他的团队认为只要有高院释法就可以了。宪法原文里有这样一个关键词，“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”，可以解释成不包括外国人。 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Everglades 发表于 2024-11-08 00:20 他的团队认为只要有高院释法就可以了。宪法原文里有这样一个关键词，“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”，可以解释成不包括外国人。 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
他的团队认为只要有高院释法就可以了。宪法原文里有这样一个关键词，“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”，可以解释成不包括外国人。 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Everglades 发表于 2024-11-08 00:20
他的团队认为只要有高院释法就可以了。宪法原文里有这样一个关键词，“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”，可以解释成不包括外国人。 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Everglades 发表于 2024-11-08 00:20
看过宪法原文，同意他的团队的解读。当初这个本身也是靠华人的一个判例确定的，和roe and wade 一样。所以推翻方法也一样。 我家不受影响，但一直很好奇有多少投他的华人的孩子是在公民后生的。
gemeaux1 发表于 2024-11-08 00:48 看过宪法原文，同意他的团队的解读。当初这个本身也是靠华人的一个判例确定的，和roe and wade 一样。所以推翻方法也一样。 我家不受影响，但一直很好奇有多少投他的华人的孩子是在公民后生的。
是啊，只要高院对United States v. Wong Kim Ark重作解释就可以了。高院很可能会支持川普。 https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/does-the-constitution-mandate-universal-birthright-citizenship-heres What About Wong Kim Ark? Despite claims by advocates of universal birthright citizenship that the Supreme Court has already held universal birthright citizenship to be “the law of the land,” the reality is far different. It is true that, in 1898, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the U.S.-born child of lawfully present and permanently domiciled Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. At its core, Wong Kim Ark was about the government’s attempt to circumvent the Fourteenth Amendment and keep Chinese immigrants and their children from ever becoming citizens, by any means, just because they were Chinese. At the time, federal law barred Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens, and they were, according to treaty obligations with China, perpetual Chinese subjects. Much like the freed slaves, Chinese immigrants were prohibited from subjecting themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States because of their race, and were relegated to permanent alienage in a country where they would live and die. This type of race-based discrimination in citizenship was precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit, and the Supreme Court rightly recognized the system for the unconstitutional travesty it truly was. While the opinion can also be read as affirmatively adopting jus soli as the “law of the land,” it can just as easily be read as adopting only a flexible, “Americanized” jus soli limited to the factors of lawful presence and permanent domicile. This second interpretation renders the holding consistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is also precisely what many legal commentators at the time thought the Supreme Court meant, too. In short, Wong Kim Ark only deviates from the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment if one chooses to read it acting under the assumption that the Supreme Court intended to upend decades of precedent and judicially supersede the clear intent of Congress. That assumption is unnecessary, illogical, and dangerous.
Everglades 发表于 2024-11-08 01:54 是啊，只要高院对United States v. Wong Kim Ark重作解释就可以了。高院很可能会支持川普。 https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/does-the-constitution-mandate-universal-birthright-citizenship-heres What About Wong Kim Ark? Despite claims by advocates of universal birthright citizenship that the Supreme Court has already held universal birthright citizenship to be “the law of the land,” the reality is far different. It is true that, in 1898, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the U.S.-born child of lawfully present and permanently domiciled Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. At its core, Wong Kim Ark was about the government’s attempt to circumvent the Fourteenth Amendment and keep Chinese immigrants and their children from ever becoming citizens, by any means, just because they were Chinese. At the time, federal law barred Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens, and they were, according to treaty obligations with China, perpetual Chinese subjects. Much like the freed slaves, Chinese immigrants were prohibited from subjecting themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States because of their race, and were relegated to permanent alienage in a country where they would live and die. This type of race-based discrimination in citizenship was precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit, and the Supreme Court rightly recognized the system for the unconstitutional travesty it truly was. While the opinion can also be read as affirmatively adopting jus soli as the “law of the land,” it can just as easily be read as adopting only a flexible, “Americanized” jus soli limited to the factors of lawful presence and permanent domicile. This second interpretation renders the holding consistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is also precisely what many legal commentators at the time thought the Supreme Court meant, too. In short, Wong Kim Ark only deviates from the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment if one chooses to read it acting under the assumption that the Supreme Court intended to upend decades of precedent and judicially supersede the clear intent of Congress. That assumption is unnecessary, illogical, and dangerous.
