4 ms·

Can you name one?

DrillShopper 2y ago
Trans people Gay people Doctors that provide abortions Doctors that provide gender affirming care Students protesting against Israel Just to name a few
- brigandish 2y ago
  Perhaps my question was unclear. I responded to "Even natural born citizens are now under threat." I asked to name one natural born citizen, not categories of people. Perhaps, given you provided said categories, you'll be able to drill down and name a natural born citizen from them?
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - brigandish 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - leptons 2y ago
    Trump himself has said he wants to end birthright citizenship. EVERYONE in the US is at risk. If you think you're safe, you aren't. This is what fascists do. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/14/nx-s1-5327552/trump-takes-birthright-citizenship-to-the-supreme-court https://www.npr.org/2025/03/14/nx-s1-5327552/trump-takes-bir... https://immigrationimpact.com/2025/02/07/breaking-down-trump-end-birthright-citizenship/ https://immigrationimpact.com/2025/02/07/breaking-down-trump...
    - brigandish 2y ago
      Jus soli[0] and and jus sanguinis[1] are well known legal concepts for citizenship, and jus soli is rare outside of the Americas, it’s not controversial to move to jus sanguinis as the norm, except in the way that it’s a change from the longstanding way of things in the US. To a European, jus soli seems crazy. Almost as crazy as people using caps in their posts. I do wonder if you, or anyone, could focus on the question I actually asked instead of different ones they wish to answer. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
      - insane_dreamer 2y ago
        > jus soli is rare outside of the Americas, legal concepts in other countries have absolutely _nothing_ to do with constitutional rights in the U.S.
        brigandish 2y ago
        Firstly, that isn't true. The US is a common law system, that common law being English common law, and because common law systems still share many features, they can use decisions and case law from other common law jurisdictions in their own decisions. Moreover, the US Bill of Rights is an extension of the English Bill of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta (the founders were British, after all). From Britannica's introduction to the US Bill of Rights[1]: > The Bill of Rights derives from the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689)… Wikipedia[2] adds: > The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the Northwest Ordinance (1787), the English Bill of Rights (1689), and Magna Carta (1215) Both the Virginia Declaration of rights[3] and the Northwest Ordinance incorporate concepts found in the English Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, for example: > Mason based his initial draft on the rights of citizens described in earlier works such as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the writings of John Locke. And where do you think they got habeas corpus from? And finally, in the link I shared on jus soli[4], in the second line, it states: > Jus soli was part of the English common law I could go on but that seems enough. Not only is your claim completely erroneous, it's also not misguided to contrast the situation to show that it's not a strange or dangerous change. Of course, if you - or anyone - were to address my actual question then you might have the beginnings of a point. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-States-Constitution https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-State... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
        insane_dreamer 2y ago
frm88 2y ago
Wong Kim Ark. Granted, that's old. 1898. Still, the current administration's renewed call to revoke birthright citizenship was via executive order, promptly blocked by courts. Currently the case seems to rest with the Supreme Court. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vdnlmgyndo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vdnlmgyndo
- brigandish 2y ago
  Very interesting[0]. However, he's not under threat;) so I'm still waiting (and will keep waiting, according to the person I originally asked). I wonder what the strategy is, given that (in my view) it's unlikely the Supreme Court will agree with the Trump admin. Is it performative or will they use it to pressure legislators, and how do they see a route to winning there? Still, the Wiki does show that it's certainly arguable, so we'll see. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Can you name one?

Trans people Gay people Doctors that provide abortions Doctors that provide gender affirming care Students protesting against Israel Just to name a few

brigandish 2y ago
Perhaps my question was unclear. I responded to "Even natural born citizens are now under threat." I asked to name one natural born citizen, not categories of people. Perhaps, given you provided said categories, you'll be able to drill down and name a natural born citizen from them?
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - brigandish 2y ago
    [flagged]
- leptons 2y ago
  Trump himself has said he wants to end birthright citizenship. EVERYONE in the US is at risk. If you think you're safe, you aren't. This is what fascists do. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/14/nx-s1-5327552/trump-takes-birthright-citizenship-to-the-supreme-court https://www.npr.org/2025/03/14/nx-s1-5327552/trump-takes-bir... https://immigrationimpact.com/2025/02/07/breaking-down-trump-end-birthright-citizenship/ https://immigrationimpact.com/2025/02/07/breaking-down-trump...
  - brigandish 2y ago
    Jus soli[0] and and jus sanguinis[1] are well known legal concepts for citizenship, and jus soli is rare outside of the Americas, it’s not controversial to move to jus sanguinis as the norm, except in the way that it’s a change from the longstanding way of things in the US. To a European, jus soli seems crazy. Almost as crazy as people using caps in their posts. I do wonder if you, or anyone, could focus on the question I actually asked instead of different ones they wish to answer. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      > jus soli is rare outside of the Americas, legal concepts in other countries have absolutely _nothing_ to do with constitutional rights in the U.S.
      - brigandish 2y ago
        Firstly, that isn't true. The US is a common law system, that common law being English common law, and because common law systems still share many features, they can use decisions and case law from other common law jurisdictions in their own decisions. Moreover, the US Bill of Rights is an extension of the English Bill of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta (the founders were British, after all). From Britannica's introduction to the US Bill of Rights[1]: > The Bill of Rights derives from the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689)… Wikipedia[2] adds: > The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the Northwest Ordinance (1787), the English Bill of Rights (1689), and Magna Carta (1215) Both the Virginia Declaration of rights[3] and the Northwest Ordinance incorporate concepts found in the English Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, for example: > Mason based his initial draft on the rights of citizens described in earlier works such as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the writings of John Locke. And where do you think they got habeas corpus from? And finally, in the link I shared on jus soli[4], in the second line, it states: > Jus soli was part of the English common law I could go on but that seems enough. Not only is your claim completely erroneous, it's also not misguided to contrast the situation to show that it's not a strange or dangerous change. Of course, if you - or anyone - were to address my actual question then you might have the beginnings of a point. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-States-Constitution https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-State... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
        insane_dreamer 2y ago

frm88 2y ago

Wong Kim Ark. Granted, that's old. 1898. Still, the current administration's renewed call to revoke birthright citizenship was via executive order, promptly blocked by courts. Currently the case seems to rest with the Supreme Court. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vdnlmgyndo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vdnlmgyndo

brigandish 2y ago
Very interesting[0]. However, he's not under threat;) so I'm still waiting (and will keep waiting, according to the person I originally asked). I wonder what the strategy is, given that (in my view) it's unlikely the Supreme Court will agree with the Trump admin. Is it performative or will they use it to pressure legislators, and how do they see a route to winning there? Still, the Wiki does show that it's certainly arguable, so we'll see. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark