The conservative blogosphere think that birth tourism can be abolished by a vote of Congress. But of course the Dems want unlimited flow into the country so they will filibuster any law.
1 Like
Does this ruling do anything to prevent a ban on pregnant immigrants/aliens?
It’d also be a nightmare to administer a ban. How do you deal with children already born here? What country will they be citizens of? This was the more practical solution from SCOTUS, and hoping --in vain – that Congress will pass legislation stopping future citizenship tourism.
Would this ban also include pregnant asylum seekers and those who enter illegally?
This might I guess, but good luck with a fillabuster passing it
Meanwhile
3 Likes
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote:
Here’s the Fourteenth Amendment (emphasis added):
And here’s the federal statute 8 U. S. C. §1401(a) (emphasis added):
This federal statute contains the implementation of the Fourteenth Amendment, almost verbatim.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh is full of shit. But that’s not news.
To anyone wondering if there’s any leeway in the wording of either document above, like how some people argue over the meanings of “bear arms” and “militia” in the Second Amendment, the only word that could confuse some dummies (like me) is “jurisdiction”. My understanding is that the only people not under the jurisdiction of the United States are Native Americans on tribal territories (tribal sovereignty) and foreign ambassadors and their families (“Diplomatic immunity is a principle of international law by which certain foreign government officials are recognized as having legal immunity from the jurisdiction of another country.”)
I certainly understand the frustration of some people about birthright citizenship. It’s certainly a quirk and it does get abused (mostly, if not entirely, by people trying to secure a better future for their children). Heck, I’m not even opposed to changing it. But I can’t understand any argument that this can be changed without a constitutional amendment. The only reason it might work is because Kavanaugh indicated exactly how to fix it to get his vote. He’s legislating from the bench. It would literally go against the text of the Constitution, but will pass a SCOTUS challenge based on his obviously flawed logic.
Just from your two quotes, I’d guess that the difference is that the 14th Amendment details what no state can do. And this isnt a state action. Whereas the Federal law makes no distinction. The interpretation being the the Feds control citizenship, not the states, and what prevents the Feds from modifying citizenship criteria is that Federal law.
I also think the jurisdiction thing could be a factor, in that for any illegals the US could affirmatively deny jurisdiction over them by instead removing them from the country (essentially ceding that jurisdiction to their home country). But that’s a technical term for a technical situation and I have no clue about the formal legalese.
Even if you are correct, this does not change the fact that the 14th Amendment defines what makes a citizen. I suppose the Feds could attempt to* write a law that says “citizens born to illegal immigrants do not have the same rights as all other citizens” (and then only the Feds could enforce this, because states would still be prohibited by the 14th Amendment from enforcing any such laws). But they could not write a law that says “people born to illegal immigrants are not citizens.”
*“attempt to” because it too would be challenged. One should not be able to redefine the meaning of a word in the Constitution without amending the Constitution.
They’d be under the US jurisdiction until removed. A child is born here is under the US jurisdiction and covered by the 14th. You can’t deny jurisdiction post-factum.
I had initially written exactly that, how they can strip away the privileges and protections for babies of illegals, so that they’re effectively citizens on paper only.
That would effectively redefine what it means to be a citizen, and require mental gymnastics to get around the wording of the 14th. I would consider it dirty and illegal, but I’m no SCOTUS justice.
I mean, most of Europe doesn’t have birthright citizenship and you’re a citizen of your parents’ countries regardless of where you pop out. It works fine.
1 Like
Republican and prior senate majority leader McConnell had a heart attack and hasn’t been heard from since. Speculation is he’s brain dead, moreso than in recent years, and they’re not admitting it yet, although that could just be rumors. Either way he’s retiring around end of year.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the former majority leader, was hospitalized on June 14. Since then, his office has provided few updates about his condition.
The main man for the Democrats in Maine might have been acting too manly, accordingly to his ex’s. Now they’ve got another week or so to pressure him to drop out of the election, Biden style, when they could have clearly seen this coming but were fine with him until he started getting some media heat.
And he’s out
2 Likes
So Trump Accounts went live over the 4th holiday. Cutting through all the politics, they’re essentially an IRA for kids that doesnt require earned income to contribute. And once the child turns 18, the account in fact becomes a traditional IRA.
One drawback is college financial aid. Virtually every comment from every publication online (at least that Google finds) advise that these Trump accounts will be considered a child’s asset on the FAFSA. But a child’s IRA is specifically excluded. And at the same time, no Treasury/Education Department guidance has been issued about these new accounts, meaning all that advice is in fact just a guess. I dont see why this new account wouldnt receive the same exclusion as IRAs?
It’s starting to feel like a coordinated campaign to supress participation in this new account, universally promoting a downside that doesnt actually exist. Or is that crossing into tin foil hat territory?
Ooh, I learned something new today.
Sooo… one could also convert 35K from a 529 to Roth to “hide” it?
I saw coverage on DoC and reddit with most/best advice basically saying take the free money, but don’t contribute more, because a 529 is better. The problem being that the Trump Account belongs to the child, and you can’t take money out like you can from a 529.
The 529 conversion to a Roth can only happen after the 529 account has been open for 15 years. And (supposedly?) it is subject to standard Roth IRA contribution requirements/limits. A 529 plan is typically owned by the parent so it is considered a parent asset, to “hide” it you just need to change the owner to a grandparent or virtually anyone who isnt the beneficiary’s parent.
It belongs to the child, but once they turn 18 it becomes a standard traditional IRA with the ability to withdraw money the same way - to pay certain costs penalty-free, or with a EWP. That advice is based on a 529 being a parent asset instead of the child’s, so in the financial aid calculations it adds less to the expected contribution. Thus my question, since if treated as the IRA it is, the trump account will be excluded from financial aid calculations entirely. All the advice notes that guidance hasnt actually been provided yet, but virtually none mention the possibility of the account being excluded.
My take is the Trump accounts shouldnt be evaluated in a strict this-or-that comparison to other options. What they are is opening up access to IRAs to minors from birth, by eliminating the earned income requirement to make contributions. The lesson being taught is that $1k invested at birth (with zero additional contributions) will be worth $1.25-million at age 75, while waiting until age 40 then investing $4k every year for 35 years will get you a total under $1.1-million at age 75.
2 Likes
That’s a good point.
Do these lessons ignore time-value of money? I.e., the $1K is today, while the $4K at 40 vs $1M+ at 75 are not inflation adjusted.
One other problem I saw is that there is no investment choice. I could only hope it’ll be equivalent to a low cost / unmanaged target retirement date fund, but I haven’t seen any details.
No, it shows the value of compounding. There’s no need to show how super-smart we are by adjusting everything, it just makes it increasingly complex (and whatever you adjust, there’s always another adjustment that could also be done). Sometimes it’s ok for a dollar to just be a dollar. Remember, this isnt for “you” - you’re planing and saving regardless, so you focus on getting as close to perfect as possible. This is to help get people from having nothing to having something.
The investment is a basic SPY equivalent, with a handful of other index options (international, bond, etc) supposedly being added soon. Looks like it should be pretty similar to my 529 plan slate of options, once it is all in place. Even broker choice is forthcoming, making it even more like a typical IRA, and I’ll be that will come with even more investment choices.
2 Likes
Do not SPY when you can VOO
S&P500 alone is way too aggressive. Should be closer to a four-fund target date portfolio.
I shall eagerly await further details.
Maybe we can make a separate thread on Trump savings account? There are enough details and new rules it would be good to consolidate them.
3 Likes