Supreme Court Will Hear Trump's Argument to Overturn "Birthright Citizenship"

Birthright citizenship is the theory that if someone is born in America, even if their parents are here illegally, they are American citizens by birthright.

This is the majority rule in the Western Hemisphere, but almost no European countries have this rule.

Birthright citizenship was never passed into law. Rather, it was asserted by the Supreme Court in a 19th century case.

Trump wants the rule changed so that anchor babies born here are not American citizens.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments May 15 on President Donald Trump's order to end birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants. While the justices declined to lift the nationwide pause on the policy, their decision to fast-track the case signals its legal and constitutional importance.
Key Details:
Trump's executive order, signed on his first day in office, remains blocked by federal courts in three states.
The court will not immediately rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship but will review the legality of nationwide injunctions.
Trump hailed the court's decision to hear the case, saying he was "so happy" and calling the policy's origins misunderstood.
Diving Deeper:
In a rare move, the U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will hear oral arguments on May 15 over former President Donald Trump's executive order ending automatic birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants and non-citizen residents. The announcement came via a brief, unsigned order that offered no reasoning, as is typical in emergency requests, but underscored the case's significance by granting expedited review.
At issue is whether lower courts overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions on the Trump administration's birthright citizenship policy, which the former president enacted on his first day back in office. The policy would eliminate automatic citizenship for individuals born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally--a direct challenge to a longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
That interpretation has held since 1898, when the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that nearly all children born on American soil are citizens, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Legal scholars have debated this for years, with some conservatives, including Trump ally John Eastman, arguing that the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply so broadly. Others, like New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, have called Trump's order "blatantly unconstitutional," pointing to post-Civil War intent and more than a century of legal precedent.

Posted by: Ace at 01:18 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 WHAT ?

Posted by: Hatari somewhere on Ventura Highway at April 18, 2025 01:18 PM (NtVYv)

2 WHERE!

Posted by: Ciampino - bizarre incident? at April 18, 2025 01:19 PM (sPQoU)

3 Birthright citizenship was never passed into law. Rather, it was asserted by the Supreme Court in a 19th century case.

=======

Sort of.

In very limited circumstances.

Which didn't include being a citizen of Mexico, crossing the Rio Grande, and dropping a kid on US soil.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, looking for laughs with Ivan Reitman at April 18, 2025 01:19 PM (GBKbO)

4 I am less than optimistic on this one, but god damn this would be a hell of a win.

Posted by: Ryan Frank at April 18, 2025 01:20 PM (fgmuN)

5 We wait with bated breath.

Posted by: Elrond Hubbard at April 18, 2025 01:20 PM (VJc7E)

6 Wish they would rule with Trump but it is unfortunately not likely

Posted by: It's me donna at April 18, 2025 01:20 PM (VE6XX)

7 My fam all got here legally, so no anchor babies at Easter dinner this year.

Posted by: kallisto at April 18, 2025 01:20 PM (0aihy)

8 They're not going to overturn it.

They SHOULD.

Citizenship should require that at least one of your parents is already a citizen.

But the Dread Coward Roberts will never overturn it in a million years, and I'd be shocked if ACB did so because of her bleeding heart nonsense.

Posted by: DudeAbiding at April 18, 2025 01:20 PM (lCHt6)

9 Is the constitution a suicide pact?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at April 18, 2025 01:21 PM (63Dwl)

10 I wish I was more confident in this being a good outcome. The SC is not very Trumpian or Conservative. (i'll take one or the other)

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, buy ammo at April 18, 2025 01:21 PM (xcxpd)

11 NOODED.

NOW UP TO 69.5% ABOVE GOALS!

Posted by: Tex Lovera at April 18, 2025 01:21 PM (wtvvX)

12 Prepare for the Anal TheRapist

Posted by: Field Marshal Zhukov at April 18, 2025 01:22 PM (7leMO)

13 Overcrowded Labor and Delivery units throughout the lower Rio Grande Valley hold their breath in anticipation...

Posted by: muldoon at April 18, 2025 01:22 PM (/iMjX)

14 Why in the world would the courts have any say in who is or isn't a citizen?

Posted by: Methos at April 18, 2025 01:23 PM (Dnobf)

15 10 I wish I was more confident in this being a good outcome. The SC is not very Trumpian or Conservative. (i'll take one or the other)
Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, buy ammo at April 18, 2025 01:21 PM (xcxpd)

=======

I think I'm more hopeful than most.

The "drop a kid on US soil despite having never been to the US before five minutes ago, having lived your whole life in Germany" assumption was always just kind of an assumption, the caselaw not really backing it up.

