Still, the current administration's renewed call to revoke birthright citizenship was via executive order, promptly blocked by courts. Currently the case seems to rest with the Supreme Court.
Very interesting[0]. However, he's not under threat;) so I'm still waiting (and will keep waiting, according to the person I originally asked).
I wonder what the strategy is, given that (in my view) it's unlikely the Supreme Court will agree with the Trump admin. Is it performative or will they use it to pressure legislators, and how do they see a route to winning there?
Still, the Wiki does show that it's certainly arguable, so we'll see.
Perhaps my question was unclear. I responded to "Even natural born citizens are now under threat." I asked to name one natural born citizen, not categories of people.
Perhaps, given you provided said categories, you'll be able to drill down and name a natural born citizen from them?
Trump himself has said he wants to end birthright citizenship. EVERYONE in the US is at risk. If you think you're safe, you aren't. This is what fascists do.
Jus soli[0] and and jus sanguinis[1] are well known legal concepts for citizenship, and jus soli is rare outside of the Americas, it’s not controversial to move to jus sanguinis as the norm, except in the way that it’s a change from the longstanding way of things in the US. To a European, jus soli seems crazy. Almost as crazy as people using caps in their posts.
I do wonder if you, or anyone, could focus on the question I actually asked instead of different ones they wish to answer.
Firstly, that isn't true. The US is a common law system, that common law being English common law, and because common law systems still share many features, they can use decisions and case law from other common law jurisdictions in their own decisions.
Moreover, the US Bill of Rights is an extension of the English Bill of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta (the founders were British, after all). From Britannica's introduction to the US Bill of Rights[1]:
> The Bill of Rights derives from the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689)…
Wikipedia[2] adds:
> The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the Northwest Ordinance (1787), the English Bill of Rights (1689), and Magna Carta (1215)
Both the Virginia Declaration of rights[3] and the Northwest Ordinance incorporate concepts found in the English Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, for example:
> Mason based his initial draft on the rights of citizens described in earlier works such as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the writings of John Locke.
And where do you think they got habeas corpus from?
And finally, in the link I shared on jus soli[4], in the second line, it states:
> Jus soli was part of the English common law
I could go on but that seems enough. Not only is your claim completely erroneous, it's also not misguided to contrast the situation to show that it's not a strange or dangerous change.
Of course, if you - or anyone - were to address my actual question then you might have the beginnings of a point.
> Firstly, that isn't true. The US is a common law system, that common law being English common law, and because common law systems still share many features, they can use decisions and case law from other common law jurisdictions in their own decisions
While US law has its roots in English common law, and common law concepts were referenced by the Founding Fathers, it has absolutely no bearing on US constitutional law.
It's interesting from a historical perspective, but that's it.
Jus soli has nothing to do with the US constitution or US laws. Period.
Bare assertion isn't a strong argument, especially when the constitution has been changed several times to add things that could also be said to have "nothing to with the US constitution of US laws". The president wants to change it, maybe it'll happen. Europeans will shrug, they've got their own immigration woes.
I'm sorry that you think your goalposts are the only valid goalposts. I can assure you that the fascists in power don't care about your goalposts. For me the only goalpost that matters is trump trying to remove these protections. If you don't think he'll start removing natural born citizens after asking to do so, then I'm not sure there's anything point continuing this conversation.
The fact that they are even trying to remove the protections that natural born citizens have always had in the US, should ring alarm bells for you, but somehow they are not. Maybe you really aren't familiar with the concept of "First they came for...", but you'll find out how this plays out soon enough.
I asked a straightforward question, à la the Socratic method, in order to allow the one making the claim to justify their position, à la Russell's Teapot. If you were not willing to answer the question from the beginning then you shouldn't be responding to me and wailing about "moving goalposts". My "goalposts" have been consistent since my first question - answer that question, please.
If you wish to make your points without addressing my question then you can simply comment directly on the article or respond to someone else, hopefully with more relevance to their comment than your slightly unhinged responses have had to mine.
>The current administration have proven they do not care about any of these things. Even natural born citizens are now under threat.
This is my original comment. You are moving goalposts where you want them to be. My comment is specifically about how this administration is threatening natural born citizens by trying to remove protections they've always had, and here you are seeming to say they aren't because no natural born citizens have been deported yet. You're simply just being an internet troll.
Using the Socratic method, especially on HN is not “just being an internet troll”.
If you can’t handle simple questions that undermine your claims then make better claims. Also, with your attitude I’m not sure this site is for you. Please refrain from the personal insults, it definitely lowers the overall tone of the board.
Your question did not "undermine my claims" at all. I never claimed that a natural born citizen had been deported - I only claimed that this administration seeks to remove that barrier, and as we've already seen, they have been extremely authoritarian and don't care much for laws or rules. If you can't see where this is heading, then you're blind with your head in the sand. Your comment is absolutely a "moving goalposts" troll, and I'm not the only one calling you out on that.
Argumentum ad populum, especially on contentious political matters, isn't persuasive. Nor on people who seek to avoid answering simple questions - you could've written "I cannot", or "I never claimed that a natural born citizen had been deported - I only claimed that this administration seeks to remove that barrier" and saved yourself the gnashing of teeth and personal insults.
My reading comprehension is enough to see an argument destitute of substance.
For there to be a threat there should be evidence of a threat. Your aspersions, which you are so keen on casting against anyone who doesn't share your views, are not evidence of anything but hyperbole and irrational panic.
If you cannot name a single person who is a natural born citizen that has been deported or has been threatened with deportation - or even anyone in power who has mused for a second upon deporting natural born citizens, via this legal change - then you have nothing.
If someone can show that the legal change you're warning about does not have the consequences you claim, e.g. all of Europe, then you have nothing.
You should get used to answering questions, it'll help you sharpen up your argument, that's why I ask simple questions[1]. Now, *please desist from your blatant and explicit rudeness*.
The current administration have proven they do not care about any of these things. Even natural born citizens are now under threat.