I predict the court will punt, it will continue as-is but they won’t actually decide the case one way or another.
I (sadly) predict worse than a punt. Our current birthright citizen policy is too baked-in for some of the squishier Court “conservatives” to try to overturn.
I sure hope I’m wrong.
I agree with you. I don’t see anything good coming out of this.
The question before them is whether Trump's executive order is legal and constitutional. They pretty much has to rule on that.
One thing that Trump did in the EO that MIGHT help the court 'split this baby': he recognized that the court would likely be unwilling to go 'all the way' and rule that all anchor babies aren't citizens. So he made the EO NON-retroactive.
That would allow the status quo to be maintained and eliminate the chaos that could occur from a ruling of EITHER side winning completely.
MEANWHILE, I have a solution for all of these anchor babies living abroad:
> Congress must pass a law to impose a minimum federal tax for all "citizens" living outside the country. Make it $1000 annually for anyone not living in the country at least six months each year.
> Exemptions for military, Federal employees required to live abroad, etc.
> If you pay regular Federal taxes that exceed $1000 annually, you're good.
> If NOT, then you're citizenship and all access documents (visas, passports, voter registrations, driver license, etc.) are CANCELED automatically, effective 12 months after the violation (i.e., April 15th of the following year).
“I predict the court will punt, it will continue as-is but they won’t actually decide the case one way or another.”
To “punt” means to uphold the current acceptance of birthright citizenship.
That in itself would be a decision against the government.