I think the end result opens up the executive to interpretation of the limits with a call on Congress to establish limits through statute.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, looking for laughs with Ivan Reitman at April 18, 2025 01:23 PM (GBKbO)

16 'Supreme Court Will Hear Trump's Argument to Overturn "Birthright Citizenship"'

Court will rule against Trump for some bullshit, CNN-Tier reason.

Next!

Posted by: Dr. Claw at April 18, 2025 01:24 PM (3wi/L)

17 I can’t wait for Roberts to call this a tax

Or for Amy Whorey Barrett to say this is wrong because it means she won’t be able to adopt more extremely dark skinned children from Uganda

Posted by: The Unvaxed and Unmasked Ranger at April 18, 2025 01:24 PM (+h6mu)

18 Citizenship should require that at least one of your parents is already a citizen.
-
I'm pretty sure the Constitution talks about making a better country for the sake of our progeny, and doesn't mention the offspring of foreigners at all, so, yeah.

Posted by: Methos at April 18, 2025 01:25 PM (Dnobf)

19 I would rather they dropped their kids on planet Ksha.

Posted by: Deplorable Ian Galt at April 18, 2025 01:25 PM (ufFY8)

20 This coming into the US at 9 months pregnant and dropping the baby as an instant citizen has to end.

Posted by: steevy at April 18, 2025 01:26 PM (KQk9m)

21 @15

>>I think the end result opens up the executive to interpretation of the limits with a call on Congress to establish limits through statute.

It will largely hinge on the DOJ lawyers coming up with a workable regime, otherwise SCOTUS is going to say the 14th grants anyone borne on US soil citizenship and that Congress is free to update the laws and or constitution.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at April 18, 2025 01:26 PM (XV/Pl)

22 I can’t wait for Roberts to call this a tax

Or for Amy Whorey Barrett to say this is wrong because it means she won’t be able to adopt more extremely dark skinned children from Uganda
Posted by: The Unvaxed and Unmasked Ranger

Or for Roberts to adopt more blonde haired, blue eyed kids from Guatemala (allegedly).

Posted by: Miklos, revising and extending at April 18, 2025 01:27 PM (UOzvC)

23
Others, like New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, have called Trump's order "blatantly unconstitutional," pointing to post-Civil War intent and more than a century of legal precedent.

"legal precedent" = "it's legal because that's the way we've always done things"

The same sort of justification when the Democrat Party insisted on "whites only" drinking fountains and having colored people riding all back of the bus and shit.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 18, 2025 01:27 PM (y9nCu)

24 I do know someone who sent her pregnant daughter here on a 6 month visa to visit relatives. Daughter gave birth before visa expired, and , voilà here is ze anchor Bebé!

Posted by: kallisto at April 18, 2025 01:27 PM (0aihy)

25 I always assumed an anchor baby was when you took a fat kid water skiing.

Posted by: muldoon at April 18, 2025 01:27 PM (/iMjX)

26
Since the importing of faux citizens hasn't quite turned out the way Our Betters predicted, I wonder if-

one of the Democrat/Progtard/Commie judges will rule against "Birth Right" citizenship.

I doubt it, but I could see it making sense from their point of view.

Too bad Both Roberts and ACB are dominated by Their Feelz and not by the law when it comes to their job.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 18, 2025 01:28 PM (iJfKG)

27 "That interpretation has held since 1898, when the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that nearly all children born on American soil are citizens, regardless of their parents' immigration status."

Oh fuck off. That's not what the SC held in Ark. That's what lefty fucknuggets who never read the case, and who don't know dick about immigration law, say about the case. The case didn't involve illegals at all. Ark was born here to legal US residents.

Posted by: Elric Blade at April 18, 2025 01:28 PM (iFTx/)

28 SEAMUS MULDOOOON!

Posted by: Miklos, amused at April 18, 2025 01:29 PM (UOzvC)

29 As of 2025, 33 countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

I don't see one European country on the list, but maybe I just skimmed it too fast.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at April 18, 2025 01:29 PM (6ydKt)

30 Let's just say I would be shocked if they ruled against birthright citizenship.

Posted by: steevy at April 18, 2025 01:29 PM (KQk9m)

31 SCOTUS will probably punt and say this is Congress job to clearly outline who can become citizens

So we’re basically fooked on this

I remain astounded at just how limpy dicked Roberts has been at putting the foot down on case issues so they don’t constantly reappear in another iteration and waste the courts time even more because it’s never definitively decided

Posted by: The Unvaxed and Unmasked Ranger at April 18, 2025 01:29 PM (+h6mu)

32 Immigrants who come here legally also know how to game Social Security, even when they relocate to the motherland

Posted by: kallisto at April 18, 2025 01:29 PM (0aihy)

33

Being born in the US gives me the automatic right to Faye Reagan's brown starfish...

