Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship

[VladtheDestroyer]

Are you bored? Lonely? Angry at the world? Susceptible to peer pressure?

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]

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.

She's projecting

 

[annabenedetti]

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.

I suggest you do a lot more of those things, all of which are better than making childish comments about serious subjects.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Just curious, JR. Did you write the above with the assistance of ChatGPT?

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]

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?

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?

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

..that litmus...

Gay.

 

[annabenedetti]

Gay.

You're going on ignore, my dear child.

 

[ok doser]

You're going on ignore, my dear child.

uber gay

 

[annabenedetti]

uber gay

uber projection

 

[JudgeRightly]

build their own argument

That is what I did.

It's ludicrous you'd say I was making an accusation "instead of engaging the arguments,"

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.

Then you refer to me being blinded (ad hom there), once again making the argument personal.

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'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?

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]

uber gay

For real.

 

[annabenedetti]

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.

And you didn't answer the question. What's the name of the tool you used?

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.

Read the link at my post #6.

That's where it will start, depending what tool you used to make your argument.

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.

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]

Sure seems like you're using Alinsky on me

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 Boy Scout Leaders.

 

[ok doser]

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.

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.