VladtheDestroyer
Well-known member
I am a Christian, Anna, if I was feeling any of these things I would either pray, study the Bible or go play with my wife.
Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
I am a Christian, Anna, if I was feeling any of these things I would either pray, study the Bible or go play with my wife.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
She's projecting
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I suggest you do a lot more of those things, all of which are better than making childish comments about serious subjects.
No, I did not use ChatGPT. I did use a tool to help organize and refine my thoughts, similar to how people use any tool for clarity. The data, history, and reasoning are mine.
Accusing someone of using ChatGPT instead of engaging the arguments is a weak dodge. Would you please address the arguments I made, instead?
Do you dispute the assimilation patterns for Mexican-Americans across generations (language yes, but persistent gaps in education, income, intermarriage, and fiscal net contribution)? Or the relevance of group average cognitive ability to those outcomes in large-scale low-skilled immigration? Or that birthright citizenship creates strong incentives for chain migration and demographic shifts?
Did you hopefully understand why this decision by the supreme court is actually detrimental to our society? Maybe even just a little?
Or are you too blinded by your commitment to leftist ideology?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I didn't accuse, I asked, so let's keep this accurate.
What tool did you use to help organize your thoughts? What is it called?
I'm asking because I won't engage in a discussion with anyone, anywhere, who uses AI of any kind to build their argument. AI erodes critical thinking, reinforces user bias, and makes stuff up when it doesn't know the answer, so if people don't want to use their own words, and build their own argument, I'm not interested. That's it. It's not a copout, and it's not personal. I use that litmus here and on a couple other forums I belong to.
It's ludicrous you'd say I was making an accusation "instead of engaging the arguments," you know very well that for the most part, all I get from you guys is laughing emojis or "that's gay." Sure seems like you're using Alinsky on me, expecting me to jump through hoops that none of you will. That's an old story though, Jefferson agreed with me that rightists found Alinsky useful.
Then you refer to me being blinded (ad hom there), once again making the argument personal.
I'll put the question back to you: Do you hopefully understand why this decision by the supreme court is actually constitutionally sound? Maybe even just a little?
Last edited:
VladtheDestroyer
Well-known member
Gay.
Last edited:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
uber gayYou're going on ignore, my dear child.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
uber projection
That is what I did.
But you didn't engage the arguments. You asked whether I used ChatGPT, then explained that you use that as a litmus test for whether you will bother responding.
That's not "engaging the arguments" no matter how you frame it.
It's not an ad hominem to point out that ideology affects interpretation. Everyone has presuppositions. The question is whether those presuppositions are causing you to accept a modern political reading of the Citizenship Clause without actually defending it.
So defend it.
I understand the argument for it. You have not made that argument.
You've asserted that the decision is constitutionally sound. You have not established it.
The issue is not whether illegal aliens are subject to American law in some limited territorial sense. Of course they are. The issue is whether "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means mere physical subjection to American law, or whether it refers to the fuller political jurisdiction and allegiance relevant to citizenship.
That is the point you have not addressed.
I am not going to simply accept your conclusion because the Supreme Court reached it. Courts can be wrong. A decision being binding under current law does not automatically make it constitutionally sound.
If you want to defend the ruling, then defend the ruling. But so far, you have mostly objected to the method with which I wrote my argument rather than answering the argument itself.
What about my reasoning in post #15 is wrong, incorrect, or flawed? Did I present something as factual when it is not? If not, then I have sufficiently rebutted your claims, the ball is in your court to defend it. Or just concede that you have no answer. Or that you don't want to answer. But you cannot simply deny that your claims have been rebutted.
VladtheDestroyer
Well-known member
For real.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
And you didn't answer the question. What's the name of the tool you used?
Read the link at my post #6.
That's where it will start, depending what tool you used to make your argument.
I have established it. You don't agree with it. It was clearly explained in my post #6.
Your reasoning is subject to review, based on what tool you used to organized your thoughts. Sorry. The fact that you didn't say when given the opportunity doesn't help matters. After you've let me know that, then give me in (hopefully) a paragraph or less why you don't accept the plain words of the ruling.
VladtheDestroyer
Well-known member
No Anna, the kids back in the 90's who called stuff "gay", weren't a radicalist counter-culture. They were normal kids who didn't want to have gay gym teachers and gay Boy Scout Leaders.