Posted by: Just Sayin... at April 18, 2025 01:29 PM (pt3r0)

34 I pray Trump wins this argument.

Posted by: Joe at April 18, 2025 01:30 PM (rzwGB)

35 Good afternoon Ace and everyone

I predict the Supreme Robes will shoot down President Trump

Posted by: Skip at April 18, 2025 01:30 PM (ypFCm)

36 Birthright citizenship is the theory that if someone is born in America, even if their parents are here illegally, they are American citizens by birthright.

Bullshit. Fruit of the poisoned tree. You don't get to profit off of someone else's crimes.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 18, 2025 01:30 PM (/iLcI)

37 Kamala Harris, anchor baby

And so...

Posted by: L - No nic, another fine day at April 18, 2025 01:31 PM (NFX2v)

38
NOW UP TO 69.5% ABOVE GOALS!
Posted by: Tex Lovera at April 18, 2025 01:21 PM (wtvvX)

We've evaluated you as "meets expectations" for the quarter. We don't give "exceeds expectations" to anyone because employees need something to strive for. You'll get your 1.5% increase and a Hershey's miniature as an expression of the company's thanks for your hard work and commitment.

Posted by: Setting - a small HR office at April 18, 2025 01:31 PM (TbWk/)

39 This will be one of those decisions we will get June 30 when it's the last day won't it?

Posted by: Skip at April 18, 2025 01:31 PM (ypFCm)

40 SEAMUS MULDOOOON!
Posted by: Miklos

***********

Now what did I do?

Posted by: muldoon at April 18, 2025 01:32 PM (/iMjX)

41 38
NOW UP TO 69.5% ABOVE GOALS!
Posted by: Tex Lovera at April 18, 2025 01:21 PM (wtvvX)

We've evaluated you as "meets expectations" for the quarter. We don't give "exceeds expectations" to anyone because employees need something to strive for. You'll get your 1.5% increase and a Hershey's miniature as an expression of the company's thanks for your hard work and commitment.

Posted by: Setting - a small HR office at April 18, 2025 01:31 PM (TbWk/)

UNION NOW!!!

Posted by: Tex Lovera at April 18, 2025 01:32 PM (wtvvX)

42 Depends on the meaning of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. The writers of the law were clear what this meant. But Judicial thinks thay are a superior branch so they decided what it really meant.

Posted by: Chuck Martel at April 18, 2025 01:32 PM (Dv3i1)

43 That's not what the SC held in Ark. That's what lefty fucknuggets who never read the case, and who don't know dick about immigration law

********

A lot of that going on like the media presuming scotus ruled 9-0 against Trump on returning the ms-13 gang member without actually reading the decision

Posted by: The Unvaxed and Unmasked Ranger at April 18, 2025 01:32 PM (+h6mu)

44 Sort of.

In very limited circumstances.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison

Yep. Scotus judge writing the opinion also ignored key limitations of jus solis in common law. For example excluding sojourners and also considering people as subjects.

But, the most important part, is that Scotus had a reign of errors in interpreting all the post Civil War amendments and eviscerated (just as Marshal and Taney courts did before the war) the guts out of the 14th Amendment in particular. Aka the privileges and immunities clause (see Clarence Thomas for a trenchant analysis in his dissents and concurrences on this), expanding the due process clause beyond belief, and likewise reading into the equal protection clause justifying segregation first and then later using it far beyond its original purpose in restoring black slaves to citizenship.

Wong Ark Kim was just another exercise in judicial supremacy and reign of error in ignored the key limiting clause--subject to the jurisdiction thereof which makes all the common law analysis of jus solis moot. For the most part, it was trivially easy for a lazy ass Scotus judge to walk downstairs to get actual debates over it in Congress. He didn't.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 01:33 PM (ctrM5)

45 If Trump's, and my, view is accepted, how would y'all feel about an amnesty for the current crop of anchor babies, that is to make this a going forward thing?

Posted by: toby928 at April 18, 2025 01:33 PM (jc0TO)

46 Ahh don' know nuffin 'bout birthin' no babies.

Posted by: Dissent by Jackson, J. at April 18, 2025 01:33 PM (Zi/1w)

47 Citizenship should require that at least one of your parents is already a citizen.

I could see the argument that a child born to a permanent legal resident should, at 18, be permitted to choose to be a citizen. But no children of illegals, or students, or tourists, or...

