So? Solution: ignore the one document that makes the US unique in the world? Throw out the Constitution. AND all it's protections. Not just the ones YOU want thrown out.
The procedural question the Supreme Court has been tasked to answer is far more important than the underlying scenario of birthright citizenship. This is a massive due process issue. When a district court imposes a nationwide injunction outside of a class action context it means everyone in the world benefits at your expense without being bound to the alternative prospect or liable and without due process for you.
Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to be outstanding in these cases and points out that unlike a class action ruling, which participants in a law suit can use to compel relief from the government, universal injunctions in this instance act and benefit non parties in the same way stopping someone from continuing to breaking the law benefits everyone in society but it doesn't allow citizens to seek relief from the person being told to stop breaking the law. Like someone having their license taken away for drunk driving. That benefits everyone on the road but isn't similar to a class action from people harmed by a drunk driver.
True. But all countries in the Americas (except the Dominican Republic and Co!ombia) do have jus soli the same way as the US.
Are you trying to say that children of illegal immigrants who did not come here to leech off the welfare system should be allowed? Or are you stating that the only reason any person is an illegal immigrant is to leech off the welfare system?
A child born in the U.S to illegal immigrants has not done anything illegal, and your arguments about what they should do are nonsensical.
Actually, that’s not the “design.”
But then our constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship to all comers. It has merely been mistakenly interpreted that way. It was only intended for protection of freed slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War.
www.mediaite.com
Let’s have a look at what the structure of the inferior system (which is exactly in line with what I said).
Lets put the shoe on the other foot. Let's say a democratic president writes an EO that makes all firearms illegal to purchase and possess. When it gets to court, the one judges smacks down the EO in his jurisdiction on constitutional grounds (2nd A), yet 90% of America is still having to get rid of their guns.
I wouldn't expect a whole solution. This court seems to go out of its way to make partial unambiguous rulings that don't always answer the questions.
Actually, the problem with the current practice is the inverse. Using your scenario with guns and making it parallel with what is happening in this case, what would happen is that a single person sues the government because the government intends to confiscate their guns and a district court judge responds to that by issuing a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the government from confiscating anyone’s guns.
That is what class actions are for. What is confusing, expensive, and burdensome is having to jet around the country fighting the same battle in multiple circuits because the district court judges are competing against each other with nationwide actions every 5 minutes.
It makes legal sense. We have an obligation under the law and three treaties to deal with asylum seekers, much as we have the right to expel those here illegally.
Yeah, I think in this case they're only going to rule on whether or not judges can issue universal injunctions, or if they apply only to the parties before the court. I don't think they're going to rule on the wider issue of birthright citizenship.
Correct. They are clearly chomping at the bit to get the question of birthright citizenship before them, and they keep asking questions about how quickly that will happen, but the only question brought before them in this case is the procedural question of inferior court universal injunctions in non-class action cases. Still, hasn’t stopped them from asking questions totally unrelated to that.
Well it's an important case to take on because it's essentially discussing whether or not the President can rewrite the Constitution through EO.Correct. They are clearly chomping at the bit to get the question of birthright citizenship before them, and they keep asking questions about how quickly that will happen, but the only question brought before them in this case is the procedural question of inferior court universal injunctions in non-class action cases. Still, hasn’t stopped them from asking questions totally unrelated to that.
In terms of the broader case, part of the problem here is that we don’t know who, if anyone, the EO affects or how because of both the speed of the first universal injunction and because, as part of that, the Executive Branch is prohibited from even fleshing out the policy. Setting aside the inherent issue with District Courts issuing nationwide injunctions outside of class actions, these cases shouldn’t even exist because how do you determine standing and injury when the Executive is enjoined from even forming the policy they’re suing over?