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.
America is in the process of self-destruction at the hands of Progressives, who hate America. They think they will deliver some utopia to the world. Instead they are inviting in tyranny that crushes their dreams at the hands of intolerant China or Islamists, whoever gets it done first
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.
“Amend the Constitution”. Never gonna happen in my lifetime with a polarized nation. America will be conquered by Chinese Marxism or Islam before that can ever happen. Both ideological opponents are using birthright to speed up the takeover
Exactly. It was very specific in time and place during 1870s Reconstruction. The 14th is entirely about the rights of former slaves who had few rights. The broad interpretations from that original purpose are corrupt. This is much like Roe v Wade which tried to infer a Constitutional right to abortion where none ever existed. That miscarriage of SCOTUS justice was finally corrected last year. Supremes do make mistakes. It is anyone’s guess if the current crew will side with the President on this as several of the younger conservatives seem hellbent on proving their independence
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.
Since when is the Constitution “literal”? The Left constantly works to change its meaning. That is the raison d’être for the Supreme Court: to make sure interpretations are consistent with intent. Birthright for birth tourists is clearly not the original intent. As for Congress: the Founders and we know that amendments were never intended for broad interpretation. That would have required hundreds or thousands of Amendments over the centuries, maybe even requiring reversal (prohibition). Amendments were designed to be very difficult for a reason: to discourage them
Let's see what the most conservative court in my lifetime says about your argument. We can't keep going back to "intent" based on only the specific situation when the law was passed. Or are you arguing that birthright citizenship should only apply to those people formerly enslaved at the time the 14th Amendment was passed. That would be a problem for quite a lot of people now citizens! Or, do you want the right (in an organized militia) to carry only the arms available at the time? That is the basis on which the founders provided for an organized militia. That was their intent because that is what they knew. But it would be silly to apply it to now.
That was not now but we have the words written. We have got to go with what the words say and the precedent set by past legal opinions. In this case the words and precedent are very clear. If you want to change it AND you want a democracy--get to work and try to pass an amendment. It's purposely slow and difficult because that's what the founders intended. But it has been done.
"The most conservative court of your lifetime" that is afraid to be conservative. Yep, you got it. The three newer members of the SC are totally cowed by the anger and hatred on the Left. Kavanaugh got the message when his and his family's lives were threatened by a legit assassin. None of them are stepping out of line and are voting Left every time
The three newest members are Brett Kavanaugh (nominated by Trump), Amy Coney Barrett (nominated by Trump), and Ketanji Brown Jackson (nominated by Biden). I'm assuming the assassination attempt you refer to was by Sophie Roske who had along history of mental illness and called the police herself. Why do you think these three are more subject to intimidation that the others?
We're not a democracy (that word can't be found in any of our Founding documents - the Founders hated "democracies"), we are a constitutional republic. BTW, the 14th was NEVER for illegal aliens - that was clear then and now. As for the 1st A, it's clear that it's for INDIVIDUALS first and foremost (as all the Bill of Rights are) and then it discusses militias.
But there is the little issue of what the middle sentence “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” actually means. If it means nothing then it is superfluous and one might wonder why it’s in there.
We're not a democracy (that word can't be found in any of our Founding documents - the Founders hated "democracies"), we are a constitutional republic. BTW, the 14th was NEVER for illegal aliens.
Yes, the USA is a constitutional republic and yes the founders were not for a “pure democracy” which they were careful to distinguish from the representational republic they advocated. I think everyone knows that but we informally call it a democracy. Maybe a purist such as yourself doesn’t use that shortcut so I’ll be hyper correct here.
When the 14th Amendment was passed there was no concept of being in the USA “illegally” so far as I know. If you want to go back that time for intent, immigration was largely unrestricted so no one was in the country illegally. So far as I know the first limits on immigration was around 1890 when immigration of Asians and specific undesirable individuals such as criminals. The 1924 and 1929 Acts started limiting immigration. Please note that these changes came about due to acts of Congress, not orders of the executive branch.
The Constitution says what it says and in this case the 14th Amendment is very clear. If you don’t like it do the work. Elect representatives to Congress who will pass a law. Be sure it is worded unambiguously so the judiciary will uphold it if challenged. That’s what one does in a constitutional republic—if you can keep it.
Agree, but this ruling wouldn't need Congress if the SCOTUS rules that Trump executive order is in accordance with the Constitution. And I'm not a "purist", I just know that a lot of people (maybe not those who are fans of Sasha) don't know that we are a constitutional republic and not a "democracy", so I mentioned it often (and have, for the last 20 years, online. You'd be surprised - or maybe not - how many people responded with "Huh?". Also, illegal aliens are criminals, even if it's "civil crimes" (it's also a civil crime to drive 80 miles an hour in a 35 zone but we don't brush that off as "no biggie") and it's a felony crime if an illegal alien stays, gets a fake or stolen I.D., lies on rental and/or employment applications, etc. AND it's a felony to enter the US a second or more times illegally ....so, even though there was no laws specifically against entry when the 14th was written, there were about being a criminal and entering and that's makes it so illegal aliens aren't covered under the 14th.