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at April 18, 2025 01:33 PM (ExV1e)

48 I do know someone who sent her pregnant daughter here on a 6 month visa to visit relatives. Daughter gave birth before visa expired, and , voilà here is ze anchor Bebé!
Posted by: kallisto at April 18, 2025 01:27 PM (0aihy)
_______

Even if BR citizenship was revoked or found not to apply, that baby would still be a citizen because this scammer was here legally.

BR is (or should be) just the beginning. Get rid of the entire concept that being born here -- even if the mother is here legally -- confers automatic citizenship. Citizenship should flow from citizenship of at least one parent.

US citizenship is one of the most valuable statuses in the world. Why are we handing them out like birdfeed to every filthy immigrant scumbag who drops a brat inside our border? Fuck off.

Posted by: Elric Blade at April 18, 2025 01:34 PM (iFTx/)

49 21 It will largely hinge on the DOJ lawyers coming up with a workable regime, otherwise SCOTUS is going to say the 14th grants anyone borne on US soil citizenship and that Congress is free to update the laws and or constitution.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at April 18, 2025 01:26 PM (XV/Pl)

=======

But...the Ark decision says this:

"A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States,"

According to the original decision, they have to live here, have a permanent residence, and be working.

So, even giving Ark all justice in the world, it doesn't say, "cross the border and pop out kids".

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, looking for laughs with Ivan Reitman at April 18, 2025 01:35 PM (GBKbO)

50 tl;dr - BOHICA

Posted by: ballistic at April 18, 2025 01:35 PM (+94UU)

51 Roberts will find a way to duck the issue

Posted by: brak at April 18, 2025 01:36 PM (jGJov)

52 40 SEAMUS MULDOOOON!
Posted by: Miklos

***********

Now what did I do?
Posted by: muldoon at April 18, 2025 01:32 PM (/iMjX)

*begin screaming*
YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID!!!! AND IF YOU DON'T THERE'S NO POINT TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU!!!!!
*end screaming*

Posted by: Ahhhh, the joys of marriage at April 18, 2025 01:36 PM (TbWk/)

53 27 Oh fuck off. That's not what the SC held in Ark. That's what lefty fucknuggets who never read the case, and who don't know dick about immigration law, say about the case. The case didn't involve illegals at all. Ark was born here to legal US residents.
Posted by: Elric Blade at April 18, 2025 01:28 PM (iFTx/)

=======

I finally pulled it up and tried to read it.

Holy shit it's long. But I got the point by the end...the literal end. Finding the ending summation.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, looking for laughs with Ivan Reitman at April 18, 2025 01:36 PM (GBKbO)

54 45 If Trump's, and my, view is accepted, how would y'all feel about an amnesty for the current crop of anchor babies, that is to make this a going forward thing?
Posted by: toby928 at April 18, 2025 01:33 PM (jc0TO

The Reflex is oh hell no.... it is a chip to play if it goes beyond the SC... and Trump is a deal maker.

Posted by: tubal at April 18, 2025 01:36 PM (PCK5/)

55 That interpretation has held since 1898, when the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that nearly all children born on American soil are citizens, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
---
False.
Wonk Kim Ark's parents were lawful, permanent residents. The Court specifically states that fact and contrasts their status to those of diplomats--people here legally but not permanent residents.
And says, of course those children could not become citizens.

The issue there was, since they were not permitted to become citizens, but were permanent residents, could he be a citizen?

No where in the opinion does it say that those born here to a parent here illegally becomes a citizen.
There's a poorly understood, expansive reading far beyond the intent of the opinion.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 18, 2025 01:36 PM (11WUE)

56 @42

>>Depends on the meaning of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. The writers of the law were clear what this meant. But Judicial thinks thay are a superior branch so they decided what it really meant.

The jurisdiction thereof argument has always been a Macguffen and that justices have used rule they wanted , the framers of the 14th amendment were very clear in who the the 14th applied to and it certainly wasn't illegal aliens.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at April 18, 2025 01:36 PM (XV/Pl)

57 Or for Amy Whorey Barrett to say this is wrong because it means she won’t be able to adopt more extremely dark skinned children from Uganda
Posted by: The Unvaxed and Unmasked Ranger at April 18, 2025 01:24 PM (+h6mu)

I doubt that Birthright Citizenship has any bearing on foreign adoptions at all. She may well be a squish on this matter, but not for that reason.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at April 18, 2025 01:37 PM (8zz6B)

58 If Trump's, and my, view is accepted, how would y'all feel about an amnesty for the current crop of anchor babies, that is to make this a going forward thing?
-
Absolutely not.

