Trump tries to end birthright citizenship with an executive order (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

I think this deserves its own thread. Perhaps we can try to migrate discussion from the other thread to this one.

Here is the Executive Order:

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.

www.whitehouse.gov

The order presents itself on existing good-ground to exclude children of unlawful immigrants, but that's false - the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not have an ambiguous history.

Twenty-two states and others filed immediate lawsuits to suspend and ultimately rescind the order.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/lawsuits-challenge-trumps-birthright-citizenship-other-orders-2025-01-21/

 

[SamAndreas]

So, birthright citizenship should be the law of the land, unless the Constitution is amended. We gain far, far more than we lose with immigrants of all types. It wasn’t that long ago that the Irish and German and Polish immigrants were looked down on as lesser people, let’s not repeat that bigotry now. We should be better than that. My view is that changing the Constitution over this would be a grave mistake, driven by bigotry.

Also, SCOTUS leaving this up to various regions of the country is just horrible leadership. So a baby born in NY is automatically a citizen, but a baby born in KY may not be a citizen? What happen if that baby travels to KY? is their citizenship now in question? It’s flat out stupid.

Also if they allow that to stand, the net effect will be a migration out of red states who restrict citizenship into blue states who follow the Constitution. Blue states’ economies will benefit and red states economies will suffer - which is already what is happening as it is now. It will just accelerate that trend.

Before our revolution the issue of who are citizens came up, a New York court ruled that under common law a nation's citizens are those who say they are its citizens.

I read that court's opinion ten or fifteen years ago, I would have a hard time finding it now.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Before our revolution the issue of who are citizens came up, a New York court ruled that under common law a nation's citizens are those who say they are its citizens.

I read that court's opinion ten or fifteen years ago, I would have a hard time finding it now.

I agree with you that a fair system would allow everyone on the planet to choose what country they want to be a citizen of. A lot of the people arguing against birthright citizenship and easier paths to citizenship are also the same ones whinging about elitism. They seem incapable of recognizing the elitism of their views on citizenship.

 

[Sendai]

Kavanaugh wrote that he expects this ruling to stand for several years, didn’t he? Why would he say that if this will be settled by next year?

I read his concurrence. It’s solely concerns the supreme courts role in providing interim relief while the merits of legislation or executive actions are worked thru district and appeals courts which can sometimes take years.

Again, the ruling has nothing to do with birthright citizenship.

On the birthright citizenship issue there are cases in the pipeline. I expect it will be settled in a year, two at most.

My reading of his concurrence is that he is inviting parties involved to petition the Supreme Court to provide interim relief while the issue works thru lower courts. That likely relief would be a stay on the executive order.

 

[Sendai]

You do realize that all AI does is try to figure out what result you want and then give it to you, right? I mean you know that don’t you? It will argue both sides if you want it to.

Are you saying the AI is wrong in stating they were class action suits?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Are you saying the AI is wrong in stating they were class action suits?

"What actually happened in Brown v. Board of Education was this: the NAACP filed multiple lawsuits on behalf of individual Black students in various jurisdictions, and the Supreme Court bundled five of them together under the name Brown v. Board of Education. This was a strategic constitutional challenge—not a formally certified class action under any recognized procedural standard.

So while the case functioned as a broad-based attack on segregation, it did not go through the legal steps that define a class action today. There was no certified class, no formal notice to absent class members, and no judicial determination that the plaintiffs adequately represented a broader group.

Calling Brown a class action might be politically or rhetorically convenient, but legally, it’s inaccurate. It was a consolidated civil rights lawsuit, not a true class action in any meaningful procedural sense."

 

[SamAndreas]

I read his concurrence. It’s solely concerns the supreme courts role in providing interim relief while the merits of legislation or executive actions are worked thru district and appeals courts which can sometimes take years.

Again, the ruling has nothing to do with birthright citizenship.

On the birthright citizenship issue there are cases in the pipeline. I expect it will be settled in a year, two at most.

My reading of his concurrence is that he is inviting parties involved to petition the Supreme Court to provide interim relief while the issue works thru lower courts. That likely relief would be a stay on the executive order.

I agree with that assessment, most folks do not understand what that ruling is. I'm also aware that some of the ligating parties on the other side see it that way as well and are setting that kind of challenge on the merits of the case to bring to the Supreme Court.

What I see is the court saying is that the Supreme Court in essence is going to take a "non-exclusive original jurisdiction" of the case. That's what they set up with this ruling.

Here's Google's AI discussing the in and outs of original jurisdiction under the Constitution and our legal code.

