Birthright Citizenship

Hotshoe

All-Conference
Feb 15, 2012
24,824
4,842
113
bdgan: That would be a great argument if it was supported by anything resembling a fact. There is no record of immigrants (illegal or legal) voting in anything other than anecdotal numbers. You're pushing a solution in search of a problem.
Once again, you are clueless. According to Pew, 31% identify as Democrats, while 4% identify as Republicans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls

LafayetteBear

All-American
Nov 30, 2009
33,158
8,432
113
Once again, you are clueless. According to Pew, 31% identify as Democrats, while 4% identify as Republicans.
Sigh ...

A poll may show 31% of them identifying as Democrats, with only 4% identifying as Republicans (that would hardly be surprising), but "identifying" in an opinion poll and actually voting in an election are two entirely distinct things. Once again, you have managed to post a big nothingburger. Felicitations.
 

dpic73

Heisman
Jul 27, 2005
28,892
21,118
113
Keyword is legal.
Well since the legal ones are the only ones who vote, you can no longer make the claim that Dems import them as future voters. Rs have just as good of a chance to win them over but they've completely blown it in the last year and that's your daddy's fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

TigerGrowls

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
43,857
32,845
113
Well since the legal ones are the only ones who vote, you can no longer make the claim that Dems import them as future voters. Rs have just as good of a chance to win them over but they've completely blown it in the last year and that's your daddy's fault.
Trump has already won dpic. Yall just have to wait and get it confirmed in November.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: yoshi121374

Moogy

All-Conference
Jul 28, 2017
4,955
3,322
113
Once again, you are clueless. According to Pew, 31% identify as Democrats, while 4% identify as Republicans.

Link to a Pew study showing that pre-citizen legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants, are sharing their political affiliation with Pew, and how that manifests itself in federal voting? Thanks.
 

TheValley91

Heisman
Jan 20, 2013
20,698
18,081
97
Even democrats agreed with controlling the border and eliminating birthright citizenship at one point.

Now they claim it's too difficult for women can't prove citizenship. If that wat the only problem they would be proposing easier ways to do so but the fact is they don't want any form of voter ID.

Bottom line is democrats found a huge voting block in immigrants (both legal and illegal). If you disagree you lack compassion and you're a racist. That's what controls their votes.
Oooweee now you can’t even keep your post to one coherent point. That anger has you seeing red.
 

TigerGrowls

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
43,857
32,845
113
Democrats support this.



Investigation finds 107 Chinese owned surrogacy companies just in Southern California offering American birthright citizenship services exclusively to the elite in China

People here in America are being paid $60k to carry babies, the baby gets citizenship and is shipped back to China

“$60 grand to carry the child. The child is born. The child will be a U.S citizen because they were born here also. Their biological mother is American. They will then be picked up oftentimes by a third party, not even by the dad picked up by a third party and sent back to China — Just in Southern California, we found 107 Chinese owned surrogacy companies that are offering these services in China to members of the elite. So this is a huge, huge, huge problem”
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

TigerGrowls

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
43,857
32,845
113
Wake up people.



Listen closely… because this is not theory… this is real… and it just happened.

Two individuals… Alen Zheng and Ann Mary Zheng… born in the United States… full U.S. citizens by birth.

Their parents… entered this country illegally in the early 1990s… were given due process… and were ordered deported in 1998.

That order stood.

Now fast forward.

March 10, 2026… MacDill Air Force Base… one of the most critical military installations in the country… home to United States Central Command.

An improvised explosive device… placed outside a visitor center.

A fuse… lit.

It fails to detonate… not because of mercy… but because of malfunction.

Let that settle in.

That is not protest… that is not confusion… that is an attempted act of destruction on a U.S. military installation.

The suspect… calls 911 himself.

Days later… the device is discovered… the base locks down… federal agencies move in.

And what happens next tells you everything.

The car used… cleaned… vacuumed… evidence scrubbed.

Then they flee.

Not to Canada… not to Mexico…

To China.

A country with no extradition treaty with the United States.

One remains there… out of reach.

The other returns… and is arrested… now facing federal charges for helping cover it up.

These are not rumors. These are federal indictments… DOJ filings… FBI statements.

Now here is the part people don’t want to confront.

This is not about one incident.

This is about a structural reality.

Citizenship… granted automatically at birth… regardless of the legal status of the parents… creates a legal identity that is disconnected from how that person may actually be anchored… culturally… nationally… or even in terms of allegiance.

That is not emotion… that is a legal and geopolitical question.

Samuel Alito raised this exact issue during Supreme Court arguments… the question of whether “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was ever meant to be interpreted this broadly.

Because jurisdiction is not just geography… it is allegiance… obligation… legal attachment.

And here you have a real-world case where individuals with full U.S. citizenship…

Attempted an attack on a U.S. military installation…

Then fled directly to a foreign nation that will not return them.

Those are the facts.

No confirmed foreign government link… no declared motive yet… but the behavior itself is what matters.

Action… followed by escape to a jurisdiction shield.

That is not speculation… that is sequence.

Now the debate begins.

Does one case define policy… no.

But does one case expose a vulnerability… absolutely.

Because systems are not judged by how they perform under ideal conditions…

They are judged by what happens when they are exploited.

This case is now sitting at the intersection of law… national security… and constitutional interpretation.

And it forces a question that cannot be avoided…

What does jurisdiction actually mean…

And who does it bind… in reality… not just on paper.

That is where this goes next.