Posted by: Methos at April 18, 2025 01:37 PM (Dnobf)

59 55 No where in the opinion does it say that those born here to a parent here illegally becomes a citizen.
There's a poorly understood, expansive reading far beyond the intent of the opinion.
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 18, 2025 01:36 PM (11WUE)

======

One of the main thrusts in the decision is about whether Mongoloids deserve citizenship at all.

Very different time.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, looking for laughs with Ivan Reitman at April 18, 2025 01:37 PM (GBKbO)

60 that nearly all children born on American soil are citizens

Emphasis on the "nearly".

Children born to foreign diplomats in the US have never been American citizens - since we don't have jurisdiction over foreign diplomats.

It isn't hard to extend that reasoning.

Posted by: The ARC of History! at April 18, 2025 01:37 PM (xTIDn)

61 LITTLE KNOWN MULDOON HISTORICAL FACTOID:

In the 19th century, when birthright citizenship was first implemented, it took 9 months for sailing ships to cross the ocean, so it was quite rare for a pregnant passenger to reach our shores before giving birth. Nowadays, it's a 5 minute rowboat ride across the Rio Grande. They can leave home with the first contraction and have time to stop for lunch on the way.

Posted by: muldoon at April 18, 2025 01:37 PM (/iMjX)

62 I Meme Therefore I Am
@ImMeme0

Democrats have officially lost it. This Democrat not only wants a foreign gang member brought back into the U.S., but also says we should grant citizenship to the 11 million illegal immigrants that Biden has allowed into our country.

Dems want to completely dismantle America. They only care about due process when illegal immigrants commit crimes — not when they illegally enter our country in the first place.

https://tinyurl.com/77vy2mc9

Posted by: redridinghood at April 18, 2025 01:38 PM (NpAcC)

63 The fact that this issue is even up for debate is proof that we are a fundamentally un-serious country. All legal gymnastics aside, anyone with two brain cells capable of colliding with each other and producing a thought should understand the sheer lunacy of such a policy. It literally invites invasion.

Posted by: Chairborne!...Desk From Above! at April 18, 2025 01:38 PM (aaRct)

64 It will go down 5-4 if not 6-3

Posted by: Skip at April 18, 2025 01:38 PM (ypFCm)

65 45 If Trump's, and my, view is accepted, how would y'all feel about an amnesty for the current crop of anchor babies, that is to make this a going forward thing?
Posted by: toby928 at April 18, 2025 01:33 PM (jc0TO)

Fuck no. Give no quarter. Anytime any concession is given it gets exploited to kingdom come. Fuck. No.

Posted by: Did I mention fuck no? at April 18, 2025 01:39 PM (TbWk/)

66 Oh fuck off. That's not what the SC held in Ark. That's what lefty fucknuggets who never read the case, and who don't know dick about immigration law, say about the case. The case didn't involve illegals at all. Ark was born here to legal US residents.
Posted by: Elric Blade at April 18, 2025 01:28 PM (iFTx/)

=======

I finally pulled it up and tried to read it.

Holy shit it's long. But I got the point by the end...the literal end. Finding the ending summation.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, looking for laughs with Ivan Reitman at April 18, 2025 01:36 PM (GBKbO)
_______

Yea, it's long and written in the typical wordy 19th-century legal style. The problem also is that none of the judges on that decision were even thinking about the consequences of what might happen 100+ years in the future. If someone told them at the time that their decision would be used to grant citizenship to illegals five minutes after they sneak over the border, the judges would be like "Are you nuts?? That's not what we mean!"

Posted by: Elric Blade at April 18, 2025 01:39 PM (iFTx/)

67 33 Being born in the US gives me the automatic right to Faye Reagan's brown starfish...
Posted by: Just Sayin... at April 18, 2025 01:29 PM (pt3r0)

Will you settle for an alternative?

Posted by: Hope Solo at April 18, 2025 01:39 PM (gKWVE)

68 The test case you want to use is a woman who came here from China explicitly to give birth here, and then immediately returned to China with the kid.

Why on Earth would we consider the kid to be an American citizen?

Posted by: The ARC of History! at April 18, 2025 01:39 PM (xTIDn)

69

No where in the opinion does it say that those born here to a parent here illegally becomes a citizen.
There's a poorly understood, expansive reading far beyond the intent of the opinion.
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 18, 2025 01:36 PM (11WUE)
----
You can be 100% right on this (and I think you are), and still know that we're about to get the royal shaft from Anal Corny Parrot and John "The Deepstate Built my Hotrod" Roberts.

