Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LeftInTX

(34,359 posts)
17. I didn't know he asked those questions. It's good that he asked them.
Sun Mar 29, 2026, 02:54 PM
Mar 29

Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2026, 04:16 PM - Edit history (4)

The Constitution is subject to interpretation, but sometimes practicality is a factor in decisions. There is also the question, can the president change a long standing policy via an executive order? If birth right citizenship is to be revoked, wouldn't that be a congressional decision, so that pages and policy can be written. Like, how to determine if the parents have legal standing....

Remember on the Obama Care, decision when Roberts said, "It's a tax".....Literally it wasn't a tax, but practically it was...

I've looked at this case and theoretically, they could just reinterpret the 14th amendment, but it will sure disrupt lives. And numerous policies would need to be written. Parents would need to prove citizenship prior to giving birth. The 14th amendment was designed to grant former slaves citizenship. Likewise, the Hildago treaty several decades early gave Mexican citizens residing in the US, US citizenship by desiginating them as "white".

It also begs the question: "How was citizenship of children of white European immigrants determined prior to the 14th Amendment?" It sounds like it was a bit hodge podge, but people didn't really seem to care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

The constitution makes it clear, that we can no longer ban citizenship based on skin color etc. But it was a supreme court case that allowed a person of Chinese descent be considered a US citizenship. Like Roe v Wade, the case could be overturned. Or the case could be reinterpreted. I don't put anything past the Supreme Court.

There are plenty of countries that do not allow birthright citizenship. India is one of them. There is a huge Bollywood star, born into a prominent film industry family, whose mom is a British citizen. Her dad is an Indian citizen and Bollywood producer. She was born in India. She is a British citizen. and not an Indian citizen. (India does not allow dual citizenship)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alia_Bhatt

Alia Bhatt (/ˈɑːliə ˈbʌt/; born 15 March 1993) is a British actress of Indian descent who predominantly works in Hindi films.[1][2] Known for her portrayals of women in challenging circumstances, she has received several accolades, including a National Film Award and seven Filmfare Awards. She is one of India's highest-paid actresses. Time awarded her with the Time100 Impact Award in 2022 and named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2024.

Born into the Bhatt family, she is a daughter of filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt and actress Soni Razdan.

Bhatt was born into the Bhatt family on 15 March 1993[3][4] in Bombay (known by Mumbai since 1995), Maharashtra, India.[5][6] She is a daughter of Indian filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt and British actress Soni Razdan.[7] Mahesh is of Gujarati descent,[8][9] while Soni is of Kashmiri-Pandit and German descent.[10][11][12] Bhatt holds British citizenship



OK, it's a huge rabbit hole.....

ETA: Mexico does not grant automatic birthright citizenship. I know some US citizens (one may have residential status in Mexico) who did this and they had to go through all sorts of hoops. Baby did become a Mexican citizen, but Mexico had to prove that the parents were US citizens and the US was slow to provide documentation and they also would have been denied if the child would "likely be a charge"....So, they had to prove that they would provide for the child.



Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

We do not have the "best and the brightest" on our SCOTUS. MLWR Mar 29 #1
Yeah. Unfortunately... GB_RN Mar 29 #2
They're trying to enable the crafting of arguments to back up Trump's request. ChicagoTeamster Mar 29 #4
I know this is simplistic but we are all birthright citizens Srkdqltr Mar 29 #3
Insanity. This is settled law, even written into our Constitution specifically as an Amendment. Midnight Writer Mar 29 #5
Excellent comment! WestMichRad Mar 29 #9
It makes me wonder what is Kavanaugh's real position on this issue? FakeNoose Mar 29 #6
Damn, that's foul cause Dan Mar 29 #15
Yes, those are called "anchor babies" and it has been going on for a long time FakeNoose Monday #36
I didn't know he asked those questions. It's good that he asked them. LeftInTX Mar 29 #17
The Confederacy renounced their US citizenship by seceding. All of their descendants lost their birthright citizenship ChicagoTeamster Mar 29 #7
PLEASE, PLEASE Understand what EOs are and what they are not Bluetus Mar 29 #8
That is how it is SUPPOSED to work BumRushDaShow Mar 29 #11
We have to make it more difficult for Roberts Bluetus Mar 29 #14
We went through that exercise his first term BumRushDaShow Mar 29 #20
I am perfectly aware we don't control the GOP, the SCOTUS or the legacy media Bluetus Mar 29 #25
"It is crazy to just sit back and accept this. WE must do our part." BumRushDaShow Monday #30
Going down a rabbit hole, I also saw this: LeftInTX Mar 29 #19
The below is the argument they are apparently going to try to use - BumRushDaShow Mar 29 #21
They used that arguement last year LeftInTX Mar 29 #22
As long as the SCOTUS keeps refusing stays on the illegal E.O.s BumRushDaShow Mar 29 #24
Has the SCOTUS allowed any of the bogus EOs to stand permanently? Bluetus Mar 29 #26
Remember that we are ONLY just over a year into this term BumRushDaShow Monday #31
I'm sure the SCOTUS is all about helping Trump with his agenda Bluetus Monday #32
I agree with what you wrote and in particular BumRushDaShow Monday #33
Considering that 2700 pages is just a little more than 5 reams of papper. Bluetus Monday #35
I seriously doubt, Bayard Mar 29 #10
"Or any other white baby" .... Would Trump /Roberts bring back the 'one drop' rule of race determination? Norrrm Mar 29 #27
Easy peasy WestMichRad Mar 29 #28
If birthright citizenship is dropped Old Crank Mar 29 #12
As is plainly clear, "What then ?" is not a familiar question to this WH. Shoot first, ask questions later, think never. eppur_se_muova Mar 29 #13
Donald should prove that he is serious - and there is a way Dan Mar 29 #16
The Supreme Court fight does not threaten chaos. The administration's suit threatens chaos. Martin68 Mar 29 #18
Bureaucratic nightmare Mz Pip Mar 29 #23
Trump's perfect judge... Roland Freisler... original citizenship could be revoked Norrrm Mar 29 #29
'Alarm bells' ring as Trump resurrects racist arguments in major legal case: experts LetMyPeopleVote Monday #34
The man behind Donald Trump's push to end birthright citizenship (suspended attorney John Eastman) LetMyPeopleVote Tuesday #37
Former Trump lawyer John Eastman arriving at the Supreme Court for the birthright citizenship debate. LetMyPeopleVote Thursday #38
Can't wait for him to be disbarred! BumRushDaShow Thursday #39
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court fight over ...»Reply #17