These guys are leading lights of the conservative legal movement. They tried to reverse-engineer an originalist argument against birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. And the BEST they could manage has a massive flaw that renders their whole theory demonstrably bogus! - ThreadSky

mjsdc.bsky.social • 6 days ago

These guys are leading lights of the conservative legal movement. They tried to reverse-engineer an originalist argument against birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. And the BEST they could manage has a massive flaw that renders their whole theory demonstrably bogus!

Reposted from Evan Bernick, a finite mode with a resolute floof

I know people are probably tired of this by now but I can’t let it go.

Apply this reasoning to enslaved people who were forced into the country after the slave trade was banned. Unlawfully present. No pledge to obey.

Anti-birthrighters can’t explain how the 14A nullified Dred Scott.

Comments

4gabriel.bsky.social•6 days ago

They are breaking the back of the country to do 7th grade term papers on citizenship 🤦‍♀️😡

desertmage65.bsky.social•6 days ago

In other words, they’re bootstrapping hucksters just like the Supreme Court majority.

raymondguiteras.bsky.social•6 days ago

Wouldn't this obviate birthright citizenship for *everyone*? Babies don't enter a mutual whateverthehell. They just are.

Seems like they're arguing that *no one* can be a citizen until they're adults able to covenant blahdyblah.

raymondguiteras.bsky.social•6 days ago

@jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social got there first (probably dozens more once I refresh so ... I'm not going to refresh)

https://bsky.app/profile/jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social/post/3liawsli64k2n

madamairlock.bsky.social•6 days ago

They'd actually love being able to deny citizenship to anyone who doesn't pass a loyalty test. Just like with poll tests, they could flood the positions in charge of granting citizenship with loyalists and deny it to anyone left of Reagan or part of a minority group because they "didn't qualify."

jmwarren.bsky.social•6 days ago

These guys are the same Fascist lawyers that supported Hitler. They know nothing and care nothing of history of the 14th Amendment. They are charlatans. They employers should rethink their employment as it brings disgrace and contempt.

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•2 days ago

Bravo!

jimlsilver.bsky.social•22 hours ago

Section 1 says nothing about obedience or allegiance.
It says subject to the jurisdiction. Illegal aliens and tourists are subject to the jurisdiction of the federal and state governments.
If they weren't, the government could not deport them. It couldn't even give them a speeding ticket.

carlnyberg312.bsky.social•6 days ago

Racists gonna racist.

"Conservatism" has always been racism (that capitalist media agreed to brand as something other than racism).

mjhxoot.bsky.social•6 days ago

The invader argument has always been there, because of its remote basis in Art 1 and art 4 of the constitution. The Trump immigration invasion PR trope is not just superficial demagoguery.

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•6 days ago

Huh? The Trump argument against birthright citizenship is quintessential superficial demagoguery.

mjhxoot.bsky.social•6 days ago

It's not merely superficial demagogic PR. It's deep, systemic change publicly justified through the apparently hyperbolic "invasion" metaphor. Their lawyers are already arguing "while illegal immigrants are not violent invaders, they are..."

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•6 days ago

I think that I just don’t understand your point. I believe that the invasion metaphor is fraudulent and evil. To me, that metaphor is part of the superficial demagoguery.

mjhxoot.bsky.social•6 days ago

Of course it's fraudulent and evil but the current SCt may approve a version of it. I'm a lawyer too. 35 yrs. Clerked at a state Supreme Court. Look at Const art 1 sec 8[15] & art 4 sec 4. They've been working on this for decades.

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•6 days ago

Yes, demonstrably, the current SCOTUS cannot be counted on to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Bogus, evil con.-law & statutory-interpretation arguments, and false assertions of fact, often prevail at the current SCOTUS.

rednecklefty.bsky.social•6 days ago

But I was told by leading legal academics that Wurman's arguments could be treated in good faith, Mark. That we just had to be patient in order to see Wurman's arguments and analysis, based on history and originalism. Has anyone heard from these academics this weekend? Or are they hiding?