Posted by: ballistic at April 18, 2025 01:40 PM (+94UU)

70 There is more support in the Constitution and the Amendments for Trump serving a 3rd term than there is for children born here to illegal parents becoming citizens.

If your reading of the 14th makes children of illegals citizens, then Trump can serve a 3rd term.

I too, though, agree with those who have little hope the Court will overturn this.
But then, every "knew" it was "settled law" that the Constitution guaranteed a nationwide right to an abortion.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 18, 2025 01:40 PM (11WUE)

71
Why on Earth would we consider the kid to be an American citizen?

so we can tax them?

Posted by: IRS at April 18, 2025 01:40 PM (jGJov)

72 @49

>>So, even giving Ark all justice in the world, it doesn't say, "cross the border and pop out kids".

Exactly, but it is still going to hinge on DOJ coming up with a workable and convincing regime that can be applicable to most scenarios.

If the justices take this seriously, the interrogatories may be some of the most riveting and fascinating we have ever heard.

Thomas may even asks more than one or two questions.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at April 18, 2025 01:40 PM (XV/Pl)

73 Its a tax. More Chardonnay?

Posted by: Deplorable Minion at April 18, 2025 01:41 PM (QSrLX)

74 Speculating about this is moot. This court will not rock the boat.

Posted by: tubal at April 18, 2025 01:41 PM (PCK5/)

75 Oooohbhhh, I can't wait.to hear what Our Black-Robed Masters/Usurpers have to say about this, in their Infinite, Non-Partisan Wisdom!!!!!!

Posted by: Sharkman at April 18, 2025 01:41 PM (+5j+o)

76 My critique is that Scotus has long done a Chinese menu approach to interpreting the Constitution. They pick what they like and ignore or distort what they don't. To do that, they ignore some clauses, deprecate others, and even invent amendments such as liberty to contract or separate but equal--one man-one vote, etc. in order to do policy rightfully belonging to the other branches.

They have a) declared the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, b) added the power of judicial review of federal actions to Article III, eviscerated the privileges and immunities clause TWICE, killed the Guaranty of a Republican Form of Government, gave Lincoln war powers when technically there was no war (prizes case), killed the Civil Rights Act of 1876 by declaring that Congress did not have that power under the new amendments, eviscerated the privileges and immunities clause in Slaughterhouse and then used it to declare individual ownership of firearms was not protected under Cruikshank. Created ad hoc segregation from the equal protection clause, etc. etc. etc. Dred Scott was also hastened if not caused the Civil War by its denying political bodies' ability to compromise

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 01:41 PM (ctrM5)

77 SCOTUS will rule against us. The system cannot be reformed.

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at April 18, 2025 01:41 PM (l3YAf)

78 72 Exactly, but it is still going to hinge on DOJ coming up with a workable and convincing regime that can be applicable to most scenarios.

If the justices take this seriously, the interrogatories may be some of the most riveting and fascinating we have ever heard.

Thomas may even asks more than one or two questions.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at April 18, 2025 01:40 PM (XV/Pl)

========

"Green card holders can have citizen kids. Others...no. They're not citizens. In accordance with Kim."

I actually don't think it's going to be hard to get 5 justices on board with that. Gorsuch is going to argue like hell behind the scenes for something like that.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, looking for laughs with Ivan Reitman at April 18, 2025 01:41 PM (GBKbO)

79 60.
Children born to foreign diplomats in the US have never been American citizens - since we don't have jurisdiction over foreign diplomats.

Harris' mom, the daughter of Indian diplomats. (Grandfather quite famous.). Father, a student in the US; eventually naturalized. Both parents quite well known.

Posted by: L - No nic, another fine day at April 18, 2025 01:42 PM (NFX2v)

80 74 Speculating about this is moot. This court will not rock the boat.
Posted by: tubal
========
They might very well kick it over to Congress by claiming the president does not have the authority to do so by himself but Congress, having plenary control over immigration and naturalization via the Constitution (as ruled in previous cases) can do it via legislation.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 01:42 PM (ctrM5)

81 Birth right citizenship is clearly not what the authors of the 14th amendment intended, but I feel sorry for the little children so I'm voting to keep it.