Yup, if roe v wade can be overturned, all others can be overturned too. SCOTUS will support Trump
我觉得可能不用修宪。如果真的要改宪法，川普做不到。他也知道他做不到。 他可以做的，是搞个行政命令，这个行政命令一定会被法律挑战，也一定会打到SCOTUS。 United States v. Wong Kim Ark 的结论，其实可以挑战的。 他如果聪明，可能已经和他任命的几个大法官了解过了，这几个大法官对于宪法解读，以及United States v. Wong Kim Ark的解读，有没有法律操作空间。如果有，那就简单了，直接发行政命令就好，然后就是等着某人来打官司，打到SCOTUS，然后就OK了。 当年的同志婚姻，原本是想靠各民主党州先搞，然后逼迫联邦层面承认，因为各州不同步会出现很多法律问题。但prop 8连加州公投都没通过，于是只好改弦更张，换了一个高法的路线，通过基层法院到SCOTUS，一步一步的，就成功了。 其实高法路线是最简单的路线，搞修宪，那是不可能的。宪法又不是滴水不漏，怎么解读，就靠那9个法官。
Wugelvshi2 发表于 2024-11-08 02:28 我觉得可能不用修宪。如果真的要改宪法，川普做不到。他也知道他做不到。 他可以做的，是搞个行政命令，这个行政命令一定会被法律挑战，也一定会打到SCOTUS。 United States v. Wong Kim Ark 的结论，其实可以挑战的。 他如果聪明，可能已经和他任命的几个大法官了解过了，这几个大法官对于宪法解读，以及United States v. Wong Kim Ark的解读，有没有法律操作空间。如果有，那就简单了，直接发行政命令就好，然后就是等着某人来打官司，打到SCOTUS，然后就OK了。 当年的同志婚姻，原本是想靠各民主党州先搞，然后逼迫联邦层面承认，因为各州不同步会出现很多法律问题。但prop 8连加州公投都没通过，于是只好改弦更张，换了一个高法的路线，通过基层法院到SCOTUS，一步一步的，就成功了。 其实高法路线是最简单的路线，搞修宪，那是不可能的。宪法又不是滴水不漏，怎么解读，就靠那9个法官。
这就是project 2025 playbook 上任他们就想这么做, Stephen Miller 那时候就在和DOJ在找方式 反正大家有能力的话准备个exit plan
好家伙，多少月子中心要倒闭了
有的人高兴，这下爸妈来美可能会被拒了。
msnbc都说了，上次当总统就做成了减税一项。我再给他算上两个高院法官。
嗯应该是birth tourism 不过这个人数也不少 到处都是广告
这需要修宪，根本不可能 所以是假消息
他还真想 提了好多次了
哪个政客不说一堆屁话？
川普选上，看把你这个精神红脖激动的，整天上蹿下跳。
那不还得通过修宪？
还是有区别的，川普是毫无底线，什么话都能说。大部分政客还是稍微decent一点。
那我们当年留学生完全不符合这些条件
F1也是非移民签证，跟B1/B2有差吗，都是合法来美不能移民的，如果真砍了拿旅游签证赴美生子的，F1签证必定跟着遭殃，H1B都未必能幸免。而且整这些合法签证比整偷渡客容易多了，都不用修宪，加一条总统令，持非移民签证者在美国生娃就立刻作废签证，这就够人喝一壶的了。
是啊 他以前就提过 当时新闻标题都直接写Chinese birth tourism
理论上说，如果是父母均是非法入境，不需要修仙也能剥夺，但旅游产子，好象是无法剥夺。这个需要修仙。
但修仙应当不麻烦，毕竟现在四合一政府，几个月就解决了。
假歪歪现在很高兴。
四合一也达不到修宪标准 那个标准太高
四合一？众院已经出来结果了？
其实birth tourism的确应当禁止，多数是第三世界国家来的。
这个不是不可能。过去还能禁止华人娶老婆呢。 但现在，谁有能力来阻止任何事情 ？
中国也很多明星富豪来 现在估计要换加拿大or澳洲了
好像还没。但应该八九不离十了
NYT 上看着house 也快了
再来一个高院判定就行了。
我看着大概率全拿到手。
加拿大其实也一样，加拿大公民来美国工作好象不需要象别国一样H1, 我记得有个什么PROGRAM, 而且申绿卡也容易的很
他可以加上 比如 F1 H1 J1 L 签证 不受影响
只有 B 签证 受影响，或者直接去打击 月子中心
就看他如何去做，他知道他想打击的群体 是哪一种，如果他真的想去管，肯定有办法，
但是，又牵扯到 是否违宪，
老美的体制就是 各种法规条文在那里，
设置扯皮门槛，让很多事情不是那么容易去实施
爸妈要赴美生子？
可以留下来的时间不一样
虽然 F1 是非移民签证，但是和 B 还是有本质的区别吧，
走过f1的应该都知道吧，老美的这些签证法，也是条条框框很多
他的团队认为只要有高院释法就可以了。宪法原文里有这样一个关键词，“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”，可以解释成不包括外国人。
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
特别是非移的后代，其实本来就是很模糊的公民化。如果高法解释不行，就是你觉的解释的不对，也没用，然后就能PASS.
