Thirteenth Amendment.
That's certainly what it was intended for by those who drafted it, wrote it, >>>and passed it into law.
And that law was immediately found unconstitutional by a Supreme Court
The 14th Amendment was found unconstitutional? Because that's the law I'm >talking about. Part of the Constitution itself is unconstitutional? That's >both news to me and a legal paradox.
If you seriously argue, like Sauer, that the Fourteenth Amendment was a >>grant of liberty to the freed men and no one else
I'm not saying no one else. Just not people who entered the country >illegally.
then we lose the
entire notion that the Constitution and civil rights law was written in >>colorblind language. We lose the entire line of reverse discrimination >>cases starting with the tax law case that Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously
took to the Supreme Court to more broadly apply the neutral language "on >>the basis of sex" to her client, a dude. We lose Bakke. We lose those >>university admission cases just decided two years ago.
Please tell me you still believe that the Constitution's language is >>neutral.
I used to think it was just an unfortunate oversight that they didn't make >>>that express in the text of the law and we'd either have to repeal/amend >>>that clause or just live with illegals birthing babies here so they can >>>be citizens. But then I was pointed to a whole line of cases that explain >>>the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the context of >>>both the time in which it was written and its meaning under the law and >>>which form persuasive precedent that illegal aliens are not covered by >>>the 14th Amendment's grant of birthright citizenship.
It is well-settled law** that if you are here without the consent of the >>>people of the United States as expressed by their duly enacted laws, from a >>>legal perspective, it is quite literally as if you are not present in this >>>country. It's absurd on its face to assert that people who are illegally on >>>our soil through intentional violation of our laws can, strictly by >>>trespassing on it, achieve the ultimate benefit of citizenship for their >>>kids.
**United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905): "A person who comes to the >>>country illegally is to be regarded under the law as if he had stopped at the
limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its >>>boundaries".
Yes I know.
Every time you bring up that case, I ask you how the newborn baby
himself violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, even if presuming
his mother did?
Intent is not an element of the offense.
You always ignore the fundamental question. Ju Toy cannot possibly apply
to the unborn foetus.
Sure it can.
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 15, 2025 at 1:56:27 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 15, 2025 at 8:50:43 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Today, 5/15/2025, three consolidated birthright citizenship cases will >>>>> be argued before the Supreme Court. Trump v. CASA, filed by immigrants >>>>> rights groups and several pregnant women in Maryland; Trump v.
Washington, filed in Seattle by a group of four states; and Trump v. New >>>>> Jersey, filed in Massachusetts by a group of 18 states, the District of >>>>> Columbia, and San Francisco.
D. John Sauer is Solicitor General. I recognized the scratchy voice. >>>>> He's made these arguments over the years and was clearly hired by Trump >>>>> to argue this type of case.
However, Court observers have predicted that most of the time will be >>>>> spent analyzing universal injunctions, a practice that has proliferated >>>>> over the last several decades.
These need to go. What's the point of having a Congress and a president >>>> when one unelected judge can substitute his judgment for all of theirs >>>> not just in the case before him/her but for every case across the
nation? The judiciary doesn't not set public policy. The political
branches do.
The president, who is not a king but an ordinary civilian to whom
law applies, cannot decree parts of the Constitution inapplicable or
unenforceable. Yes, I know. There are numerous Biden examples -- student >>> loan debt forgiveness, all-encompassing immigration parole -- but that
doesn't make Trump get to cut clauses out of the Fourteenth Amendment.
He's not cutting the clause out, he's saying it's inapplicable to illegal
aliens, and I agree.
Bullshit. Trump says it's inapplicable to CHILDREN of illegal aliens and travellers. The child born in the United States committed no crime or violation of any kind of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Sauer repeated an argument he's made before, which I don't think is
supported by any sitting Supreme Court justice, that the citizenship >>>>> clause was limited to slaves and their children born in the United
States freed by the Thirteenth Amendment.
That's certainly what it was intended for by those who drafted it, wrote it,
and passed it into law.
And that law was immediately found unconstitutional by a Supreme Court
The 14th Amendment was found unconstitutional? Because that's the law I'm
talking about. Part of the Constitution itself is unconstitutional? That's >> both news to me and a legal paradox.
You were talking about intent of Congress.
Congress intended the
Thirteenth Amendment to be the broad basis for civil rights. Once
slavery became unconstitutional, blacks (not just slaves) became persons
with due process rights and civil rights generally, enforced by the
Civil Rights Act of 1865.
The Supreme Court, still the Dred Scott court, didn't see it the
Thirteenth Amendment as a grant of legal personhood (thus reversing Dred Scott) and found the civil rights law unconstitutional.
Of the three post-Civil War amendments, the 13th is the only one that
can be argued to apply to freed slaves and no one else. The other two amendments, with neutral language, applied to everybody.
If you seriously argue, like Sauer, that the Fourteenth Amendment was a
grant of liberty to the freed men and no one else
I'm not saying no one else. Just not people who entered the country
illegally.
The unborn baby did nothing illegal.
then we lose the
entire notion that the Constitution and civil rights law was written in
colorblind language. We lose the entire line of reverse discrimination
cases starting with the tax law case that Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously
took to the Supreme Court to more broadly apply the neutral language "on >>> the basis of sex" to her client, a dude. We lose Bakke. We lose those
university admission cases just decided two years ago.
Please tell me you still believe that the Constitution's language is
neutral.
