205
submitted 1 week ago by Garibaldee@lemm.ee to c/usa@midwest.social
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee -1 points 1 week ago

The exact terms of birthright citizenship are laid out in the 8 U.S.C. § 1401; the way that this is interpreted is up to courts.

According to US statute, if Barack Obama had been born outside of the US (he was born in Hawai'i) to his American mother while she was not married to his Kenyan father (...and they were married at the time he was born) , he still would have been a natural born citizen according to 8 U.S.C. § 1409.c, because she was both a citizen and had resided in the US for at least one year.

Rights are rarely absolute, or nearly as cut and dry as people claim. For instance, the freedom of the press has been interpreted to not include material that is obscene. Freedom of peaceable assembly requires that you pay a fee and get a permit. The right to keep and bear arms has been determined to not include things like buying surface-to-air missiles from Victor Bout. Up until Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), despite the 6th amendment saying that you have the right to "have the Assistance of Counsel for [your] defence [sic]", indigent suspects were not provided with an attorney (...and what use is and enumerated right if you lack the ability to exercise the right?). Under fairly recent court rulings, you must explicitly invoke your 5th amendment right to remain silent; simply being silent is insufficient.

Do I think that Trump is going to be able to revoke the citizenship of people that were born here to undocumented immigrants? No. Do I want him to? Also no. Do I want to see his mass deportations blow up in his face and implode the economy? Oh yeah, definitely. I want people--Trump MAGAts--to see just how much we rely on the underpaid labor of the undocumented people in this country for the necessities of life.

[-] DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

What you fail to understand is you acting like this right is revokable manufacturers consent for revoking rights.

If you were smart you wouldn't play devil's advocate, you wouldn't help the devil

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 1 hour ago

It's called steel-manning, and it's an important way of testing your own claims. You want to make the best possible argument for you opponen't beliefs, and then be ready with a strong counterargument. ...Which does assume good-faith, rational disagreement.

[-] DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

At this point if you don't want to acknowledge that arguing in bad faith is a bad thing to do then you have already chosen your side.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

Of course it's a bad thing. But I want my side to work in good faith rather than assuming that everything they disagree with is bad faith. I don't want to be associated with ppl that are also acting largely in bad faith; I want to be better than that.

this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
205 points (99.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2006 readers
815 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS