Supreme Court & Birthright Citizenship

[protectionist]

The justices have been hearing it for a few days now. Shouldn't be a question. 14th Amendment author, Sen Jacob Howard said no kids of foreigners, aliens. That should be it.

Birthright Citizenship Clause Cowriter Said It Doesn't Include Aliens

The claim the 14th Amendment gives citizenship to the children of people who break into the U.S. would have been unimaginable to its writers.

thefederalist.com

 

[TNHarley]

The debates are well recorded on this. The intent is clear. But this isnt a constitutional court.

 

[protectionist]

The debates are well recorded on this. The intent is clear. But this isnt a constitutional court.

If they go by the Constitution, it should end birthright citizenship.

 

[TNHarley]

If they go by the Constitution, it should end birthright citizenship.

But they wont. Thats my point.

 

[TNHarley]

Trumos EO could be defeated because his people are fckn idiots, but the issue shouldn't die.

 

[toobfreak]

The justices have been hearing it for a few days now. Shouldn't be a question. 14th Amendment author, Sen Jacob Howard said no kids of foreigners, aliens. That should be it.

It is rather disconcerting to watch the highest court in the land make so complicated what is really a very simple, common sense question.

I mean, our immigration is so broken that:

• China has 500 travel companies set up just for sending prego women over from China just to drop a kid, then fly all home back to China with yet another "American citizen" in the bag for future use.
• We have Soros-funded gangs of idiots attacking police in 12° trying to stop them from enforcing immigration law against unwelcome criminals.
• Now we have a team of constitutional scholars spending months just to figure out that only an idiot nation lets anyone and everyone in with the slightest provocation treating immigration not as a privelege, but as a RIGHT. Their right. Foreigners apparently have more right to invade us than we have a right to say no thank you.

 

[Montrovant]

From the debates on the 14th:

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of
Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by
law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in
favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in
California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other
citizens of the United States.

https://ia801508.us.archive.org/26/items/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment/Debates%20that%20led%20to%20the%20creation%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.pdf

Don't pretend that the debates on the 14th were void of any argument, or that Howard's words were both understood in the same way by all parties and agreed to by all parties.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump’s immigration agenda is motivated by racism, bigotry, and hate, Trump’s effort to eliminate birthright citizenship is further proof of that.

Even a Supreme Court dominated by conservative ideologues seems unlikely to sanction Trump’s un-Constitutional EO.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Apparently there are 1000s of Chinese women who went to the U.S, had their child, returned to China to raise their child for their entire lives and one day they will return as Americans? This sounds like a real national security threst of sleeper cells imported in until one day they will produce a president to sink America.

 

[Care4all]

The justices have been hearing it for a few days now. Shouldn't be a question. 14th Amendment author, Sen Jacob Howard said no kids of foreigners, aliens. That should be it.

Birthright Citizenship Clause Cowriter Said It Doesn't Include Aliens

The claim the 14th Amendment gives citizenship to the children of people who break into the U.S. would have been unimaginable to its writers.

thefederalist.com

He was specifically speaking about diplomats and ambassadors, which was current Common Law, and he wanted to make certain the foreign diplomat aliens were an exclusion in the all persons.

If you are IMPLYING that ALL foreign aliens were EXCLUDED from birthright citizenship by what Howard said, then WHY OH WHY would Howard had needed to even mention foreign ambassadors and diplomats?? They would have already been an exemption by being a foreigner.....

 

[wamose]

He was specifically speaking about diplomats and ambassadors, which was current Common Law, and he wanted to make certain the foreign diplomat aliens were an exclusion in the all persons.

If you are IMPLYING that ALL foreign aliens were EXCLUDED from birthright citizenship by what Howard said, then WHY OH WHY would Howard had needed to even mention foreign ambassadors and diplomats?? They would have already been an exemption by being a foreigner.....

I think he singled out foreign ambassadors and diplomats just to make sure they didn't try to use their positions to get special treatment.

 

[Care4all]

I think he singled out foreign ambassadors and diplomats just to make sure they didn't try to use their positions to get special treatment.

No, he was pointing out the law we followed on diplomats, giving diplomatic immunity to Royalty and Diplomats working on their govt's behalf here in the USA gave the Foreign country jurisdiction over them.

Honest to goodness, y'all need to read and investigate and research our history and debates at the time on this....y'all are just being hardheaded and intentionally blind.....it's frustrating to watch all of y'alls self imposed ignorance.

Those senators vocally AGAINST it being ALL PERSONS, voted against the 14th Amendment. Those who supported it being FOR ALL PERSONS, voted for it. It was clear as day, what the 14th meant and who it covered under all persons.

We need an amendment to the 14th to change the meaning.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“When Chief Justice John Roberts and the eight associate justices took the Supreme Court bench on Wednesday for a fundamental debate over American identity, they did not acknowledge the presence of Donald Trump in the courtroom. ... That was not unexpected: Wednesday marked the first time in modern history that the president of the United States attended an oral argument. But Trump was there as a litigant and spectator, not in any formal role.