OH FOR F's SAKE, if it's ruled by SCOTUS that two ILLEGAL ALIEN parents give birth and that baby is automatically a citizen of the USA, ALL LAWS ARE MOOT and who will give a rat's ass about our laws? Because it makes absolutely no fucking sense, as THE ILLEGAL ALIENS AREN'T "UNDER THE JURISDICTION", they are BREAKING THE JURISDICTION because they shouldn't even be here and I don't give a CRAP if there wasn't border laws at the time, because it JUST MAKES LOGICAL SENSE that if there were border laws at the time, those who wrote the 14th would've been clear that those coming here ILLEGALLY by breaking the border laws weren't covered by the 14th!
I'm not a fan of Heather Cox Richardson, in the least. I think she's got some major blind spots. I was "MAGA" 40 years ago. My beliefs pre-date all the stuff going on now. I'm a constitutional conservative Christian.
There is no way SCOTUS will allow the President to change birthright citizenship by EO. They may allow Congress a tiny amount wiggle room to discourage birth tourism and commercial surrogacy, but only for babies that leave the US with their mothers immediately after birth.
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.
In effect, there is No Jus Soli: Unlike the US or Canada, mere birth on UK soil does not grant citizenship if the parents are temporary residents or undocumented.
Don't try to mix apples and oranges. The UK and the US have distinctly different systems of law... And even though executive orders are not created by courts, but by the President, they derive authority from the Constitution or statutes passed by Congress.
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.
Hello Alice, thank you for your question. As an answer, please be cognizant that I confess Jesus of Nazareth as God the Son. Furthermore, it is MHO Jesus will Return as King of kings within the next ten years, before the Fall Feasts of 2035.
That said, it is also MHO that from the womb, Donald J. Trump has been chosen and groomed by YHVH/God as the last temporary king on David's Throne (Davidic Covenant) before the Return of Jesus Christ as King of kings. My opinion in mine alone. Most other believers in Jesus disagree with me. Furthermore, my opinion does not suggest that DJT is without sin. On the contrary, DJT is a fallen man, just like me - and we both need a Savior.
Ezekiel 37 contains two primary prophetic visions: "the Valley of Dry Bones" (verses 1–14) and "the Two Sticks" (verses 15–28), both serving as messages of hope and restoration for the exiled to Babylon the Tribes of Israel - and to Return to their Land of Promise, (which happened in May of 1948). In the first vision, YHVH/God commands Ezekiel to "prophesy over a valley of dry bones", which is then miraculously reassemble, gain flesh, and come to life through the breath of the precious Holy Spirit. Symbolizing YHVH/God's Power to restore a fallen nation that has lost all hope. The second vision involves "joining two sticks labeled for Judah and Joseph (Ephraim) into one", prophesying the future reunification of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah under one King and one shepherd - for the 1,000 year Reign of Jesus as King of kings. Accordingly, it is MHO, Trump and Netanyahu represent the "two sticks" - Trump represents Ephraim and Netanyahu represents Judah.
Moreover, isn't it curious how Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law-, is a member of the House of Judah, for a time such as this?
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.
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.
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.
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.
WSJ has a compelling treatment of the origionalist view. That editorial takes the position that the pro side - that being born under any circumstance within the boundaries of US governance confers citizenship automatically - runs up on the contemporaneous debate and is internally contradictory.
I wonder if Trump will ask to be heard? How "intimidation" enters the picture is a mystery. Does the NYT think he'll rush the bench? Do they not know his office is just down the street?
"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.
The people coming here illegally and even those on H1b work visa’s are here to improve their lives off the legacy of the citizens that created a powerful and prosperous country. They have zero “skin in the game” and no personal attachment regarding devotion and patriotism. It is pure parasitism. THAT is what is on the line. Do we promote factionalism as Madison warned about in Federalist Paper 10?
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.
America is in the process of self-destruction at the hands of Progressives, who hate America. They think they will deliver some utopia to the world. Instead they are inviting in tyranny that crushes their dreams at the hands of intolerant China or Islamists, whoever gets it done first
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.
while the reason for birthright is outdated and over SC ain’t touching this. need to amend constitution
“Amend the Constitution”. Never gonna happen in my lifetime with a polarized nation. America will be conquered by Chinese Marxism or Islam before that can ever happen. Both ideological opponents are using birthright to speed up the takeover
Exactly. It was very specific in time and place during 1870s Reconstruction. The 14th is entirely about the rights of former slaves who had few rights. The broad interpretations from that original purpose are corrupt. This is much like Roe v Wade which tried to infer a Constitutional right to abortion where none ever existed. That miscarriage of SCOTUS justice was finally corrected last year. Supremes do make mistakes. It is anyone’s guess if the current crew will side with the President on this as several of the younger conservatives seem hellbent on proving their independence
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.
