Stephen Miller’s latest attack on birthright citizenship takes the old “anchor baby” canard, dresses it in administrative language, and calls a constitutional rewrite visa enforcement.
"They could have limited citizenship to the children of former slaves. Instead, they wrote “all persons.” Post Civil War was not my area of history, but I know there was immigration before and after the Civil War. I'm not sure how citizenship for immigrants was obtained at the time, but I am sure that their value was recognized. Perhaps, "anchoring" children of immigrants with citizenship was intentional and wisely seen as an asset to our country.
the Court can't do anything unless and until someone brings a dispute before them. Administratively misreading the Court's decision, however much bad faith is involve, does not give the Court the power to say anything about it.
What about collective conscience? When you know you've ruled in error? When you know your rulings have been disregarded or circumvented? No penalties? Nothing? I don't believe this should stand. If justices who are pro djt can find all these excuses why he and his administration should follow the laws, surely there are moral justices on the right side of the law who can figure out ways to enforce the laws, no matter who breaks them.
Miller must have missed the part where we are created equal
Sorry, I can’t keep reading this white on black.
"They could have limited citizenship to the children of former slaves. Instead, they wrote “all persons.” Post Civil War was not my area of history, but I know there was immigration before and after the Civil War. I'm not sure how citizenship for immigrants was obtained at the time, but I am sure that their value was recognized. Perhaps, "anchoring" children of immigrants with citizenship was intentional and wisely seen as an asset to our country.
So, SCOTUS, you just take this sitting down??
the Court can't do anything unless and until someone brings a dispute before them. Administratively misreading the Court's decision, however much bad faith is involve, does not give the Court the power to say anything about it.
What about collective conscience? When you know you've ruled in error? When you know your rulings have been disregarded or circumvented? No penalties? Nothing? I don't believe this should stand. If justices who are pro djt can find all these excuses why he and his administration should follow the laws, surely there are moral justices on the right side of the law who can figure out ways to enforce the laws, no matter who breaks them.