美国现在也是第三世界国家
我也好奇这些耸人听闻的谣言是怎么解读出来的
“为了维持这两者之间的平衡，美国的开国先贤们设计了一套启动修宪的双重程序，也就是说，修正宪法的程序可以由国会发起，也可以由各州发起。
如果是由国会发起修宪，必须由国会参众两院至少三分之二多数议员提出宪法修正案，也就是说，宪法修正案必须得到至少290名众议员和至少67名参议员的支持。
假如在州一级发起修宪，则必须由至少三分之二的州议会要求国会召开修宪会议。到目前为止，美国宪法的历次修正都是通过第一种方式启动的。
宪法修正案在正式成为法律之前，还要经过批准的程序。修正案在国会或者修宪会议上获得通过之后，必须获得四分之三的州，也就是37个州的议会批准，才能生效。宪法第五章规定，在这种情况下，国会有权决定究竟是由各州的立法机关，还是由各州的特别修宪会议来执行批准程序。在历史上，只有宪法第21修正案，也就是废除禁酒法的修正案，是由各州的特别修宪会议批准的。”
也不行吧，孕期要是出国出差或者旅游，就不符合条件了啊 .....
上次没时间了，这次估计要动手。
他老人家 列了一堆堆 他上台以后要做的事情
看他能干成哪一个
就是因为管不了非法移民，才要对这个动手，给他的支持者一个交待。
非法移民现在2200万，4年的时间感觉连十分之一都遣返不了。
那规定附加豁免，F/H/J/O/P… 孕期出国前提前申请，给批准就行啦。 又是给政府创收的一项措施，多好。
不用。高院重新解读宪法就行。二修的民兵持枪都能解读为人人持枪，这个也有空间重新解读
孩子跟孩子能一样吗？这些孩子的一般情况下背景都是有钱有势的，来了美国不是给美国人干活的，是要抢资本家生意的，是要当主人的。
现在你还认为美国要欢迎这些孩子吗？
慢刀子割肉吧 犹太人那个帖子不是说了 先开始都觉得好像是针对他们也觉得该针对的群体后来慢慢扩大
1）四合一也没法修宪，那个难度太高了。。
2）不管何种手段，在美国生的就是美国公民，所以非法入境生娃一样是公民啊。。
新闻上不是说了吗，主要影响现在在绿卡 pool 里面的一百万印度人，他们在工作期间很可能都生娃了，本来绿卡排期太长在美国留不下来，但是小孩是公民就可以给父母办，父母办了又可以一大堆父母兄弟姐妹的全搬美国来了。
加拿大不就是深受其害吗？
我们这边已经都是小孟买了，将来美国变成印度谁爱呆谁呆吧。
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
哪怕是外国人，但在美国境内，就受美国管辖，属于under US jurisdiction啊。。
我说他干个屁！
你觉得他们会care ?
