Birthright Citizenship

[TigerGrowls]

This will end up with scotus.



Just listened to the Preliminary Injunction hearing in Seattle. Unbelievable. After the DOJ attorney made a compelling argument, citing controlling Supreme Court precedent about the meaning of the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement in the Citizenship Clause, Senior Judge Coughenour attacked President Trump for undermining the Rule of Law, then signed the PI without even mentioning any of the controlling precedent. This is preposterous.

=====

It has a name. It's called Democracy Governance Rule of law and they implimented it into our court systems through liberal Prosecutors in liberal Judges chambers and they used it on you in your trial.

It's part of the United Nations attempt to change our court system into the ICC.

 

[ANEW]

This will end up with scotus.



Just listened to the Preliminary Injunction hearing in Seattle. Unbelievable. After the DOJ attorney made a compelling argument, citing controlling Supreme Court precedent about the meaning of the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement in the Citizenship Clause, Senior Judge Coughenour attacked President Trump for undermining the Rule of Law, then signed the PI without even mentioning any of the controlling precedent. This is preposterous.

=====

It has a name. It's called Democracy Governance Rule of law and they implimented it into our court systems through liberal Prosecutors in liberal Judges chambers and they used it on you in your trial.

It's part of the United Nations attempt to change our court system into the ICC.

That's the idea. The Amendment was never meant to allow/promote birth tourism and/or allow illegals to create American citizens.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Did you know that the SCOTUS has never ruled on extending birthright citizenship to anchor babies born with illegal alien parents?

And now, along with so many other lawfare lawsuits looking to curb the President's Executive power are in play, the Justices probably will call an Emergency Hearing(s) when Trump files an application for one.

I don't recall Trump talking about threatening to appeal all these suits to the Supreme Court - which would imply he's patiently awaiting the perfect opportunity - timing being a thing and all.

And whenever he wishes, he can lean into Supreme Court Rule 11 and bypass the lower courts. A "constitutional crisis" as the left insists that it is, makes for an ironclad reason that this move would be accepted by the body.

"SCOTUS Rule 11 pertains to the process of seeking certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court before a decision has been made in a lower court, specifically from a United States Court of Appeals." ~Grok

In my opinion, DJT is biding his time.
My bet is that was the plan all along.

Thanks for the assist, Dems!

 

[TigerGrowls]

HUGE SMACKDOWN!!! Trump's Solicitor General fact-checked Sotomayor on birthright citizenship so brutally that she started interrupting him constantly.

Sotomayor: "Right now we have novel courts who've percolated this issue and said you're violating precedent, not only precedent but the plain meaning of the 14th [Amendment] of the Constitution."

Sauer: "Respectfully, I think what we have are lower courts making snap judgments on the merits that ignore the fundamental principle of the 14th Amendment that it was about giving citizenship to the children of slaves, not to the children of illegal immigrants who really were not even a very discreet class at that time."

When will this wretched witch return from the Supreme Court?

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

I

 

[TigerGrowls]

HOLY CRAP! A @cspan caller exposed "Chinese birth houses" in America, where the Chinese government sends pregnant women in their 7th or 8th month to give birth on U.S. soil, securing citizenship for their kids.

These children are then taken back to China, raised there, and can later return as U.S. citizens.

This is a BLATANT abuse of the 14th Amendment, and it totally backs Trump’s push to stop this insanity.

 

[TigerGrowls]

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: The 14th Amendment was NEVER meant to let foreign nations sneak pregnant mothers across our borders to birth “anchor babies” and exploit our system.

It’s ludicrous—millions of illegals use this loophole to secure a foothold in America, draining resources and undermining sovereignty.

The Supreme Court can fix this by reining in the overreach of birthright citizenship, as seen in Wong Kim Ark.

Conservative justices like Thomas and Alito are likely on board, but we need a majority.

Will Chief Justice John Roberts or Amy Coney Barrett vote to uphold the U.S. Constitution and secure sovereignty for WE, THE PEOPLE or will they side with Soros and the Open Border Globalists?

 

[MTTiger19]

That's the idea. The Amendment was never meant to allow/promote birth tourism and/or allow illegals to create American citizens.

Don’t tell that to Sotomayor or KBJ. Those two dipshits can’t figure out what a border is OR what a woman is.

 

[MTTiger19]

HUGE SMACKDOWN!!! Trump's Solicitor General fact-checked Sotomayor on birthright citizenship so brutally that she started interrupting him constantly.

Sotomayor: "Right now we have novel courts who've percolated this issue and said you're violating precedent, not only precedent but the plain meaning of the 14th [Amendment] of the Constitution."

Sauer: "Respectfully, I think what we have are lower courts making snap judgments on the merits that ignore the fundamental principle of the 14th Amendment that it was about giving citizenship to the children of slaves, not to the children of illegal immigrants who really were not even a very discreet class at that time."

When will this wretched witch return from the Supreme Court?