Posted by: Amy Coney Barret at April 18, 2025 01:42 PM (2UnvF)

82 It will go down 5-4 if not 6-3
Posted by: Skip at April 18, 2025 01:38 PM (ypFCm)

8-1

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at April 18, 2025 01:43 PM (l3YAf)

83 I would include parents on visas and all green card holders. Also get rid of dual and triple citizenship.

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 01:43 PM (FZn/N)

84 If Trump's, and my, view is accepted, how would y'all feel about an amnesty for the current crop of anchor babies, that is to make this a going forward thing?
Posted by: toby928 at April 18, 2025 01:33 PM (jc0TO

The Reflex is oh hell no.... it is a chip to play if it goes beyond the SC... and Trump is a deal maker.
Posted by: tubal at April 18, 2025 01:36 PM (PCK5/)

How about: amnesty for those over 21, gainfully employed, and with no history of criminal activity? All others, (points) the door's thataway.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at April 18, 2025 01:44 PM (8zz6B)

85 I believe the children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be

Posted by: Amy Coney Barrett, Concurring at April 18, 2025 01:44 PM (jGJov)

86 74 Speculating about this is moot. This court will not rock the boat.
Posted by: tubal

👍

Posted by: L - No nic, another fine day at April 18, 2025 01:44 PM (NFX2v)

87 Re the second gray box reference: FORMER President Trump? Did Boasberg just make it official this morning and vote himself in?

Posted by: Al Unsure at April 18, 2025 01:44 PM (v33tB)

88 It's probably going to take a constitutional amendment to settle this

Posted by: Josephistan at April 18, 2025 01:44 PM (bHGBC)

89 74 Speculating about this is moot. This court will not rock the boat.
Posted by: tubal at April 18, 2025 01:41 PM (PCK5/)

They did with Roe.

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 01:45 PM (FZn/N)

90 My critique is that Scotus has long done a Chinese menu approach to interpreting the Constitution. They pick what they like and ignore or distort what they don't.

They have a) declared the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, b) added the power of judicial review of federal actions to Article III, eviscerated the privileges and immunities clause TWICE, killed the Guaranty of a Republican Form of Government, gave Lincoln war powers when technically there was no war (prizes case), killed the Civil Rights Act of 1876 by declaring that Congress did not have that power under the new amendments, eviscerated the privileges and immunities clause in Slaughterhouse and then used it to declare individual ownership of firearms was not protected under Cruikshank. Created ad hoc segregation from the equal protection clause, etc. etc. etc. Dred Scott was also hastened if not caused the Civil War by its denying political bodies' ability to compromise
Posted by: whig at A
_______

The Imperial Judiciary ....

Posted by: Elric Blade at April 18, 2025 01:45 PM (iFTx/)

91 I can’t wait for Roberts to call this a tax
--
The same people outraged, claiming "facilitate" actually only means "effectuate."

Are the same people who cheered when when he declared the word "penalty" also meant "tax."

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 18, 2025 01:45 PM (11WUE)

92 80 74 Speculating about this is moot. This court will not rock the boat.
Posted by: tubal
========
They might very well kick it over to Congress by claiming the president does not have the authority to do so by himself but Congress, having plenary control over immigration and naturalization via the Constitution (as ruled in previous cases) can do it via legislation.
Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 01:42 PM (ctrM5)

That is the only possible alternative to standing pat on precedence..... but really a long shot.. it would cede SC control of, well, everything really.

Posted by: tubal at April 18, 2025 01:45 PM (PCK5/)

93 If SCOTUS shoots it down, in my imaginary world, Congress writes a law that states "Due to the misinterpretation of the clear language and intent of the 14th amendment, by people with commercial interests, and or possibly for mischief or otherwise treasonous reasons, Congreff hereby declares that citizenship not be granted to children of parents that are not citizens of the US....etc."

ff = ss, for authenticity

Posted by: Chuck Martel at April 18, 2025 01:45 PM (Dv3i1)

94 Time to deport all pregnant women who are not citizens.

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 01:45 PM (FZn/N)

95 Birth right citizenship is clearly not what the authors of the 14th amendment intended, but I feel sorry for the little children so I'm voting to keep it.
Posted by: Amy Coney Barret at April 18, 2025 01:42 PM (2UnvF)

Third-worlders should gain American citizenship the correct way: being adopted as fashion accessories by AWFLs.

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at April 18, 2025 01:46 PM (l3YAf)

96 89 74 Speculating about this is moot. This court will not rock the boat.
Posted by: tubal at April 18, 2025 01:41 PM (PCK5/)

They did with Roe.
Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 01:45 PM (FZn/N)

That's..1.

Posted by: tubal at April 18, 2025 01:46 PM (PCK5/)

97 @91

>>Are the same people who cheered when when he declared the word "penalty" also meant "tax."

