Supreme Court reviewing birthright citizenship

Dupe

Derp
 
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.
Did ChatGPT provide that bit of nectar for you? :auiqs.jpg:

Here are my words: Our sovereignty has been questioned by discovered countries for at least 250 years. Boats had a lot to do with it. Our military has always consistently grown through decades and a plethora of presidencies, to 'win.' Military will always be at a higher strategy, tech and funding far above not just the rest of our world, but the entire planet in pure money. And destruction.

The left will tell us 'War is evil.", then will launch an effective online viral campaign in social media to try and take down the joy in every room it enters. Its perceived enemies are basically white males. Not a good look. To anybody. :dunno:

Magaturds seem to act as if sovereignty is a purely black and white concept. Like a switch.

Pure madness.

I hope we overcome how stupid this really is someday. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The 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.
14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship for U.S.-born babies

Treat it like every other amendment
 

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.
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.
 
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
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
 
14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship for U.S.-born babies

Treat it like every other amendment
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.
 
We're totally screwed.
The America I've loved my whole life is disappearing before my eyes.
WaWa

WE CAN HOPE IT'S DISAPPEARING


1775101533672.webp
 
I think you're probably correct. And it will further the decline of America in the years ahead.

Kavenaugh showed no interest in support the President either. There is no question as to the meaning of the 14th Amendment. It clearly and directly said "all persons" born in the USA are citizens. There was no qualification on that "all persons" statement.
 
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.
Yes there were distinctions, cut out THEN later changed to conform citizenship to them right?

WHY WERE NATIVES EXCLUDED AGAIN?
 
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 Clause
  • Birthright Citizenship: Known as jus soli (right of the soil), this rule generally holds that being born within the U.S. territory grants citizenship, regardless of parents' status.
  • Naturalization: The clause guarantees that those who go through the legal process to become citizens are recognized as such.
  • Jurisdiction Requirement: The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes a narrow set of people, such as children of foreign diplomats, hostile occupants, or certain members of Indian tribes.
 
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.
Link?

Those kids born in the last few years are going to hit 18, return to the US and start voting in just a few years?
 
15th post
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
Quote it. You can't because it doesn't say that!

The rest of your post is therefore incorrect. There is no such thing as anchor baby. Illegals get deported if they have a child or not.
 
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
False all the way around. The language is black and white, and you are incorrect as to your interpretation.
 
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

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
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”.
Phucking weird huh?
 
Last edited:

Unrestricted Birthright Citizenship

What countries have birthright citizenship?

Below is a list of 35 countries with unrestricted born-in-a-country citizenship, i.e., that unconditionally endow citizenship to anyone born in their jurisdiction.

Note that this list can change as more countries adopt more restrictive measures on their birthright citizenship laws.

  1. Antigua and Barbuda
  2. Argentina
  3. Barbados
  4. Belize
  5. Bolivia
  6. Brazil
  7. Canada
  8. Chad
  9. Chile
  10. Costa Rica
  11. Cuba
  12. Dominica
  13. Ecuador
  14. El Salvador
  15. Fiji
  16. Grenada
  17. Guatemala
  18. Guyana
  19. Honduras
  20. Jamaica
  21. Lesotho
  22. Mexico
  23. Nicaragua
  24. Panama
  25. Paraguay
  26. Peru
  27. St. Kitts and Nevis
  28. St. Lucia
  29. St. Vincent and the Grenadines
  30. Tanzania
  31. Trinidad and Tobago
  32. Tuvalu
  33. United States
  34. Uruguay
  35. Venezuela
Note that Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Lucia all allow unrestricted birthright citizenship. Any children you give birth to in these Caribbean countries will be citizens, even if you yourself are not yet a citizen—e.g., still processing your citizenship by investment or naturalization application.

Birthright Citizenship With Conditions

What countries have birthright citizenship but with attached conditions? The following 40 countries offer conditional birthright citizenship.

  1. Australia
  2. Bahrain
  3. Belgium
  4. Cambodia
  5. Colombia
  6. Cyprus
  7. Dominican Republic
  8. Egypt
  9. Finland
  10. France
  11. Germany
  12. Greece
  13. Hong Kong
  14. India
  15. Iran
  16. Ireland
  17. Israel
  18. Italy
  19. Japan
  20. Luxembourg
  21. Macau
  22. Malaysia
  23. Malta
  24. Mongolia
  25. Morocco
  26. Namibia
  27. Netherlands
  28. New Zealand
  29. Pakistan
  30. Portugal
  31. Sao Tome and Principe
  32. South Africa
  33. Spain
  34. Sudan
  35. Sweden
  36. Taiwan
  37. Thailand
  38. Tunisia
  39. Ukraine
  40. United Kingdom
Most of the above countries combine jus soli and jus sanguinis, requiring blood relationships with citizens before automatically assigning birthright citizenship.
 
Back
Top Bottom