Tumblin Tumbleweed
Platinum Member
- Mar 16, 2015
- 29,689
- 11,210
- 465
You love him.Not looking good right now for the home team. Fingers crossed.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You love him.Not looking good right now for the home team. Fingers crossed.
DerpDupe
Oral Arguments going on now. So far, the Court seems skeptical of Trump's EO.
Personally this stuff is often frustrating to me. It should be obvious that if you illegally break into our nation, your child doesn't get citizenship. But here we are, a do-nothing Congress, so we're relegated to this.
Follow along here:
![]()
Oral argument live blog for Wednesday, April 1
On Wednesday, April 1, we will be live blogging as the court hears argument in Trump v. Barbara, on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. […]www.scotusblog.com
- SweetSue92
- Replies: 139
- Forum: Law and Justice System
Did ChatGPT provide that bit of nectar for you?If We cannot control our immigration, then we are not a sovereign country.
If we are not a sovereign country then our government, laws and culture are in jeopardy.


14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship for U.S.-born babiesThe plain text of the 14th places the burden on Congress to determine. In every case that new groups of people have been granted birthright citizenship it was done by an act of Congress. No such act exists for illegal aliens or legal immigrants.
Pretty obvious what will happen, most justices will say "the Constitution clearly states it's a right" and Thomas will have been bribed by someone and will say it's not.![]()
Trump admin faces tough questions from skeptical justices over ‘quirky’ birthright citizenship arguments
“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” he said.nypost.com
By Ryan King and Josh Christenson
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justices from across the ideological spectrum pummeled a lawyer for the Trump administration with biting questions during oral arguments Wednesday over the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
While it wasn’t fully clear which way the high court will go in the landmark case, Republican-appointed justices made clear they were far from a lock for the administration — all while President Trump was in the room as the first sitting president in US history to observe oral arguments in person.
“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Chief Justice John Roberts asked US Solicitor General John Sauer early on.
Comment:
‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof' just means citizen.
They are not trying to abolish birthright citizenship.
They want to make it clear that birthright citizenship was only intended for American citizens.
It was not intended for foreign citizens who illegally entered our country.
However I don't have confidence that the Supreme Court will rule that birthright citizenship is only for American citizens.
AMENDMENT XIVthe 14th states lawful citizen, that means legally here
illegals are not therefore if they arrive pregnant and have a child that child is void
they cannot use that child as an anchor to say, I get to stay, it's mean to take me away
from my child
that is what democrats argue because that takes away their future vote
No it does not. The distinction has always been determined by an act of Congress as seen by the addition of various Indian tribes and native Alaskans who received such benefits after the 14th was ratified.14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship for U.S.-born babies
Treat it like every other amendment
WaWaWe're totally screwed.
The America I've loved my whole life is disappearing before my eyes.
I think you're probably correct. And it will further the decline of America in the years ahead.
We're totally screwed.
The America I've loved my whole life is disappearing before my eyes.
Yes there were distinctions, cut out THEN later changed to conform citizenship to them right?No it does not. The distinction has always been determined by an act of Congress as seen by the addition of various Indian tribes and native Alaskans who received such benefits after the 14th was ratified.
Key Details of the Citizenship ClauseNo it does not. The distinction has always been determined by an act of Congress as seen by the addition of various Indian tribes and native Alaskans who received such benefits after the 14th was ratified.
We're totally screwed.
The America I've loved my whole life is disappearing before my eyes.
LOL Trump drives the dumb left wingers crazy
Wow! They can vote in about 18 years!Pregnant Chinese women are lining up to come to America to have their child here, whereupon they return to China. The child is raised in Communist China, then returns here with full American citizenship.
You like that idea?
Link?No.
They're just not taking the proper look at the issue.
I know you love our country being completely overrun by foreigners. Because you hate the United States, besides your fake name and the disgusting use of Ronald Reagan's picture in your avatar.
It's estimated that within a few short years, ONE MILLION Chinese "birthright citizenship" babies will be eligible to vote.
You'd better bone up on your Mandarin, pal. Because we're losing this country. They couldn't have foreseen in 1858 how the 14th Amendment could be interpreted to aid our worst enemies. They couldn't travel back then like they can today.
Quote it. You can't because it doesn't say that!the 14th states lawful citizen, that means legally here
illegals are not therefore if they arrive pregnant and have a child that child is void
they cannot use that child as an anchor to say, I get to stay, it's mean to take me away
from my child
that is what democrats argue because that takes away their future vote
False all the way around. The language is black and white, and you are incorrect as to your interpretation.yes I did and what the **** does that have to do with rubio who somebody pointed out?
they are arguing the language even though it's black and white
right now we still have anchor babies, therefore the USA is NOT upholding the law, period
if you are not legal to be here and give birth your child is NOT either, it's void and you both get deported
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship for U.S.-born babies
Treat it like every other amendment
Weird that childless stoned purple hair nose ringers always seem to forget the other part….”and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”….Just like they always seem to forget the part in the 2nd that reads “shall not be infringed”.and subject to the jurisdiction thereof