foxnews.com
—
41 mins agoPinned
Roberts questions Trump admin examples as ‘very quirky’
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the Trump administration’s examples of individuals who are in U.S. territory but who are not considered “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” on Wednesday.
The Trump administration has argued that the 14th Amendment applies birthright citizenship only to those who have an allegiance to the United States, in addition to being inside its territory, pointing to exceptions such as the children of foreign ambassadors.
“Well, starting with that theory, you obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'” Roberts told U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer. “But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky.”
“You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships,” Roberts continued. “And then you expand it to a whole class of, illegal aliens are here in the country. I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”
“There are those sort of narrow exceptions for ambassador, foreign public ships, tribal Indians, enormous one that they were very focused on in the debates as well,” Sauer responded. “But what I do is I invite the court to look at the intervening step, which is the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. And they or they didn’t say subject to the jurisdiction thereof there it says not subject to any foreign power.”
Posted by Anders Hagstrom
16 seconds ago
Gorsuch asks if Sauer thinks children of Native Americans are birthright citizens
Solicitor General John Sauer says that Native Americans are birthright citizens to the U.S. under the Trump administration’s proposed changes to birthright citizenship.
Sauer made the statement during questioning from Justice Neil Gorsuch.
“Do you think Native Americans today are birthright citizens under your test and of your friends test?” Gorsuch asked.
“I think so. I mean, obviously they’ve been granted citizenship by statute,” Sauer responded.
“Put aside the statute. Do you think they’re birthright citizens?” Gorsuch pressed.
“No, I think the clear understanding that everybody agrees in the congressional debates is that the children of tribal Indians are not birthright citizens,” Sauer said.
“I understand that’s what they said, but your test is the domicile of the parents, and that would be the test you’d have us apply today, right?” Gorsuch responded.
“I think so on our test. Yeah. If they’re lawfully domiciled here. Not sure I have to think that through, but but I’ll that’s my reaction,” Sauer said.
Posted by Anders Hagstrom
13 mins ago
Alito says federal officials have not effectively enforced immigration laws
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito argued federal officials have failed to effectively enforce immigration laws on Wednesday.
Alito made the point while questioning Solicitor General John Sauer at oral arguments on birthright citizenship.
“Under the minimum definition of domicile, which I think existed in 1868 and continues to exist today, a person’s domicile is the place where he or she intends to make a permanent home. Now, normally you would think that a person who is subject to arrest at any time and removal could not establish a domicile. But we have an unusual situation here because our immigration laws have been ineffectively and in some instances, enthusiastically enforced by federal officials,” Alito said.
“So, there are people who are subject to removal at any time if they are apprehended and they go through the proper procedures, but they have, in their minds, made a permanent home here and have established roots. And that raises a humanitarian problem. And I wonder if you could you could address that,” Alito added.
“If I make one legal and one humanitarian. The legal point is, if you look at those cases, for example, Park, Carson against Reid, Park against Barr, this court’s decisions in Elkins and against Moreno, they talk about the legal capacity to, you know, to create a domicile, excluding someone who may have the subjective intent, which otherwise would be determinative as being excluded on the humanitarian point,” Sauer responded.
“I would point out, as I said at the beginning, Justice Alito, that the United States rule of nearly unrestricted birthright citizenship is an outlier among modern nations. It’s a very small minority of nations that have that rule. For example, every every nation in Europe has a different role in the notion that they have a huge humanitarian crisis, as a result of not having that restricted birthright citizenship, I don’t think is a strong argument. And I point out, obviously, for, you know, for reliance related,” Sauer added.
Posted by Anders Hagstrom
21 mins ago
US says ‘no one knows for sure’ how common birth tourism is
Chief Justice John Roberts asked Solicitor General John Sauer how common the practice of “birth tourism” is in the U.S.
“You mentioned in your your briefing and also this morning the problem of, birth tourism. do you have any information about how common that is or how significant a problem it is?” Roberts asked.
“It’s a great question. No one knows for sure. There’s a March 9 letter from a number of members of Congress to DHS saying, do we have any information about this,” Sauer responded.
“The media reports indicate estimates could be over one point a million, or 1.5 million from the People’s Republic of China alone. The congressional report that we cite in our brief talks about certain hotspots, like Russian elites coming to Miami through these birth tourism companies. And I mean, here’s a fact about it that I think is striking. Media reported as early as 2015 that based on Chinese media reports, there are 500 500 birth tourism companies in the People’s Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to, to to that nation,” Sauer continued.
Posted by Anders Hagstrom
27 mins ago
Kagan says government using ‘esoteric’ meaning of ‘jurisdiction’
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan pressed the Trump administration to explain its arguments against the current expression of birthright citizenship on Wednesday.
“I think, General Sauer, you know, you know, where does this principle come from? Allegiance. Domicile? Allegiance. I think you point to a Lincoln funeral speech as your primary example of where this principle comes from. It’s certainly not what we think of when we think of the word jurisdiction. And I appreciate that jurisdiction has many meanings. But, you know, the first meaning is like, if you’re subject to jurisdiction, you’re subject to the authority of, one doesn’t say, oh, what that means is a certain kind of allegiance that domiciliary have and nobody else does,” Kagan said, questioning U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer.
“So the text of the clause, I think, does not support you. I think you’re sort of looking for some more technical, esoteric meaning. And then the question comes, OK, if the text doesn’t support you, if there’s a real history of people using it that way. But as far as I can tell, you know, at the time of the 14th, you’re, you’re you’re using some pretty obscure sources to get to this, concept,” Kagan continued.
Posted by Anders Hagstrom
45 mins ago
Solicitor general argues birthright citizenship does not apply to foreigners
Solicitor General John Sauer began arguments before the Supreme Court by stating that birthright citizenship does not apply to foreigners.
“The citizenship clause was adopted just after the Civil War to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children, whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here. It did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens who have no such allegiance. This conclusion reflects the original public meaning of the clause,” Sauer said.
“When Congress used the term not subject to any foreign power in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it rejected the British conception of allegiance. Senator Trumbull explained that subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the clause means not owing allegiance to anybody else. And in 1884 this court recognized that subject to the jurisdiction means owing direct and immediate allegiance. The clause thus does not extend citizenship to the children of temporary visa holders or illegal aliens. Unlike the newly freed slaves, those visitors lack direct and immediate allegiance to the United States,” he cont