I used to think it was just an unfortunate oversight that they didn't make >>>> that express in the text of the law and we'd either have to repeal/amend >>>> that clause or just live with illegals birthing babies here so they can >>>> be citizens. But then I was pointed to a whole line of cases that explain >>>> the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the context of >>>> both the time in which it was written and its meaning under the law and >>>> which form persuasive precedent that illegal aliens are not covered by >>>> the 14th Amendment's grant of birthright citizenship.
It is well-settled law** that if you are here without the consent of the >>>> people of the United States as expressed by their duly enacted laws, from a
legal perspective, it is quite literally as if you are not present in this
country. It's absurd on its face to assert that people who are illegally on
our soil through intentional violation of our laws can, strictly by
trespassing on it, achieve the ultimate benefit of citizenship for their >>>> kids.
**United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905): "A person who comes to the
country illegally is to be regarded under the law as if he had stopped at the
limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its
boundaries".
Yes I know.
Every time you bring up that case, I ask you how the newborn baby
himself violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, even if presuming
his mother did?
Intent is not an element of the offense.
I didn't raise intent. I'm pointing out that not yet having been born at
the point of the illegal entry means there was no violation of the law
in question. As it's not illegal to be born, then having been born, the
baby cannot possibly be illegally present in the United States even if
his mother is.
You always ignore the fundamental question. Ju Toy cannot possibly apply >>> to the unborn foetus.
Sure it can.
Actually, looks like I forgot what the ruling was in this case. If the
phrase in question is a quote from the ruling, then it didn't apply to
the facts of the case.
Ju Toy was born in the United States before the Chinese Exclusion Act of
1882 and was denied entry at a port despite already having been
determined to be an American citizen. Holmes ruled that he immigration
at ports of entry is due process even though it's an administrative
procedure and had no right to equitable relief in federal court for a maldetermination by immigration authorities.
The opinion was overturned in Ng Fung Ho v. White (1922), that the
detainee had a right to assert citizenship in federal court under the
liberty clause.
Neither case applies to those who cannot assert citizenship and a baby
born in the United States isn't literally going through immigration.
I suppose the mother could give birth at the port of entry but before
she's cleared immigration. I have no idea how the birthright citizenship clause applies.
May 15, 2025 at 2:59:11 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote: >>BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 15, 2025 at 1:56:27 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
May 15, 2025 at 8:50:43 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Today, 5/15/2025, three consolidated birthright citizenship cases will >>>>>>be argued before the Supreme Court. Trump v. CASA, filed by immigrants >>>>>>rights groups and several pregnant women in Maryland; Trump v. >>>>>>Washington, filed in Seattle by a group of four states; and Trump v. New >>>>>>Jersey, filed in Massachusetts by a group of 18 states, the District of >>>>>>Columbia, and San Francisco.
D. John Sauer is Solicitor General. I recognized the scratchy voice. >>>>>>He's made these arguments over the years and was clearly hired by Trump >>>>>>to argue this type of case.
However, Court observers have predicted that most of the time will be >>>>>>spent analyzing universal injunctions, a practice that has proliferated >>>>>>over the last several decades.
These need to go. What's the point of having a Congress and a president >>>>>when one unelected judge can substitute his judgment for all of theirs >>>>>not just in the case before him/her but for every case across the >>>>>nation? The judiciary doesn't not set public policy. The political >>>>>branches do.
The president, who is not a king but an ordinary civilian to whom
law applies, cannot decree parts of the Constitution inapplicable or >>>>unenforceable. Yes, I know. There are numerous Biden examples -- student >>>>loan debt forgiveness, all-encompassing immigration parole -- but that >>>>doesn't make Trump get to cut clauses out of the Fourteenth Amendment.
He's not cutting the clause out, he's saying it's inapplicable to illegal >>>aliens, and I agree.
Bullshit. Trump says it's inapplicable to CHILDREN of illegal aliens and >>travellers. The child born in the United States committed no crime or >>violation of any kind of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The commission of crime has nothing to with granting or denying citizenship at >birth.
Sauer repeated an argument he's made before, which I don't think is >>>>>>supported by any sitting Supreme Court justice, that the citizenship >>>>>>clause was limited to slaves and their children born in the United >>>>>>States freed by the Thirteenth Amendment.
That's certainly what it was intended for by those who drafted it, >>>>>wrote it, and passed it into law.
And that law was immediately found unconstitutional by a Supreme Court
The 14th Amendment was found unconstitutional? Because that's the law I'm >>>talking about. Part of the Constitution itself is unconstitutional? That's >>>both news to me and a legal paradox.
You were talking about intent of Congress.
No, I was talking about the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment's >birthright citizenship clause.
If you seriously argue, like Sauer, that the Fourteenth Amendment was a >>>>grant of liberty to the freed men and no one else
I'm not saying no one else. Just not people who entered the country >>>illegally.
The unborn baby did nothing illegal.
Neither is the baby legally in the United States. Whether it's born or still >in the womb is irrelevant.
Just as a child brought here illegally (and involuntarily) by her
parents at the age of two is an illegal alien despite having done nothing >illegal herself.
. . .
Every time you bring up that case, I ask you how the newborn baby >>>>himself violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, even if presuming >>>>his mother did?
Intent is not an element of the offense.
I didn't raise intent. I'm pointing out that not yet having been born at >>the point of the illegal entry means there was no violation of the law
in question. As it's not illegal to be born, then having been born, the >>baby cannot possibly be illegally present in the United States even if
his mother is.
Why not? A 2-year-old child brought into the country illegally by his mother >is illegally present in the United States despite having had no choice (or >even comprehension) in the matter.
. . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 40:45:55 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,399 |