It always amazes me how we must take one amendment verbatim like sotomayor is suggesting yet she will advocate for gun control. If the constitution is literal and you’re making the claim that it’s a literal interpretation you must be against any form of gun control period. It’s such hypocrisy and ignorance. Furthermore as the solicitor explained that is not what that meant, there weren’t illegal immigrants flooding other countries in that period, it was unprecedented and novel and they weren’t guarding for that. That was for slaves children and rightfully so. Much like there wasn’t automatic machine guns and 1000 round magazines. But guess what, our leaders got together and came up with guidelines for firearms that make sense, this should be handled the same way. People like Sotomayor have no business making decisions on a Supreme Court. She’s an activist and people like her and KBJ are what’s causing a lack of trust and lack of respect to our entire judiciary and judicial system. Radicals.

 

[yoshi121374]

If you don't like the amendment,change it. It's very cut and dry in the Constitution.

That's the way the system is supposed to work.

 

[MTTiger19]

If you don't like the amendment,change it. It's very cut and dry in the Constitution.

That's the way the system is supposed to work.

The amendment is fine. It’s the interpretation. You know better.

 

[ANEW]

the intent of the amendment is clear. it wa all about decentdents of slavery, not to support foreigners coming over here legally or illegally to have anchor babies and backdoor citizenship. We all know this. We also know that a dude wearing a dress and calling himself a woman is not a woman.

But here we are..

 

[yoshi121374]

The amendment is fine. It’s the interpretation. You know better.

So then they should easily be able to change it if it's so clear.

 

[MTTiger19]

So then they should easily be able to change it if it's so clear.

I’m not sure how making it say, this is for slaves solves anything but ok. Maybe just be reasonable and have some common sense. You’re clearly a pro gun, no restrictions on ownership guy too. Good to see that.

 

[yoshi121374]

I’m not sure how making it say, this is for slaves solves anything but ok. Maybe just be reasonable and have some common sense. You’re clearly a pro gun, no restrictions on ownership guy too. Good to see that.

I own guns,l and have a CWP... You don't really know me.

Trying to compare this amendment to the Right to Bear Arms isn't a very good comparison. The "Right to Bear Arms" specifically lists purposes for the right, the Birth Right Citizenship Amendment has no such limitations or restrictions listed.

They need to make an Amendment to the Amendment to change it. That's the way our government is designed.

 

[TigerGrowls]

JUST IN: Legal expert says President Trump is most likely within his right to end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. The Supreme Court is currently deciding how to rule.

“There’s a very good argument that those who are here illegally or on a short-term basis do not qualify as being fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the way the framers intended."

“The 14th Amendment was designed to remedy the issue of former slaves not being considered citizens. And if you look at the language, it says, ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States. That phrase is significant.”

 

[MTTiger19]

This was the point all along:

“There’s a very good argument that those who are here illegally or on a short-term basis do not qualify as being fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the way the framers intended."

This is common sense. It’s the same type of nuanced interpretation that has been used for the 2A forever. The fact the left was so hell bent on dragging this out in this way is crazy. There was a much more common sense approach to this, giving anyone on American soil, regardless of how they got here, full constitutional protections is nonsense. If we are forcing ourselves to do that we don’t have a sovereign nation.

 

[TigerGrowls]

anchor baby telling where her allegiance is. Get rid of birthright citizenship.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

The Supreme Court is on a collision course with defining what Birthright Citizenship entails once and for all.

Oh, and just ahead of Trump's planned effort to redo the census, which matters because that's how apportionment of our congressional representation is awarded. And let's not skim past the ongoing effort by ICE to purge the country of illegal aliens, starting with the worst of the worst.

Combined, this battle is quite literally for all the marbles.

An accurate census would remove both all the seats the Democrats have acquired via fraud, and their ability to then illicitly steer the course of our nation by exercising influence they should never have had to begin with.

Now, the timing of the matter (including the parallel emphasis of ICE) makes the prospect of Birthright Citizenship's return to the spotlight all the more interesting.

You may not know this, but the SCOTUS never ruled on the matter of clarifying what 'Birthright Citizenship' means. Not yet, that is.

Trump's Executive Order #14160 defining what qualifies as birthright citizenship, which he boldly signed on his first day, thereby signifying the importance of it to his/our MAGA agenda, has been before them already, sure. The SCOTUS ruled on it (6-3) in Trump v. CASA back in June.

However, that decision was narrowly focused on limiting the ability of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions, not the core intent of having birthright citizenship clarified once and for all from a constitutional standpoint.

This decision would represent nothing short of a watershed moment for our Republic.

What a time to be alive.

 

[TigerGrowls]

BREAKING: President Trump has officially petitioned the Supreme Court to allow him to END birthright citizenship once and for all

IT’S GO TIME

Illegals should NOT be able to hop the border, pop out a child, and be anchored in the U.S.

Our founders NEVER intended that!

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[Clemblack]

Donald Trump is saving our country.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[Aardvark86]

My take, from Scotus thread...

