In his first sit-down broadcast network interview since winning re-election, President-elect Donald J. Trump vowed to pardon Capitol attackers and to try to end automatic citizenship for children of immigrants.
An 1898 case already decided that children born to permanent residents who are not on a diplomatic mission, are US Citizens.
If they overturn a 1898 decision, we’re gonna be in some real trouble.
The most likely scenario I see is they will decide that birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to children of unauthorized immigrants, since the supreme court never ruled on it.
The Roberts court has shown that they don’t care about stare decisis, precedents, or facts (ex. the photographer who had no legitimate standing on account of not actually receiving requests from a same-sex couple and having fabricated one instead). I wouldn’t hold my breath on that case not being overturned.
But counterpoint: There was a court case in 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson) that said racial segregation was legal. This is the same court 2 years later also upholding birthright citizenship.
I don’t think the current court has a mindset that’s even older than a 1896 supreme court mindset.
That said, republicans could always pack more judges with an even older pre- civil war mindset, that is much worse than the 1896 court. Only time will tell.
Alito cited a 17th century jurist in his justification for overturning Roe v. Wade. That’s 1600s, a century before the US was founded and not relevant to extant law.
Unfortunately, that court rulling never mentioned those, but I’m gonna be optimistic and assume the courts intent was that children of people who legally entered the country have birthright citizenship (assuming the parent’s visas haven’t expired at the time of the birth). But there’s no way to know for sure. We’ll have to wait and see exactly how conservative this court gets.
The court ruled that:
a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth
Basically, the only points of contention that I know of were:
whether or not a child of a foreign national has birthright citizenship - which was answered in this court ruling
and more recently, the concept of an “illegal alien” as appeared so now the debate is on:
whether or not a child of a person who entered illegally has birthright citizenship - which was not answered in this court ruling
Since neither of these points of contention differentiates between permanent resident and other forms of legal entry, I’m gonna be optimistic and say that your sister will have birthright citizenship.
And even if they do end birthright citizenship, it might not be retroactive, since that paperwork is just gonna be insane, we can’t track the parents of every child born in the us, so it might just be applied from now on.
Hopefully my assumption will be correct. Time will tell.
An 1898 case already decided that children born to permanent residents who are not on a diplomatic mission, are US Citizens.
If they overturn a 1898 decision, we’re gonna be in some real trouble.
The most likely scenario I see is they will decide that birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to children of unauthorized immigrants, since the supreme court never ruled on it.
The Roberts court has shown that they don’t care about stare decisis, precedents, or facts (ex. the photographer who had no legitimate standing on account of not actually receiving requests from a same-sex couple and having fabricated one instead). I wouldn’t hold my breath on that case not being overturned.
True, I’m just being optimistic.
But counterpoint: There was a court case in 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson) that said racial segregation was legal. This is the same court 2 years later also upholding birthright citizenship.
I don’t think the current court has a mindset that’s even older than a 1896 supreme court mindset.
That said, republicans could always pack more judges with an even older pre- civil war mindset, that is much worse than the 1896 court. Only time will tell.
Alito cited a 17th century jurist in his justification for overturning Roe v. Wade. That’s 1600s, a century before the US was founded and not relevant to extant law.
Yikes.
Welp, back to slavery 🤷♂️
What about authorized migrants on visa? My sister was born in the US the years after my parents moved there on work visa.
Unfortunately, that court rulling never mentioned those, but I’m gonna be optimistic and assume the courts intent was that children of people who legally entered the country have birthright citizenship (assuming the parent’s visas haven’t expired at the time of the birth). But there’s no way to know for sure. We’ll have to wait and see exactly how conservative this court gets.
The court ruled that:
Basically, the only points of contention that I know of were:
and more recently, the concept of an “illegal alien” as appeared so now the debate is on:
Since neither of these points of contention differentiates between permanent resident and other forms of legal entry, I’m gonna be optimistic and say that your sister will have birthright citizenship.
And even if they do end birthright citizenship, it might not be retroactive, since that paperwork is just gonna be insane, we can’t track the parents of every child born in the us, so it might just be applied from now on.
Hopefully my assumption will be correct. Time will tell.
Thanks!