Then, in a move that was surprising, Roberts showed his hand. ... The chief justice can be cagey during arguments. In high-profile cases, he often sends mixed signals and keeps his options open. ... But during the momentous session, Roberts made plain his skepticism for the Trump position that would upend more than a century of constitutional history and tradition. The chief justice cast doubt on the Trump administration’s alternative view of the reach of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee.

Roberts particularly dismissed US Solicitor General John Sauer’s contention that contemporary immigration problems require a revision of the understanding that virtually all children born on US soil become American citizens, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status.”

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/02/politics/john-roberts-told-donald-trump-exactly-what-he-thinks

The racist, bigoted Trump regime tried to advance the ‘birth tourism’ lie.

 

[protectionist]

Trump’s immigration agenda is motivated by racism, bigotry, and hate, Trump’s effort to eliminate birthright citizenship is further proof of that.

Even a Supreme Court dominated by conservative ideologues seems unlikely to sanction Trump’s un-Constitutional EO.

Your posts indicate a clear racism on your part. Race has nothing to do with this, and that fact that you bring it into the discussion clearly displays your racism. Get a life.

 

[protectionist]

He was specifically speaking about diplomats and ambassadors, which was current Common Law, and he wanted to make certain the foreign diplomat aliens were an exclusion in the all persons.

If you are IMPLYING that ALL foreign aliens were EXCLUDED from birthright citizenship by what Howard said, then WHY OH WHY would Howard had needed to even mention foreign ambassadors and diplomats?? They would have already been an exemption by being a foreigner.....

He mentioned ambassadors & diplomats simply because at the time, (1866), those were the only people who were related to this subject. There were no caravans, and massive waves of people coming in.

His words were "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens" That is enough - the diplomat is just an example.

 

[protectionist]

No, he was pointing out the law we followed on diplomats, giving diplomatic immunity to Royalty and Diplomats working on their govt's behalf here in the USA gave the Foreign country jurisdiction over them.

Honest to goodness, y'all need to read and investigate and research our history and debates at the time on this....y'all are just being hardheaded and intentionally blind.....it's frustrating to watch all of y'alls self imposed ignorance.

Those senators vocally AGAINST it being ALL PERSONS, voted against the 14th Amendment. Those who supported it being FOR ALL PERSONS, voted for it. It was clear as day, what the 14th meant and who it covered under all persons.

We need an amendment to the 14th to change the meaning.

I see no need for additional amending. Howard said This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens - nuff said.

 

[protectionist]

“When Chief Justice John Roberts and the eight associate justices took the Supreme Court bench on Wednesday for a fundamental debate over American identity, they did not acknowledge the presence of Donald Trump in the courtroom. ... That was not unexpected: Wednesday marked the first time in modern history that the president of the United States attended an oral argument. But Trump was there as a litigant and spectator, not in any formal role.

Then, in a move that was surprising, Roberts showed his hand. ... The chief justice can be cagey during arguments. In high-profile cases, he often sends mixed signals and keeps his options open. ... But during the momentous session, Roberts made plain his skepticism for the Trump position that would upend more than a century of constitutional history and tradition. The chief justice cast doubt on the Trump administration’s alternative view of the reach of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee.

Roberts particularly dismissed US Solicitor General John Sauer’s contention that contemporary immigration problems require a revision of the understanding that virtually all children born on US soil become American citizens, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status.”

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/02/politics/john-roberts-told-donald-trump-exactly-what-he-thinks

The racist, bigoted Trump regime tried to advance the ‘birth tourism’ lie.

Trump's position does not upend anything. It simply supports the true amendment as it was designed by its author, Sen. Jacob Howard.
There is no "alternative" of anything.

 

[jacksonlamb]

As a friend wrote, "As a descendant of the indigenous civilization already in residence prior to 1492, the opinion here is correct, my ancestors did not imagine foreigners coming to their country for the purpose of giving birth ...".

Leave it alone.

 

[Montrovant]

I see no need for additional amending. Howard said This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens - nuff said.

Even assuming your interpretation of Howard's remarks is correct, that is not "nuff said," as his remarks were not the entirety of the debate, nor was he the sole author of the 14th amendment.

Your insistence that this remark, made by one person among a group who debated and voted on the amendment, is the only important or relevant information strikes me as being deceptive, or at least willfully ignorant.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Even assuming your interpretation of Howard's remarks is correct, that is not "nuff said," as his remarks were not the entirety of the debate, nor was he the sole author of the 14th amendment.

Your insistence that this remark, made by one person among a group who debated and voted on the amendment, is the only important or relevant information strikes me as being deceptive, or at least willfully ignorant.

Montrovant, not to worry in the slightest. Protectionist's minority view has no chance of succeeding.