Article III, Section II of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1251 both address the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, but they differ slightly in their scope. Article III, Section II defines the types of cases that fall under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, while 28 U.S.C. § 1251 clarifies which of those cases fall under its exclusive and non-exclusive original jurisdiction.

Article III, Section II outlines the types of cases that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over. It specifies that the Court has original jurisdiction in "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party". This means the Supreme Court can be the initial court to hear these cases, rather than them being appealed from lower courts.

28 U.S.C. § 1251 further clarifies this original jurisdiction, specifying which cases fall under exclusive and non-exclusive original jurisdiction. Specifically, it states:

• The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction in "all actions or proceedings between two or more States".
  
• The Supreme Court has original but not exclusive jurisdiction in "all actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties".
  

In essence, while both provisions deal with the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1251 provides a more detailed breakdown of which types of cases the Court can hear as the initial court and whether that jurisdiction is exclusive or not.

 

[SamAndreas]

"What actually happened in Brown v. Board of Education was this: the NAACP filed multiple lawsuits on behalf of individual Black students in various jurisdictions, and the Supreme Court bundled five of them together under the name Brown v. Board of Education. This was a strategic constitutional challenge—not a formally certified class action under any recognized procedural standard.

So while the case functioned as a broad-based attack on segregation, it did not go through the legal steps that define a class action today. There was no certified class, no formal notice to absent class members, and no judicial determination that the plaintiffs adequately represented a broader group.

Calling Brown a class action might be politically or rhetorically convenient, but legally, it’s inaccurate. It was a consolidated civil rights lawsuit, not a true class action in any meaningful procedural sense."

For that case, and for this case, a formal notice to absent class members would require contacting millions of persons. Creating a list of who to contact would be impossible as well. kind of like counting grains of sand at a beach.

 

[J-DONK]

I read his concurrence. It’s solely concerns the supreme courts role in providing interim relief while the merits of legislation or executive actions are worked thru district and appeals courts which can sometimes take years.

Again, the ruling has nothing to do with birthright citizenship.

On the birthright citizenship issue there are cases in the pipeline. I expect it will be settled in a year, two at most.

My reading of his concurrence is that he is inviting parties involved to petition the Supreme Court to provide interim relief while the issue works thru lower courts. That likely relief would be a stay on the executive order.

This simply isn't true. Maybe you simply don't understand.

Instead of arguing about this with people on the internet, you should go listen to the oral arguments for this case.

The Trump SG is asked repeatedly are they bringing the underlying case before the court. The court also all but telepgraphs it's getting struck down. Trump SG promises they are, and he talks about "perculation". It's pointed out, by the justices, this is a strict question of constitioniality. They don't need examples. The Trump admin is dragging it's feet with purpose.

The obvious conclusion is they want these unconsitutional EO's legal in some area's while they make thier way up to the supreme court via, now, class action lawsuits. It will take longer, and give them more time to enact knowingly unconstitional actions.

Sauer never gave a decent to the question of why the actual case wasn't before the court, because that's the real answer. To say these are not enjoined, is honestly moronic.

 

[Sendai]

I agree with that assessment, most folks do not understand what that ruling is. I'm also aware that some of the ligating parties on the other side see it that way as well and are setting that kind of challenge on the merits of the case to bring to the Supreme Court.

What I see is the court saying is that the Supreme Court in essence is going to take a "non-exclusive original jurisdiction" of the case. That's what they set up with this ruling.

Here's Google's AI discussing the in and outs of original jurisdiction under the Constitution and our legal code.

Article III, Section II of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1251 both address the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, but they differ slightly in their scope. Article III, Section II defines the types of cases that fall under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, while 28 U.S.C. § 1251 clarifies which of those cases fall under its exclusive and non-exclusive original jurisdiction.

Article III, Section II outlines the types of cases that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over. It specifies that the Court has original jurisdiction in "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party". This means the Supreme Court can be the initial court to hear these cases, rather than them being appealed from lower courts.

28 U.S.C. § 1251 further clarifies this original jurisdiction, specifying which cases fall under exclusive and non-exclusive original jurisdiction. Specifically, it states:

• The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction in "all actions or proceedings between two or more States".
• The Supreme Court has original but not exclusive jurisdiction in "all actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties".

In essence, while both provisions deal with the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1251 provides a more detailed breakdown of which types of cases the Court can hear as the initial court and whether that jurisdiction is exclusive

It was an interesting approach by Kavanaugh.

