Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(171,774 posts)
3. I don't think they are extrapolating down to an "address level"
Wed Apr 1, 2026, 12:39 PM
Apr 1

but more as an "intent to live and stay here" thing.

ACLU's Wang did a good discussion on both the terms "domicile" (which she indicated was supposedly a stipulated fact) and "allegiance" - where quite a bit came out near the end of the arguments, with an example of the child of an Irish mother who gives birth in the U.S. and that basically making the child a dual-national (although I don't recall any of the discourse specifically using that term but that is what you would have), and how does "allegiance" deal with that?

There was also discussion regarding "allegiance" with 2 different definitions - the one apparently argued by 45's people strictly as "loyalty" versus something more akin to having/accepting a particular recognized "nationality".

It seemed most of the justices were waving away the claims that "allegiance" was akin to some narrow "loyalty" thing (which was the insanity that happened during the WW2 Japanese internment camps era).

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Cable News Clips»WATCH LIVE: U.S. Supreme ...»Reply #3