SuzukiSavage.com /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1764967123 Message started by Eegore on 12/05/25 at 12:38:43

Title: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review Post by Eegore on 12/05/25 at 12:38:43  Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review.  Official information could be posted on Monday and the assessment will begin in the spring.  Maybe the "under the jurisdiction" nonsense will actually get some backing from a real US Court for a change.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review Post by thumperclone on 12/05/25 at 13:56:17 we are all birthright citizens children of immigrants at one time or another

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review Post by Eegore on 12/05/25 at 14:25:53 we are all birthright citizens children of immigrants at one time or another  Doesn't matter.  This applies now and for future humans in the US.  Using your logic there are no US Citizens, or a United States because there was a time when the US did not exist.   We are also all lungfish because there was a time before humans.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review Post by Needles on 12/05/25 at 14:39:41 Why is it necessary to "review" something that is made clear in no uncertain terms in the original Constitution? It's just another MAGAT plot to strip citizenship from non-white people, >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review Post by Serowbot on 12/05/25 at 15:05:26 The Constitution only applies to the 2nd Amendment Didn't you know that?  :-? 684343424A4355260 wrote: Why is it necessary to "review" something that is made clear in no uncertain terms in the original Constitution? It's just another MAGAT plot to strip citizenship from non-white people, >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review Post by Eegore on 12/05/25 at 16:13:51 Why is it necessary to "review" something that is made clear in no uncertain terms in the original Constitution? It's just another MAGAT plot to strip citizenship from non-white people,  I'm sure plenty of men said something like this before Aug 26, 1920 when they didn't want women to vote.  No part of the US Constitution should be exempt from potential change.  The Amendment process for the Constitution are there for this reason.  Things are going to change over time and the US legal system needs to change with it.  If the birthright citizenship process is being abused in a capacity that is detrimental to the overall good of the People, then it should be amended.  If it is not detrimental then things should continue as they are now.  SCOTUS review is going to be part of that process, pass or fail.

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/25 at 04:04:57 Of course you have no automatic right to full US Citizenship if your birth mother gave birth on US soil while she herself was not a US citizen. Seems pretty simple. The only reason you liberals are twisting yourselves into pretzels is because one: you see an opportunity for future voters and two:politics is a game and the blue jersey team is on one side and the red on the other. “The United States and Canada are the only two developed/high-income countries with completely unrestricted birthright citizenship as of 2025. Most European, Asian, and Oceanian countries have abolished or heavily restricted it.” Countries That Recently Restricted or Abolished Birthright Citizenship •  Ireland (abolished in 2004) •  New Zealand (2006) •  Australia (1986, with restrictions since) •  United Kingdom (1983) •  India (1987, tightened 2004) •  France (1993, now requires additional conditions) •  Dominican Republic (2010, retroactively for Haitian descendants) Countries With Conditional/Restricted Jus Soli Examples of common restrictions: •  At least one parent must be a citizen or legal permanent resident (e.g., most of Europe, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia). •  Child must apply or register later (e.g., Portugal, Spain, Germany for certain cases).

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/25 at 04:15:45 Global Overview of Unrestricted Jus Soli Unrestricted (or unconditional) birthright citizenship—where nearly anyone born on a country’s soil automatically becomes a citizen, regardless of parents’ status (with standard exceptions for diplomats or invading forces)—is practiced in approximately 30–35 countries out of about 195 sovereign nations worldwide. [ch65532] [ch65532] This makes it a minority policy globally, as the majority of countries (around 160) rely primarily on jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent/blood) or conditional versions of jus soli. [ch65532] [ch65532] Regional Breakdown •  Western Hemisphere (Americas): This region overwhelmingly adopts unrestricted jus soli. Out of roughly 35 countries in the Americas, about 30 have it, including major ones like the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and most of Central and South America (e.g., Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, and Caribbean nations like Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago). [ch65532] [ch65532] [ch65532] This stems from historical influences, such as post-colonial constitutions modeled after the U.S. 14th Amendment or similar principles in Latin American independence movements. •  Europe: No country offers unrestricted jus soli. Most (e.g., Germany, France, UK, Italy) use jus sanguinis or require conditions like parental residency or later application by the child. [ch65532] [ch65532] Several, like Ireland (2004) and the UK (1983), abolished unrestricted versions in recent decades due to immigration concerns. •  Asia: Only Pakistan has (or had) unrestricted jus soli, but it passed restrictions in late 2024 requiring parental citizenship/residency or 10 years of child residency; implementation is ongoing but effectively ends the unrestricted policy in practice. [ch65532] Other Asian countries (e.g., China, India, Japan, South Korea) use jus sanguinis exclusively or with strict conditions. •  Africa: Only Chad and Lesotho are sometimes listed, but with nuances (e.g., Chad requires a choice at age 18). [ch65532] •  Oceania: Fiji and Tuvalu are occasionally cited, but no major countries like Australia or New Zealand (both restricted it in the 1980s–2000s). [ch65532] In numerical terms: The Americas account for about 85–90% of countries with unrestricted jus soli, while Europe (0 out of ~50 countries) and Asia (effectively 0 out of ~50 as of late 2025) have none. [ch65532] [ch65532] [ch65532] This distribution is why sources describe the policy as “predominantly” or “the norm” in the Western Hemisphere, while it’s rare or absent elsewhere—making regions like Europe and Asia statistical outliers in not adopting it. [ch65532]

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/25 at 04:23:34 0D2626272F2630430 wrote: Why is it necessary to "review" something that is made clear in no uncertain terms in the original Constitution? It's just another MAGAT plot to strip citizenship from non-white people, >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( “Made clear in no uncertain terms in the original Constitution? “ What exactly did the original Constitution say about citizenship? Not any amendment, but in your phrase, the original Constitution?

Title: Re: Birthright citizenship goes to SCOTUS review Post by Needles on 12/06/25 at 07:30:41 If you're born here, you are a US citizen. If you're not born here, but immigrate, and pass the citizenship exam, you're a US citizen. Not much wiggle room there, is it? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.