From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv
BTR1701 <
atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 5:10:54 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Children born to parents who are in the U.S. unlawfully or temporarily
are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., Roberts writes. "Under
the Constitution, they are citizens at
birth."
-- John Roberts, Trump v. Barbara
All this time the debate over who is "subject to" has been about the
child's mother or both mother and father.
Roberts has turned the debate on its head. The issue is whether the
child born on American soil, is "subject to".
Chinese birth tourism? As a traveller, the mother is not resident. But I >>> think the kid may claim citizenship. As far as illegal alien mothers,
it's clear to me as she is resident but not "present" for imigration
law. That child is an American.
Roberts's opinion was not joinedd in full. Kavanaugh dissented in part,
concurred in part. Jackson was a separatate concurrence, joined by
Sotomayor. It seems they only concurred in part. Not sure where Kagan
and Barrett are.
Alito condemned it but it sounds like his historical analysis is flawed.
I heard an interesting historical analysis of Trump's executive order,
had it been policy at the time of enactment of the 14th Amendment. While
the clause was written to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), given
the concern that the 13th Amendment had not overturned the decision, it
wasn't actually a grant of citizenship to all former slaves. There were
still slaves being imported into the United States after the trade had
been made illega in the Constitution. They weren't born on American soil
and were in the country illegally. By Trump's order, had it been policy
at the time, their children born on American soil would not have been
children by birth.
Think about that.
The 14th needs to be amended to make it clear that children of illegals are >not citizens so we can end this pointless philosophical debate about what >"jurisdiction thereof" means.
What philosophical debate? The 14th Amendment inherited its rational
from common law. And, our Founding Fathers and the Republicans who wrote Reconstruction laws had no concept of illegal aliens! The New World was
vast with unlimited resources!
It is simply preposterous to assert that those who willfully violated our laws >and snuck into the country can, strictly by trespassing on it, secure the >ultimate benefit of citizenship for their children against the consent of the >nation.
That is not a comment on birth tourism, so this opinion not only upholds
Wong Kim Ark, it expands it!
Don't you realize what "your side" did? John Roberts put Trump above the
law for crimes he committed during the first term WHILE IN OFFICE. Well,
every time MY state passes an over-the -top gun restriction, it becomes
the basis for expansive 2nd Amendment rights, like McDonald. The AR-15 expansion will undoubtably use a case from my state.
Roberts was not going to let Trump rewrite the 14th Amendment in an
executive order. If Trump hadn't fucked up big time, then Wong Kim Ark
wouldn't have been EXPANDED.
"Your side" just made things worse. That's some master strategy there.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2