So while it's generally been quiet with the Court on hiatus between argument sessions, there's been a bit of news chatter the last week or so about the birthright citizenship case, and here's a little food for thought on that till we get cooking again next week. To recap, the administration prevailed on the universal injunction issue in Trump v CASA, but has now asked the Court to take up two cases on the merits regarding whether the 14th amendment provides for birthright citizenship as a constitutional matter; 23 states have filed a brief in support. In particular, they're arguing that the 14th amendment was primarily focused on granting citizenship to former slaves, and more technically, that the amendment's phrase about persons being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the united states allows for the president's executive order to the effect that children of illegals don't get birthright citizenship. I suspect they'll take it up, though the best chance of them not doing so is that it has some procedural fleas in terms of ripeness and standing (though maybe that's why they will take it up - to kick the merits can down the road further).

My preliminary take on the merits is that, the 'subject to the jurisdiction' argument is far from frivolous, makes a certain practical sense, and finds some support in the historical understanding of citizenship in the common law (and the absence of an organized immigration system until decades after the enactment of the 14th). But, there's a problem that few seem to be noting. Recall that the 14th amendment also gives a statutory power to Congress to implement and enforce the amendment. Thus, while on the one hand the "left" are IMO wrong to assert that this is black and white from the text of the 14th and Wong Kim Ark, and only a further amendment to the Constitution can change things, the fact that Congress has failed to enact any such citizenship limits in light of the relatively broad language of the citizenship grant suggests to me that the administration should lose this case. Further, to borrow a phrase from Prosper of Acquitane, "lex orandi, lex credendi" (the way of worship is the way of belief), ie, the society's general acclimation of birthright citizenship in practice informs our interpretation of the 14th in its favor.

That said, I think it would be a much tougher case if Congress sought to enact such limits by statute pursuant to section 5 of the 14th.

 

[TigerGrowls]

BREAKING: The Supreme Court just agreed to take up President Trump’s case to END birthright citizenship in America.

This is HUGE.
Anchor babies from illegal aliens were never meant to get automatic citizenship, and Trump is finally forcing the Court to confront it.

The hearing is set for February 2026.
Let’s go. This changes everything.

 

[TigerGrowls]

CITIZENSHIP: The 14th Amendment was not intended to grant citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants. It was meant to provide citizenship to former slaves and their descendants. If SCOTUS doesn't correct this error there is something Trump could do: Simply grant all illegal immigrants limited 'diplomatic immunity' for the purposes of childbirth. Just as children born to foreign diplomats on U.S. soil are not granted birthright citizenship - the children born to illegal immigrants would not be granted birthright citizenship.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

Wow!!!

 

[southerncaltiger]

“Birther Hotels”? Oh hell, yes, it’s been a BIG problem in places like Arcadia, Ca. Before we bought over in Monrovia, we toured several houses in Arcadia that were, at the very least, suspicious. You know, things like split rooms and full-sized refrigerators in the bathrooms in addition to other “modifications” suggesting that more than just an extended family was living there. Dive hotels like 100:1 across the street from Santa Anita track were also leveled for that reason.

News Flash…The biggest concern in SoCal isn’t necessarily the flood of South American illegal immigrants.

 

[LafayetteBear]

CITIZENSHIP: The 14th Amendment was not intended to grant citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants. It was meant to provide citizenship to former slaves and their descendants. If SCOTUS doesn't correct this error there is something Trump could do: Simply grant all illegal immigrants limited 'diplomatic immunity' for the purposes of childbirth. Just as children born to foreign diplomats on U.S. soil are not granted birthright citizenship - the children born to illegal immigrants would not be granted birthright citizenship.

If the 14th Amendment was "meant to provide citizenship to former slaves and their descendants" ONLY, it could have said so explicitly. The people who framed both the Constitution and the various Amendments thereto gave considerable thought to the verbiage they employed.

That being said, I am against birthright tourism, sending sperm and eggs to a surrogate in the U.S., and similar scams.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

If the 14th Amendment was "meant to provide citizenship to former slaves and their descendants" ONLY, it could have said so explicitly. The people who framed both the Constitution and the various Amendments thereto gave considerable thought to the verbiage they employed.

That being said, I am against birthright tourism, sending sperm and eggs to a surrogate in the U.S., and similar scams.

Yeah, seems like if you're going to take implied meaning in the 14th, you'd have to do so with the 2nd as well.

 

[yoshi121374]

Yeah, seems like if you're going to take implied meaning in the 14th, you'd have to do so with the 2nd as well.

Exactly.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[UrHuckleberry]

@TigerGrowls question for you.

Without birthright citizenship, how does one prove they are a citizen?

 

[MTTiger19]

@TigerGrowls question for you.

Without birthright citizenship, how does one prove they are a citizen?

Vast majority of nations use parental status. That should be our law as well. One parent must be a lawful citizen. Jmo.

 

[TigerGrowls]

@TigerGrowls question for you.

Without birthright citizenship, how does one prove they are a citizen?

In what context? We do need a national citizenship database and ID. The democrats have muddied the water by issuing millions of social security numbers to illegals and made it very easy for them to get drivers licenses. It's part of the scam to let illegals vote. In a lot of states they can get registered to vote with just a drivers license and even less in a few states.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Vast majority of nations use parental status. That should be our law as well. One parent must be a lawful citizen. Jmo.

How would you prove your parents were citizens if they weren't citizens by birth?

When people want to get rid of it, are they imagining this is a new thing, where people are grandfathered in to the old interpretation of the constitution?