 

[Sendai]

"What actually happened in Brown v. Board of Education was this: the NAACP filed multiple lawsuits on behalf of individual Black students in various jurisdictions, and the Supreme Court bundled five of them together under the name Brown v. Board of Education. This was a strategic constitutional challenge—not a formally certified class action under any recognized procedural standard.

So while the case functioned as a broad-based attack on segregation, it did not go through the legal steps that define a class action today. There was no certified class, no formal notice to absent class members, and no judicial determination that the plaintiffs adequately represented a broader group.

Calling Brown a class action might be politically or rhetorically convenient, but legally, it’s inaccurate. It was a consolidated civil rights lawsuit, not a true class action in any meaningful procedural sense."

And Brown was filed as a class action suit

“The case that eventually ended segregation in American public schools was Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka. Oliver Brown filed a class-action suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Brown claimed that in 1951, his daughter, Linda, was denied access to a white elementary school in Topeka.”

Brown v. Board of Education - Moton Museum​

Brown vs. Board of Education was a landmark ruling in 1954 to end segregation in public schools. Moton High School played an important role.

motonmuseum.org


From Chief Justice Warren

“Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. ”

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Opinion; May 17, 1954; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States; Record Group 267; National Archives. View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript In this milestone decision, the Supreme Court ruled...

www.archives.gov

CLASS ACTION

 

[cuddlemonkey]

And Brown was filed as a class action suit

“The case that eventually ended segregation in American public schools was Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka. Oliver Brown filed a class-action suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Brown claimed that in 1951, his daughter, Linda, was denied access to a white elementary school in Topeka.”

Brown v. Board of Education - Moton Museum​

Brown vs. Board of Education was a landmark ruling in 1954 to end segregation in public schools. Moton High School played an important role.

motonmuseum.org


From Chief Justice Warren

“Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. ”

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Opinion; May 17, 1954; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States; Record Group 267; National Archives. View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript In this milestone decision, the Supreme Court ruled...

www.archives.gov

CLASS ACTION

Hey, look at you not using AI this time. Good job.

 

[SamAndreas]

It was an interesting approach by Kavanaugh.

When the Supreme Court takes original jurisdiction, that is rare, and that is what is interesting about this.

I'm not a Kavanaugh fan. He's not in my opinion the brightest bulb in the box. On one hand I thought his approach was kind of sloppy, but on the other hand there have only been about 15 of these cases I know about during our nation's history, so he hasn't had much practice doing that.

All of them I know about having been tried since the mid 1950's. About half of them since the 1990's.

The last two were like a connected pair of cases in 2022 and 23, Arizona v Navajo Nation, and US Department of Interior V. Navajo Nation. both cases were about the same water rights dispute. The Navajo's won half, they won the water rights, but the US and Arizona are not obligated to get the Navajos water back, so that victory was hollow..

Most of the original jurisdiction cases have involved water rights. One case also in 2023, was New York v. New Jersey, it was over water as well, over a waterfront shore line policing agreement which New Jersey unilaterally withdraw from. New Jersey won that case.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Are you saying the AI is wrong in stating they were class action suits?

Are you saying you just took AI's word as gospel, even though you know AI makes lots of factual errors as is even known to cite sources and cases that don't exist, and to take them completely out of context?

AI is starting to empower and turbo charge the Dunning–Kruger effect.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Anyone relying on any AI for factually accurate information is making a big mistake.

 

[SamAndreas]

Anyone relying on any AI for factually accurate information is making a big mistake.

I agree, all that an AI does needs to be checked. None of them are developed enough to be able to sort out good sources from bad.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I agree, all that an AI does needs to be checked. None of them are developed enough to be able to sort out good sources from bad.

Then why did you just quote Google AI? It doesn't make sense to me, especially since earlier today you criticized people for quoting and discussing unconfirmed reports.

 

[MT15]

I also think it should be expected that posters in here disclose when they are quoting AI sources. I have been doing that. It’s entirely appropriate to fact check all AI content.

 

[SamAndreas]

Then why did you just quote Google AI? It doesn't make sense to me, especially since earlier today you criticized people for quoting and discussing unconfirmed reports.

The AI finds reports for me, afterall an AI is basically a search engine which can chat.

Once the AI has done it's work I check it's sources and evaluate it's report. I find the AI's I use are correct only about 60% of the time.

They're getting better as time goes on because people like me are training them. I tell it when it has made a mistake. They need that kind of feedback to learn.

My daughter is a cognitive scientist, she writes learning code for AI's.