Azonia Citizenship Question

Appellant

Communist League Of Azonia

Filed

July 24, 2022

Decided

Oct. 12, 2022

The case

The appellant's argument, then every party's submission, oldest first. Submissions are advisory: the justices read them, they do not count as votes.

1. Liberty League Oppose · 31 Aug 2026, 3:00 a.m.

   The Liberty League takes the difficult position of opposing the Communist League's appeal while noting a valid point from the Communist League regarding a current inadequacy in the Constitution of Azonia. Birthright citizenship has no place in Azonia. Citizenship by birth on national soil will create a means by which our public healthcare system will be exploited and abused. Citizenship by blood only is the preferred policy of the Liberty League as it would make it more difficult for Azonian benefits to be abused. However, the Communist League raises a valid point regarding the Constitution's lack of a definition for "Azonian," making the Citizenship and Immigration Reform Act of 2020 technically unenforceable. The Liberty League instead proposes a constitutional amendment to define citizenship and immigration more clearly rather than a repeal of an important immigration law that prevents abuse of our systems.

2. Nationaliste Support · 31 Aug 2026, 7:42 a.m.

   Nous sommes d'accord, une fois née sur le territoire nous sommes citoyen. Et nous devons vivre 5 ans pour pouvoir être naturalisé.

The bench

Each justice's vote and reasoning, published under their seat number. The court never reveals who sits on it.

• Justice #1 Did not vote
• Justice #2 Uphold

  The Liberty League raises legitimate policy concerns regarding birthright citizenship, immigration control and the protection of public resources. However, those considerations do not answer the constitutional question before me.
  The central problem is considerably more fundamental: the Citizenship and Immigration Reform Act of 2020 establishes a citizenship regime based upon the concept of an “Azonian”, yet the Constitution contains no clear definition of who constitutes an Azonian for the purposes of citizenship.
  Parliament may undoubtedly establish rules governing naturalisation and immigration where the Constitution grants it that authority. However, ordinary legislation cannot cure a constitutional ambiguity by simply assuming a definition that the Constitution itself does not provide.
  The Liberty League itself effectively acknowledges this defect. It concedes that the Constitution lacks a definition of “Azonian,” but argues that the appropriate response is a constitutional amendment rather than invalidation of the existing law.
  I disagree.
  A law cannot be considered constitutionally enforceable merely because the legislature could amend the Constitution in the future to make that law workable. The question is whether the legislation is constitutionally valid now.
  The fact that the previous government established citizenship by blood and extended the naturalisation period to fifteen years does not resolve this problem. Nor does the fact that the National Defense Front, which enacted the legislation, is now defunct. The validity of legislation does not depend upon the continued existence or political strength of the party that enacted it.
  I also do not find the Communist League's policy arguments, standing alone, sufficient to invalidate the legislation. Whether jus sanguinis is economically beneficial, whether it creates undesirable political perceptions, or whether immigration should be made easier are matters upon which reasonable political disagreement is entirely legitimate.
  The constitutional defect lies elsewhere: the State is attempting to enforce a fundamental citizenship distinction without a sufficiently established constitutional basis for determining who falls within that distinction.
  The Liberty League's proposed solution—adopting a constitutional amendment—is therefore significant. In fact, it demonstrates that the present constitutional framework is incomplete. If an amendment is genuinely necessary to define citizenship and provide the legal foundation for the 2020 Act, then that foundation cannot simply be presumed to exist while the amendment remains absent.
  I would therefore decline to preserve the Act merely because its underlying immigration policy may be considered desirable. Courts cannot repair an uncertain constitutional foundation by supplying essential political definitions themselves.
  Accordingly, I would uphold the appeal and declare the Citizenship and Immigration Reform Act of 2020 unenforceable to the extent that its citizenship provisions depend upon a definition of “Azonian” that is absent from the Constitution.
  This judgment should not be understood as establishing that citizenship by blood is unconstitutional. Nor does it establish a constitutional right to birthright citizenship. It establishes only that the legislature must operate within a constitutionally defined framework when determining who belongs to the political community.
  If Azonia wishes to establish citizenship by blood and a fifteen-year naturalisation requirement, it remains free to pursue the necessary constitutional amendment and subsequently enact legislation consistent with that amended constitutional framework.

• Justice #3 Did not vote
• Justice #4 Did not vote
• Justice #6 Did not vote