But in that case, weren't the people here legally? Has the idea that it would apply to illegals equally been testing at the court yet?
-
-
-
Obviously the court can choose to overturn any precedent at any time. But unless you think illegal immigrants are exempt from U.S. law, the precedent is clear.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Is it also why it means people born outside the US but in territories controlled by the US (eg John McCain) are citizens?
-
OK yes and no. The Insular Cases came about after the US found itself in possession of former Spanish colonial possessions and they needed to find a way to deny those people citizenship. Jus Soli was obviously the law so they just made some BS distinctions on what is the US.
-
The mental gymnastics required because there was no way in hell the court was going to admit that the constitution required that the children of 10 million Phillapinos were citizens at birth.
-
The worst part is that there is a bunch of American Samoan people who are not citizens of the US still because these crazy racist SCOTUS decisions are still good law.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The crazy racist gobbledygook that is the related "Insular Cases" would have been unnecessary. There they had to figure out a way that defined places like Puerto Rico as not US soil. This crazy distinction is still settled law btw.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Therefore, the only way to exempt the children of immigrants from citizenship is to give all immigrants diplomatic immunity? That oughta be popular.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, but the language seems designed to exclude only the staff of embassies and consulates who, through diplomatic immunity, are NOT subject to US law.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The EO doesn't need to be constitutional of Trump can get 5/9 Justices to agree that it is
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
That is a gross simplification of the precedent. Please stick to economics
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wrong
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Incorrect. But, you’re not a lawyer. So, I’m not surprised.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Here is the (in my opinion unlikely) legal worst-case scenario here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1057214626075680768.html … Though note she kind of glides over the major issue of whether an Act of Congress would be required, or if an Exec. Order could suffice (I haven't seen anyone serious argue for the EO).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.