Since when is the Constitution “literal”? The Left constantly works to change its meaning. That is the raison d’être for the Supreme Court: to make sure interpretations are consistent with intent. Birthright for birth tourists is clearly not the original intent. As for Congress: the Founders and we know that amendments were never intended for broad interpretation. That would have required hundreds or thousands of Amendments over the centuries, maybe even requiring reversal (prohibition). Amendments were designed to be very difficult for a reason: to discourage them
Let's see what the most conservative court in my lifetime says about your argument. We can't keep going back to "intent" based on only the specific situation when the law was passed. Or are you arguing that birthright citizenship should only apply to those people formerly enslaved at the time the 14th Amendment was passed. That would be a problem for quite a lot of people now citizens! Or, do you want the right (in an organized militia) to carry only the arms available at the time? That is the basis on which the founders provided for an organized militia. That was their intent because that is what they knew. But it would be silly to apply it to now.
That was not now but we have the words written. We have got to go with what the words say and the precedent set by past legal opinions. In this case the words and precedent are very clear. If you want to change it AND you want a democracy--get to work and try to pass an amendment. It's purposely slow and difficult because that's what the founders intended. But it has been done.
"The most conservative court of your lifetime" that is afraid to be conservative. Yep, you got it. The three newer members of the SC are totally cowed by the anger and hatred on the Left. Kavanaugh got the message when his and his family's lives were threatened by a legit assassin. None of them are stepping out of line and are voting Left every time
The three newest members are Brett Kavanaugh (nominated by Trump), Amy Coney Barrett (nominated by Trump), and Ketanji Brown Jackson (nominated by Biden). I'm assuming the assassination attempt you refer to was by Sophie Roske who had along history of mental illness and called the police herself. Why do you think these three are more subject to intimidation that the others?
We're not a democracy (that word can't be found in any of our Founding documents - the Founders hated "democracies"), we are a constitutional republic. BTW, the 14th was NEVER for illegal aliens - that was clear then and now. As for the 1st A, it's clear that it's for INDIVIDUALS first and foremost (as all the Bill of Rights are) and then it discusses militias.
Hello Brian M. Do you believe the US Constitution is actually functioning as the "Supreme Law of the Land"?
I don't. I believe our Constitutional Republic is fallen and will never be restored.
But there is the little issue of what the middle sentence “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” actually means. If it means nothing then it is superfluous and one might wonder why it’s in there.
We're not a democracy (that word can't be found in any of our Founding documents - the Founders hated "democracies"), we are a constitutional republic. BTW, the 14th was NEVER for illegal aliens.
Yes, the USA is a constitutional republic and yes the founders were not for a “pure democracy” which they were careful to distinguish from the representational republic they advocated. I think everyone knows that but we informally call it a democracy. Maybe a purist such as yourself doesn’t use that shortcut so I’ll be hyper correct here.
When the 14th Amendment was passed there was no concept of being in the USA “illegally” so far as I know. If you want to go back that time for intent, immigration was largely unrestricted so no one was in the country illegally. So far as I know the first limits on immigration was around 1890 when immigration of Asians and specific undesirable individuals such as criminals. The 1924 and 1929 Acts started limiting immigration. Please note that these changes came about due to acts of Congress, not orders of the executive branch.
The Constitution says what it says and in this case the 14th Amendment is very clear. If you don’t like it do the work. Elect representatives to Congress who will pass a law. Be sure it is worded unambiguously so the judiciary will uphold it if challenged. That’s what one does in a constitutional republic—if you can keep it.
Agree, but this ruling wouldn't need Congress if the SCOTUS rules that Trump executive order is in accordance with the Constitution. And I'm not a "purist", I just know that a lot of people (maybe not those who are fans of Sasha) don't know that we are a constitutional republic and not a "democracy", so I mentioned it often (and have, for the last 20 years, online. You'd be surprised - or maybe not - how many people responded with "Huh?". Also, illegal aliens are criminals, even if it's "civil crimes" (it's also a civil crime to drive 80 miles an hour in a 35 zone but we don't brush that off as "no biggie") and it's a felony crime if an illegal alien stays, gets a fake or stolen I.D., lies on rental and/or employment applications, etc. AND it's a felony to enter the US a second or more times illegally ....so, even though there was no laws specifically against entry when the 14th was written, there were about being a criminal and entering and that's makes it so illegal aliens aren't covered under the 14th.