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I haven't read the decision or the dissent or any of the commentary, but I was disappointed that what was so obvious to me wasn't obvious to a majority of the Supreme Court. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a meaningless statement IF the citizen isn't at least periodically in the country.
Imagine a Palestinian woman gets a student visa, comes to Columbia, has a child, goes back to Gaza where the child grows up to become a member of Hamas and participates in the execution of homosexuals.
In what way is that "citizen" subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? US law would recognize that he committed murder.
Furthermore legal language is precise and exact or it is worthless. Note the bold below.
"are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"
If they don't reside in a State, then the 14th amendment doesn't apply.
It's called a BRAIN, Anna.
Surely you've used one before?
Oh, and fingers to type, and a smartphone to post things to TOL on.
And the relevant tool is called an argument.
Happy now?
If something I said is false, show that it is false. If the logic fails, show where it fails. But asking about my drafting process is not a rebuttal.
Then start there.
Make the argument.
No, you linked to someone else making an argument. That is not the same thing as establishing it yourself. And that's what I'm asking you to do.
Rather than just outsourcing your position to a link, try reasoning it out using your brain in your next post.
You sound like a bureaucrat inspecting paperwork before deciding whether an argument is allowed to exist.
Because the “plain words” do not say “everyone born on American soil is a citizen.” They say “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The entire issue is what that second requirement means. If it means nothing more than “physically present where American law applies,” then it adds almost nothing, because illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, enemy spies, and even invaders are subject to American law in various ways while here. But citizenship concerns political membership and allegiance, not merely the government’s power to arrest or punish someone. A foreigner unlawfully or temporarily present may be under American law in a limited territorial sense, but that does not mean he is under the full political jurisdiction of the United States in the citizenship sense. That is why I reject the ruling as constitutionally unsound even though it is binding under current law.
Post #15 expands on the same point.
And ok doser’s example illustrates the problem nicely.
A child can be born here because the mother was briefly here on a visa, then be taken back overseas, grow up entirely under another nation, another legal order, another culture, and another allegiance, and still be treated as an American citizen for life.
That is not a serious understanding of political jurisdiction, and invites irrationality.
The issue is not whether the United States had ordinary territorial authority over the hospital room at the moment of birth, but rather whether the child was born under the full political jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States in the sense relevant to citizenship.
Only when already subject to the authority. Lawful aliens that are here to work and have a work visa and residency visa/permission are not citizens. But their children born at that time are. Because their parents are subject to the authority of America.
I think a distinction needs to be made here.
One can be an American on paper, have all the proper legal documents, live here, raise a family here, etc, but if they dont share the same moral framework of "America," whatever that may be, then they are not truly "Americans" except in name only.
That's the point I was getting at in my post #15. It's why "birthright citizenship" is such a bad idea to begin with. These people that come here, pop out a baby, and then expect to be treated the same, and to treat others the same, as in the place they came from, they generally do not have the same shared moral framework that Western nations do, especially a nation such as America, given its Christian principles (however poorly implemented).
Them coming here only dilutes those values, and the people that adhere to them.
And as I stated before, these foreigners have generally no interest in assimilating.
And until they do, then they should be treated as foreigners, not Americans.
Anyone can take an oath.
Whether it actually means something to them is another matter entirely.
Anchor babies are not citizens. I agree.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
No one says they "use a tool to help organize and refine [their] thoughts," and mean by it that their brain is the tool. Especially when you go on to say "similar to how people use any tool for clarity." Then you add "The data, history, and reasoning are mine," as if that's a separate thing.
You shouldn't be surprised I asked, since you've made no secret of using ChatGPT.
But I'll leave it at that. I've made the points I wanted to make:
I didn't "accuse," and I won't engage with AI-assisted dialogue if I'm able to know that's what it is.
Won't be long before it'll be too difficult to tell except by knowing someone long enough to sense they don't sound the same now as they once did.
I don't need coaching, thanks.
I said "the plain words of the ruling." I've read the ruling. Have you?
Held: Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States
and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Pp. 2–26.
(a) The Citizenship Clause must be understood in light of its historical context, from the English common law to the widespread condemnation of the Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393.
Your rejection of the legal interpretation of the law by the Supreme Court majority is duly noted.
Your opening lines of post #15 say
when the Supreme Court says clearly, above, "The Citizenship Clause must be understood in light of its historical context."
Here's some history. U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark (1898) makes it clear that it's further supporting the already existing historical context:
"So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes…have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents."
So let's start there.
Last edited: