The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on ending birthright citizenship, and Trump has made history as the first president to attend a Supreme Court case.
Birthright citizenship was for former slaves. In the age of mass airline travel and open borders, it is a national security threat. The CCP can fly in pregnant women or even sperm for surrogates to make American anchor babies that they control and will vote in 18 years. Not to mention the tens of millions of illegal immigrants who take advantage of our welfare systems. We would be foolish to allow this unrestricted warfare to continue: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/ccp-unrestricted-warfare-fronts
It really is unrestricted warfare against a free republic (USA). Despots must bring free republics to heel to truly consolidate their power. Once they take down the USA (our current constitutional structure) there demoralization of humanity will be complete.
I believe the majority will take the coward's way and kick it over to Congress and tell them to fix this via constitutional means rather than by interpretation. There is no better way to kick this can down the road than to boot it over to Congress.
To paraphrase our Chief Justice today, it may be a new world but it’s the same Constitution. That’s the rule of law. If you want the rule of law and this change, you need to change the Constitution. Nothing that I know of in the wording of the 14th Amendment implies that it was limited to former slaves.
We have changed a lot of laws, slowly, to adapt to new situations—eliminated slavery, gave women the vote, etc. It usually takes quite a bit of effort. But, that’s what democracy is all about. You have to convince enough of the people.
And yet the UK does not have automatic birthright citizenship for children born to non-British parents. But since they are reluctant to deport anyone it is sort of a moot point.
You've forgotten to mention one VERY important facet of English common law, as it applies to the principle of jus soli ("right of soil"), which granted subjectship to anyone born within the king's dominion... those inheriting the protection of citizenship owed perpetual loyalty to the king and his domain.
It is amazing that the NYT (and the rest of the legacy media) believe they so completely understand Trump's thinking. No matter how many times they get it completely wrong.
Trump attends to signal this issue is important to him. He also knows wherever he goes, the press will follow. And as a result, media spotlights this hearing and America tunes in. Trump is unlike any politician we have ever seen.
If they (SCOTUS) punt and fail to make the common sense decision, it will only hasten the end of the republic. The status quo cannot continue. CCP has not tried to hide the fact that it will run ‘American citizens’ raised in China (birth tourism) for US federal government offices to include the Presidency in the near future.
They are doing the same in Canada. And hassling all the Chinese Canadians. Well, Canada is already lost, unbelievable what WEF Commie Carney is doing that he NEVER ran on.
It should be ended. It was never intended for the way it is used now. Everyone knows it is being abused. I agree that Trump is genuinely interested in the case and the process. I think the right way to handle it is for the children who are already born here to keep their status but to stop it going forward unless the parents have green cards and are in the process of becoming citizens.
I think they will end it because they are originalists. They base their rulings on what the laws meant at the time of their writing and they are textualists. They base their rulings on a strict reading of the text. The word jurisdiction means something. That's my opinion.
Yeah, it's basically a 3,3,3 split. We just need 2 of the moderate 3. I think ACB and maybe even Roberts will side this way. I pray they do, anyway. It seems obvious to many of us.
Does any media discussion mention the number of Chinese women during the last 10 years who traveled to the US during their pregnancy, stayed long enough to give birth to an American citizen, and immediately returned to China to raise their child as a Chinese citizen? Any serious discussion of what their motives might have been, the personal implications of birthright US citizenship for the mother and child, and the national implications for both the US and China?
So many illegals are being deported and so many Americans are moving from Blue States to Red States — the only way for Democrats to maintain Representatives in the House and Electoral Votes in Blue States is by reopening the border to anyone every time a Democrat moves into the White House.
Why would we ever want to stop billionaire Chinese Communists from legally traveling to the USA and impregnating 50 women so their children can be U.S. citizens?
Let's hope you're wrong Sasha Stone: the Supreme Court already ended affirmative action, Roe v Wade and issued 3 rulings protecting the Second Amendment.
"My own thought is that he’s genuinely interested in watching and hearing the arguments"
Totally agree. I am very interested and would like to attend these important arguments. John Eastman - Dr. John Eastman - is arguing for the correct interpretation of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" on behalf of Americans.
If you are a visitor to the United States you are not subject to jurisdiction of the United States. It is just that simple, but after witnessing Roberts for the last 20 years he will politicize it. I pray otherwise.
I believe they will interprete "subject to the jurisdiction" as requiring not only subject to the laws of the U.S. but also allegiance to the sovereign (the US). You can read the Amici Curiae brief in support of Petitioners submitted by Ted Cruz et al online. The brief is very persuasive and is based on prior precedent.
I see you are using logic and precedence to arrive at your prognostication about the ultimate SCOTUS decision.
Problem is they usually try to find a way to avoid hard decisions that would adhere to originalist intent as per our founding. If they did, patriot act would have been struck down 20yrs ago. Same with a myriad of other unconstitutional legislation since 1900.
Birthright citizenship was for former slaves. In the age of mass airline travel and open borders, it is a national security threat. The CCP can fly in pregnant women or even sperm for surrogates to make American anchor babies that they control and will vote in 18 years. Not to mention the tens of millions of illegal immigrants who take advantage of our welfare systems. We would be foolish to allow this unrestricted warfare to continue: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/ccp-unrestricted-warfare-fronts
It really is unrestricted warfare against a free republic (USA). Despots must bring free republics to heel to truly consolidate their power. Once they take down the USA (our current constitutional structure) there demoralization of humanity will be complete.
while the reason for birthright is outdated and over SC ain’t touching this. need to amend constitution
I believe the majority will take the coward's way and kick it over to Congress and tell them to fix this via constitutional means rather than by interpretation. There is no better way to kick this can down the road than to boot it over to Congress.
To paraphrase our Chief Justice today, it may be a new world but it’s the same Constitution. That’s the rule of law. If you want the rule of law and this change, you need to change the Constitution. Nothing that I know of in the wording of the 14th Amendment implies that it was limited to former slaves.
We have changed a lot of laws, slowly, to adapt to new situations—eliminated slavery, gave women the vote, etc. It usually takes quite a bit of effort. But, that’s what democracy is all about. You have to convince enough of the people.
Birthright citizenship is part of English Common Law.
We are still a Common Law country.
The Left would love to change that.
I put my foot down on that
And yet the UK does not have automatic birthright citizenship for children born to non-British parents. But since they are reluctant to deport anyone it is sort of a moot point.
You've forgotten to mention one VERY important facet of English common law, as it applies to the principle of jus soli ("right of soil"), which granted subjectship to anyone born within the king's dominion... those inheriting the protection of citizenship owed perpetual loyalty to the king and his domain.
It is amazing that the NYT (and the rest of the legacy media) believe they so completely understand Trump's thinking. No matter how many times they get it completely wrong.
Trump attends to signal this issue is important to him. He also knows wherever he goes, the press will follow. And as a result, media spotlights this hearing and America tunes in. Trump is unlike any politician we have ever seen.
Indeed. He's brilliant.
Every time I see President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the same platform, I am reminded of Ezekiel 37.
I’m not sure what you mean. Having David as the one king over the land of Israel? Or bringing bones to life? I’m not being rude—I’m truly baffled.
Not RUDE, FAIR QUESTION! Carl clarify Alice's question 🤔 This outta be GOOD?
PEACE ✌️ OUT ☮️
If they (SCOTUS) punt and fail to make the common sense decision, it will only hasten the end of the republic. The status quo cannot continue. CCP has not tried to hide the fact that it will run ‘American citizens’ raised in China (birth tourism) for US federal government offices to include the Presidency in the near future.
They are doing the same in Canada. And hassling all the Chinese Canadians. Well, Canada is already lost, unbelievable what WEF Commie Carney is doing that he NEVER ran on.
Trump can end it. They’ll scream King.
But it’s illegal and unconstitutional. F em.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/birthright-citizenship-is-illegitimate-and-unconstitutional-heres-why/
Something that is in the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional. Words have meaning
It should be ended. It was never intended for the way it is used now. Everyone knows it is being abused. I agree that Trump is genuinely interested in the case and the process. I think the right way to handle it is for the children who are already born here to keep their status but to stop it going forward unless the parents have green cards and are in the process of becoming citizens.
I think they will end it because they are originalists. They base their rulings on what the laws meant at the time of their writing and they are textualists. They base their rulings on a strict reading of the text. The word jurisdiction means something. That's my opinion.
From your lips, Brandy, to God’s ear!
I hope you're right , but they are not all originalists. I'd say two or three of them are strict originalists
Yeah, it's basically a 3,3,3 split. We just need 2 of the moderate 3. I think ACB and maybe even Roberts will side this way. I pray they do, anyway. It seems obvious to many of us.
Agree!!!
Does any media discussion mention the number of Chinese women during the last 10 years who traveled to the US during their pregnancy, stayed long enough to give birth to an American citizen, and immediately returned to China to raise their child as a Chinese citizen? Any serious discussion of what their motives might have been, the personal implications of birthright US citizenship for the mother and child, and the national implications for both the US and China?
Happens in Canada too.
F* Canada, they invite corruption. Circus clown for PM.
So many illegals are being deported and so many Americans are moving from Blue States to Red States — the only way for Democrats to maintain Representatives in the House and Electoral Votes in Blue States is by reopening the border to anyone every time a Democrat moves into the White House.
I’ll give you 15M reasons and one Joe Biden why this practice must stop.
Why would we ever want to stop billionaire Chinese Communists from legally traveling to the USA and impregnating 50 women so their children can be U.S. citizens?
An originality justice has to vote to end this practice. Not sure of the number on the court, however.
Sorry, I typed "originalist" but Google is unfamiliar with the word and changed it.
Thomas is the only one
2. Plus 3 Living Constitution and 4 squishes.
Let's hope you're wrong Sasha Stone: the Supreme Court already ended affirmative action, Roe v Wade and issued 3 rulings protecting the Second Amendment.
Count on KBJ to say something rude and stupid.
Count on Trump counting on it.
"My own thought is that he’s genuinely interested in watching and hearing the arguments"
Totally agree. I am very interested and would like to attend these important arguments. John Eastman - Dr. John Eastman - is arguing for the correct interpretation of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" on behalf of Americans.
If you are a visitor to the United States you are not subject to jurisdiction of the United States. It is just that simple, but after witnessing Roberts for the last 20 years he will politicize it. I pray otherwise.
I believe they will interprete "subject to the jurisdiction" as requiring not only subject to the laws of the U.S. but also allegiance to the sovereign (the US). You can read the Amici Curiae brief in support of Petitioners submitted by Ted Cruz et al online. The brief is very persuasive and is based on prior precedent.
I see you are using logic and precedence to arrive at your prognostication about the ultimate SCOTUS decision.
Problem is they usually try to find a way to avoid hard decisions that would adhere to originalist intent as per our founding. If they did, patriot act would have been struck down 20yrs ago. Same with a myriad of other unconstitutional legislation since 1900.
I’m with you.
Sadly he’s going to lose this case.
The founding fathers never would have imagined the country we are today.
There has to be some other way around this bullshit if anchor babies.
Well closing the border shut has to help somewhat.
It has. I assume next Democrat President will open it up again.