看过宪法原文，同意他的团队的解读。当初这个本身也是靠华人的一个判例确定的，和roe and wade 一样。所以推翻方法也一样。 我家不受影响，但一直很好奇有多少投他的华人的孩子是在公民后生的。
就是啊 You can track legal immigrants much harder to track illegal immigrants
人家要的是白皮孩子 说能生 墨墨多能生
这句话到底怎么解读，一直就很有争议。你去看当初华人那个案子是怎么赢的吧，以及其中的波折
加拿大公民要拿绿卡，也得通过拿H1B 这一步，跟其他国家的人一样。
只是加拿大公民如果不打算拿绿卡，只是想在美国工作的话相对来说容易得多。只要在美国找到工作，雇主只需出一封employment letter, 然后拿到这封信，去离自己最近的那个美加边境的美国一方出示信件，那么当场就会给你一个work permit （叫TN），凭着这个就可以在美国合法工作。这个TN 工签每年续一次，一次大概几十刀，从第二年起，无需再亲自去，每年邮寄申请renewal 即可。
对 SCOTUS 完全可以interpret to their liking
定点打击南加州华人区部分产业？
副总统Vance笑哈哈，继续干，尤其是他还年轻。
是啊，只要高院对United States v. Wong Kim Ark重作解释就可以了。高院很可能会支持川普。
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/does-the-constitution-mandate-universal-birthright-citizenship-heres
What About Wong Kim Ark? Despite claims by advocates of universal birthright citizenship that the Supreme Court has already held universal birthright citizenship to be “the law of the land,” the reality is far different. It is true that, in 1898, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the U.S.-born child of lawfully present and permanently domiciled Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.
At its core, Wong Kim Ark was about the government’s attempt to circumvent the Fourteenth Amendment and keep Chinese immigrants and their children from ever becoming citizens, by any means, just because they were Chinese.
At the time, federal law barred Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens, and they were, according to treaty obligations with China, perpetual Chinese subjects. Much like the freed slaves, Chinese immigrants were prohibited from subjecting themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States because of their race, and were relegated to permanent alienage in a country where they would live and die. This type of race-based discrimination in citizenship was precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit, and the Supreme Court rightly recognized the system for the unconstitutional travesty it truly was.
While the opinion can also be read as affirmatively adopting jus soli as the “law of the land,” it can just as easily be read as adopting only a flexible, “Americanized” jus soli limited to the factors of lawful presence and permanent domicile.
This second interpretation renders the holding consistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is also precisely what many legal commentators at the time thought the Supreme Court meant, too.
In short, Wong Kim Ark only deviates from the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment if one chooses to read it acting under the assumption that the Supreme Court intended to upend decades of precedent and judicially supersede the clear intent of Congress. That assumption is unnecessary, illogical, and dangerous.
Yup, if roe v wade can be overturned, all others can be overturned too.
SCOTUS will support Trump
你们真逗，人家要的是白娃，你们出谋划策怎么不影响f1/h签证的， lol
我觉得可能不用修宪。如果真的要改宪法，川普做不到。他也知道他做不到。
他可以做的，是搞个行政命令，这个行政命令一定会被法律挑战，也一定会打到SCOTUS。
United States v. Wong Kim Ark 的结论，其实可以挑战的。
他如果聪明，可能已经和他任命的几个大法官了解过了，这几个大法官对于宪法解读，以及United States v. Wong Kim Ark的解读，有没有法律操作空间。如果有，那就简单了，直接发行政命令就好，然后就是等着某人来打官司，打到SCOTUS，然后就OK了。
当年的同志婚姻，原本是想靠各民主党州先搞，然后逼迫联邦层面承认，因为各州不同步会出现很多法律问题。但prop 8连加州公投都没通过，于是只好改弦更张，换了一个高法的路线，通过基层法院到SCOTUS，一步一步的，就成功了。
其实高法路线是最简单的路线，搞修宪，那是不可能的。宪法又不是滴水不漏，怎么解读，就靠那9个法官。
这就是project 2025 playbook
上任他们就想这么做, Stephen Miller 那时候就在和DOJ在找方式
反正大家有能力的话准备个exit plan
行政权搞你还不容易，h1提高工资，绿卡每个都要面试。谎报共产党组织的全部吊销身份。
放非法移民进来也违法，谁能拿总统怎么样？！