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•6 days ago

A huge number of law professors are naive about the real world.

sababausa.bsky.social•6 days ago

In other words, a sneak preview of John Roberts

tonymerriman.bsky.social•6 days ago

All this is confusing. Take a green card holder, not citizens and have never pledged allegiance etc etc, but presumably their children born in the USA are citizens ?

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•2 days ago

Yes, those children are US citizens as the law is and has been understood for over a century. But the SCOTUS could always choose to flip that law upside down, to make it racist, in thinly veiled service of white supremacy.

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•6 days ago

6/ Slight correction to my second comment. Parental status as a diplomat of another country or member of an invading army is relevant. Parents’ immigration status is not relevant.

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•6 days ago

5/ The racist charlatan Wurman says that this law question is hard. False. The analysis is straightforward and easy.

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•6 days ago

4/ Wong Kim Ark’s parents came from China to the U.S.; never became U.S. citizens; and returned to China *permanently* many years before the SCOTUS ruled (correctly) that Wong Kim Ark had birthright U.S. citizenship by virtue of having been born in the USA and being subject to U.S. laws.

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•6 days ago

3/ “Subject to the jurisdiction” means obligated to follow the laws. Doesn’t mean also having allegiance.

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•6 days ago

2/ So the example and the B-W argument share a flaw in asserting/assuming that a person’s parents’ allegiance to the U.S. is a relevant factor for birthright citizenship. The person’s own status is what counts. Otherwise, there is citizenship by lineage, the opposite of by birth.

adrianwashere.bsky.social•5 days ago

But we already have that? Just not *exclusively*. We follow jus sanguinis, but we *also* follow jus soli. It's both, not one or the other. At least in the US.

What is citizenship by lineage if not jus sanguinis?

What is jus sanguinis if not citizenship by lineage?

Birth defines lineage.

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•2 days ago

You missed my point. Yes, there is citizenship by naturalization in the U.S. But there is *also* citizenship as birthright. Randy and Ilan are trying to erase citizenship as birthright with ridiculously flimsy arguments and misreading of evidence.

adrianwashere.bsky.social•1 day ago

I think you meant that reply for someone else?

I didn't even mention naturalized citizenship at all. I was exclusively talking about natural born citizenship.

Both jus soli and jus sanguinis are forms of birthright citizenship, just based on different criteria.

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•23 hours ago

I think that you and I are talking past each other. At least, I don’t understand your point.

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•6 days ago

1/ That example does undermine the silly Barnett-Wurman argument. But there are more basic flaws. A new-born baby is incapable of pledging allegiance to a country. The made-up “allegiance” requirement can’t be fulfilled, would block *all* birthright citizenship, and thus cannot be correct.

adrianwashere.bsky.social•5 days ago

You say that cannot be correct, but it may be what they're going for, anyway.

Only (old(er)) Republicans can have citizenship, not even their own kids get it automatically, which prevents "corrupted" youth from being empowered against them, & gives them something to dangle for obedience.

adrianwashere.bsky.social•5 days ago

If there's no birthright citizenship at all, either they can bestow it, ad hoc, or all the citizens will eventually die off, but they won't care at that point, bc they had absolute control until death.

I think the former is more likely, but I wouldn't be totally shocked if it were the latter.

schmidtbrian.bsky.social•6 days ago

Same would be true though for babies of foreign diplomats and babies born from members of hypothetically-invading armies, but they don't have birthright citizenship.

I think the better distinction is disobeying one law isn't disobeying all laws - they've actually come to be part of US.

jonathaneisenberg.bsky.social•6 days ago

Babies of non-U.S. diplomats and/or invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because those babies’ parents’ non-U.S. governments claim/have exclusive jurisdictional control over the babies, not because the parents don’t manifest allegiance or “amity” to the U.S.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply