The first and most recent is of Hoda Muthana. she's the ISIS bride who has been refused return entry into America. she's the daughter of a former diplomat who was born in America. the government is claiming that means she isn't a citizen even though she was registered as one.
the crux of this case will be section 1 clause of the 14th amendment
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
depending on how the court interprets this clause it will determine the future of birthright citizenship. this has the potential of not only ending birthright citizenship but also stripping citizenship from all anchor babies and birth tourists.
it looks like a case that will be going to the Supreme Court and holy fuck the unimaginable blow back from it.
the other two cases will be heard by the Supreme Court sometime this year and they concern the Census and Gerrymandering
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/02/22/hoda-muthana-isis-brides-family-file-lawsuit-against-trump-pompeo/2948575002/
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): B7FAB305594EB97301721178C9F8D3AE-674430.png (658.6 KB, 1110x839, 12398749382749283.png)
>>206586
the Census one is about adding a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. the Trump administration would like to know how many persons in the US are actually citizens. this question was on the Census until the 1960s. Democrats are saying that it will scare foreign born citizens and cause a massive under count. they believe that foreign born illegals and legal residents believe that the information will be used by the government to deport them in the future, even though it's illegal.
let's assume the Democrats fears are true and consider the implications. the US Census not only determines population but also congressional redistricting and federal funding for social programs, like welfare. there are about 28% of the US population is foreign born plus anchor babies, something like 80 million people. I doubt all of them will sit out let's assume the 30 million illegals do.
this completely fucks over states with high foreign born populations. California, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois and Florida will all lose congressional seat and they will be allotted to states with few illegals. Ohio and Indiana would be the biggest winners followed by several small states. foreign born populations are largely urban so when a state like California redistricts it will favor rural areas because will no longer be over represented with illegals. so not only will democrats lose seats in those states but because of redistricting they will lose seats to rural areas.
plus welfare to illegals will be broken and democrats will have to decide between taking care of citizens that are in poverty or reducing gibs for everybody. this means a potential cat 5 chimp out in states like New Jersey,New York and Illinois with high black populations.
the Census one is about adding a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. the Trump administration would like to know how many persons in the US are actually citizens. this question was on the Census until the 1960s. Democrats are saying that it will scare foreign born citizens and cause a massive under count. they believe that foreign born illegals and legal residents believe that the information will be used by the government to deport them in the future, even though it's illegal.
let's assume the Democrats fears are true and consider the implications. the US Census not only determines population but also congressional redistricting and federal funding for social programs, like welfare. there are about 28% of the US population is foreign born plus anchor babies, something like 80 million people. I doubt all of them will sit out let's assume the 30 million illegals do.
this completely fucks over states with high foreign born populations. California, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois and Florida will all lose congressional seat and they will be allotted to states with few illegals. Ohio and Indiana would be the biggest winners followed by several small states. foreign born populations are largely urban so when a state like California redistricts it will favor rural areas because will no longer be over represented with illegals. so not only will democrats lose seats in those states but because of redistricting they will lose seats to rural areas.
plus welfare to illegals will be broken and democrats will have to decide between taking care of citizens that are in poverty or reducing gibs for everybody. this means a potential cat 5 chimp out in states like New Jersey,New York and Illinois with high black populations.
File (): 8F0328B962A1ED85C05FDDCB33DE0263-331416.png (323.6 KB, 2162x2424, 1499103781952-2.png)
>>206586
The "Diplomat" exception has long been considered a valid exception to the birthright citizenship clause. If they decide that it still holds, they won't necessarily also decide that the children of illegal aliens are not citizens. They can decide the case without any reference to illegal aliens. On the other hand, if they decide that it is not a valid exception, that will likely enshrine into law that the children of illegal aliens are citizens
The "Diplomat" exception has long been considered a valid exception to the birthright citizenship clause. If they decide that it still holds, they won't necessarily also decide that the children of illegal aliens are not citizens. They can decide the case without any reference to illegal aliens. On the other hand, if they decide that it is not a valid exception, that will likely enshrine into law that the children of illegal aliens are citizens
>>206586
I considered that however the girl's father is claiming that he was no longer a diplomat at the time of her birth. I don't know what his immigration status was at the time of her birth but the government is saying she isn't a citizen.
I considered that however the girl's father is claiming that he was no longer a diplomat at the time of her birth. I don't know what his immigration status was at the time of her birth but the government is saying she isn't a citizen.
>>206589
if the case is decided stating that the children of unnaturalized foreign nationals are not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States regardless of their legal status.
that would effectively end birthright citizenship. it would end birth tourism and end illegals anchor babies.
this is pretty much what the case is about. her father was in the US, not yet naturalized and he was no longer a diplomat. he's claiming that because she was born here she's an automatic citizen, the government says otherwise. if the court rules in Trump's favor it will affect all of the children of unnaturalized individuals.
if the case is decided stating that the children of unnaturalized foreign nationals are not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States regardless of their legal status.
that would effectively end birthright citizenship. it would end birth tourism and end illegals anchor babies.
this is pretty much what the case is about. her father was in the US, not yet naturalized and he was no longer a diplomat. he's claiming that because she was born here she's an automatic citizen, the government says otherwise. if the court rules in Trump's favor it will affect all of the children of unnaturalized individuals.
>>206594
You don't understand. That the children of Diplomats are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States" is an entirely different exception and issue for birthright citizenship. It has a long history in the United States, and has existed almost since the beginning of the 14th amendment. Where the children of illegal aliens - which, mind you, is a radically different category than the children of official diplomats - does not have the same long history as the children-of-diplomats exception. That the children of illegal aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction" comes from a footnote in a 1980s case, "Plyer v Doe."
You don't understand. That the children of Diplomats are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States" is an entirely different exception and issue for birthright citizenship. It has a long history in the United States, and has existed almost since the beginning of the 14th amendment. Where the children of illegal aliens - which, mind you, is a radically different category than the children of official diplomats - does not have the same long history as the children-of-diplomats exception. That the children of illegal aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction" comes from a footnote in a 1980s case, "Plyer v Doe."
>>206588
the last case is about partisan gerrymandering. it's a bipartisan case oddly enough. if partisan gerrymandering is defeated the implications could be huge when considered in concert with the Citizenship Question case. it would mean that democrats could not gerrymander their way out of the changes in the 2020 census.
all of these scenarios are completely conditional but if the scenario plays out like this it will cause titanic shifts in American politics. the end of the democrat party as it is currently configured and virtually uncontested GOP rule for the next decade. >>206597
the last case is about partisan gerrymandering. it's a bipartisan case oddly enough. if partisan gerrymandering is defeated the implications could be huge when considered in concert with the Citizenship Question case. it would mean that democrats could not gerrymander their way out of the changes in the 2020 census.
all of these scenarios are completely conditional but if the scenario plays out like this it will cause titanic shifts in American politics. the end of the democrat party as it is currently configured and virtually uncontested GOP rule for the next decade. >>206597
>>206597
you didn't read what i wrote. Hoda Muthana's father is saying he wasn't a diplomat at the time of her birth so that doesn't apply
you didn't read what i wrote. Hoda Muthana's father is saying he wasn't a diplomat at the time of her birth so that doesn't apply
>>206588
>>206598
The new census precedent would give the Republicans the presidency until at least 2030 prospectively. Of course that is by no means permanent victory for /ourside/ but it gives enough breathing room to allow for a peaceable solution, social shifts willing. Otherwise we are condemned to accelerating total collapse.
This and the Wall (or a glorified fence, as long as it works) will make the Trump presidency worthwhile in my eyes, so long as he doesn't cuck too hard on anything else.
>>206598
The new census precedent would give the Republicans the presidency until at least 2030 prospectively. Of course that is by no means permanent victory for /ourside/ but it gives enough breathing room to allow for a peaceable solution, social shifts willing. Otherwise we are condemned to accelerating total collapse.
This and the Wall (or a glorified fence, as long as it works) will make the Trump presidency worthwhile in my eyes, so long as he doesn't cuck too hard on anything else.
9 replies | 2 files | 4 UUIDs | Archived