My history was a bit off, I’m no historian. In case you are interested, here’s an outline from a real historian.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-1-2026?r=4if0n&utm_medium=ios
OH FOR F's SAKE, if it's ruled by SCOTUS that two ILLEGAL ALIEN parents give birth and that baby is automatically a citizen of the USA, ALL LAWS ARE MOOT and who will give a rat's ass about our laws? Because it makes absolutely no fucking sense, as THE ILLEGAL ALIENS AREN'T "UNDER THE JURISDICTION", they are BREAKING THE JURISDICTION because they shouldn't even be here and I don't give a CRAP if there wasn't border laws at the time, because it JUST MAKES LOGICAL SENSE that if there were border laws at the time, those who wrote the 14th would've been clear that those coming here ILLEGALLY by breaking the border laws weren't covered by the 14th!
I'm not a fan of Heather Cox Richardson, in the least. I think she's got some major blind spots. I was "MAGA" 40 years ago. My beliefs pre-date all the stuff going on now. I'm a constitutional conservative Christian.
There is no way SCOTUS will allow the President to change birthright citizenship by EO. They may allow Congress a tiny amount wiggle room to discourage birth tourism and commercial surrogacy, but only for babies that leave the US with their mothers immediately after birth.
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.
Only because they recently changed it. The law. Not an executive order
Well the UK executive branch changed the law 43 years ago.
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.
In effect, there is No Jus Soli: Unlike the US or Canada, mere birth on UK soil does not grant citizenship if the parents are temporary residents or undocumented.
Only because the UK changed it BY law a couple of decades ago
"
Don't try to mix apples and oranges. The UK and the US have distinctly different systems of law... And even though executive orders are not created by courts, but by the President, they derive authority from the Constitution or statutes passed by Congress.
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.
Hello Alice, thank you for your question. As an answer, please be cognizant that I confess Jesus of Nazareth as God the Son. Furthermore, it is MHO Jesus will Return as King of kings within the next ten years, before the Fall Feasts of 2035.
That said, it is also MHO that from the womb, Donald J. Trump has been chosen and groomed by YHVH/God as the last temporary king on David's Throne (Davidic Covenant) before the Return of Jesus Christ as King of kings. My opinion in mine alone. Most other believers in Jesus disagree with me. Furthermore, my opinion does not suggest that DJT is without sin. On the contrary, DJT is a fallen man, just like me - and we both need a Savior.
Ezekiel 37 contains two primary prophetic visions: "the Valley of Dry Bones" (verses 1–14) and "the Two Sticks" (verses 15–28), both serving as messages of hope and restoration for the exiled to Babylon the Tribes of Israel - and to Return to their Land of Promise, (which happened in May of 1948). In the first vision, YHVH/God commands Ezekiel to "prophesy over a valley of dry bones", which is then miraculously reassemble, gain flesh, and come to life through the breath of the precious Holy Spirit. Symbolizing YHVH/God's Power to restore a fallen nation that has lost all hope. The second vision involves "joining two sticks labeled for Judah and Joseph (Ephraim) into one", prophesying the future reunification of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah under one King and one shepherd - for the 1,000 year Reign of Jesus as King of kings. Accordingly, it is MHO, Trump and Netanyahu represent the "two sticks" - Trump represents Ephraim and Netanyahu represents Judah.
Moreover, isn't it curious how Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law-, is a member of the House of Judah, for a time such as this?
Not RUDE, FAIR QUESTION! Carl clarify Alice's question 🤔 This outta be GOOD?
PEACE ✌️ OUT ☮️
I should have added, they also still don’t understand why he was elected, either time.
Insanity: doing the same thing again, and again, and expecting a different result. That, would explain the media.
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.
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
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!!!
I hope you’re correct but judging from the questioning the justices were highly skeptical.
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.
Sir, that is a very demeaning statement about circus clowns. At least they make us laugh.
You're not a clown, but I did have a laugh. 😊
That’s an interesting question as china doesn’t allow dual citizenship.
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?
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.
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.
2. Plus 3 Living Constitution and 4 squishes.
Thomas is the only one
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.
WSJ has a compelling treatment of the origionalist view. That editorial takes the position that the pro side - that being born under any circumstance within the boundaries of US governance confers citizenship automatically - runs up on the contemporaneous debate and is internally contradictory.
I wonder if Trump will ask to be heard? How "intimidation" enters the picture is a mystery. Does the NYT think he'll rush the bench? Do they not know his office is just down the street?
NYT is such a pathetic rag
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/birthright-citizenship-is-illegitimate-and-unconstitutional-heres-why/
😂
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.
The people coming here illegally and even those on H1b work visa’s are here to improve their lives off the legacy of the citizens that created a powerful and prosperous country. They have zero “skin in the game” and no personal attachment regarding devotion and patriotism. It is pure parasitism. THAT is what is on the line. Do we promote factionalism as Madison warned about in Federalist Paper 10?