I don't know, some how the words, Shall Not Be Infringed, actually means, Shall Be Infringed As Much As We Want, in SCOTUS world.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at April 18, 2025 01:46 PM (XV/Pl)

98
82 It will go down 5-4 if not 6-3
Posted by: Skip at April 18, 2025 01:38 PM (ypFCm)

8-1
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at April 18, 2025 01:43 PM (l3YAf)

9-4, if the Democrats have their way.

Posted by: tubal at April 18, 2025 01:47 PM (PCK5/)

99 Is there a country were some sort of compulsory service is required to obtain citizenship? Not necessarily conscription into the military, but perhaps something civic minded?

If so, what does it entail?

I wouldn't propose civil service here, but would entertain conscription.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at April 18, 2025 01:47 PM (Q4IgG)

100 Speculating about this is moot. This court will not rock the boat.
Posted by: tubal at April 18, 2025 01:41 PM (PCK5/)

They did with Roe.
Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 01:45 PM (FZn/N)

That's..1.
Posted by: tubal at April 18, 2025 01:46 PM (PCK5/)

Bruen was kind of boat rocky.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at April 18, 2025 01:47 PM (ExV1e)

101 I don't know, some how the words, Shall Not Be Infringed, actually means, Shall Be Infringed As Much As We Want, in SCOTUS world.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at April 18, 2025 01:46 PM (XV/Pl)

If the 2A can be limited, I don't see why the 14th is all inclusive.

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 01:48 PM (FZn/N)

102 If Trump makes Marbury vs Madison collapse AND ends birthright citizenship he'll be eligible for his own mountain. Not a place on Rushmore, but his own individual mountain.

Posted by: Boron Quidquid - you realize Darwin disproved evolution, right? at April 18, 2025 01:48 PM (weQLb)

103 Nothing will happen.

Posted by: The person who always says that at April 18, 2025 01:48 PM (6vpu3)

104 102 If Trump makes Marbury vs Madison collapse AND ends birthright citizenship he'll be eligible for his own mountain. Not a place on Rushmore, but his own individual mountain.

Posted by: Boron Quidquid - you realize Darwin disproved evolution, right? at April 18, 2025 01:48 PM (weQLb)

======

Marbury is most likely dying for lower than SCOTUS federal courts.

It'll probably survive for SCOTUS.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, looking for laughs with Ivan Reitman at April 18, 2025 01:48 PM (GBKbO)

105 >> separate but equal

Plessy v. Ferguson was right. Brown was an abomination. Seethe.

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at April 18, 2025 01:49 PM (l3YAf)

106 94.

Then time to deport all men who've fathered children in & of the US but are not citizens?

Posted by: L - No nic, another fine day at April 18, 2025 01:49 PM (NFX2v)

107 IDK, on the really big issues, SCOTUS has been with us, the fact that they have decided to hear this case, seems like ARBFD, so they may not punt and they may rule in a way that doesn't split the baby in half.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at April 18, 2025 01:49 PM (XV/Pl)

108 Birthright citizenship was never passed into law. Rather, it was asserted by the Supreme Court in a 19th century case.

-

Also it's neat how this keeps coming up.

This type of legislation has to stop.

Posted by: Boron Quidquid - you realize Darwin disproved evolution, right? at April 18, 2025 01:49 PM (weQLb)

109 I finally pulled it up and tried to read it.

Holy shit it's long. But I got the point by the end...the literal end. Finding the ending summation.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, looking for laughs with Ivan Reitman at April 18, 2025 01:36 PM (GBKbO)
_______

Yea, it's long and written in the typical wordy 19th-century legal style. The problem also is that none of the judges on that decision were even thinking about the consequences of what might happen 100+ years in the future. If someone told them at the time that their decision would be used to grant citizenship to illegals five minutes after they sneak over the border, the judges would be like "Are you nuts?? That's not what we mean!"
Posted by: Elric Blade
------
Justice Gray had a very indistinguishable career as Scotus judge. At the time, the Fuller court was mostly legal mediocrities plucked from corporate law practice and placed on the court. The one sound justice, Justice Harlan dissented as did Chief Justice Fuller.

You see something similar in Plessy v. Ferguson from this court which is sort of a pragmatic corporate don't rock the boat sort of decision. But, it went against the meaning and text of the 14th Amendment.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 01:49 PM (ctrM5)

110 Guess we'll have to wait and see for them to tell us what rules we live by, won't we?

Posted by: tubal at April 18, 2025 01:49 PM (PCK5/)

111 107 IDK, on the really big issues, SCOTUS has been with us, the fact that they have decided to hear this case, seems like ARBFD, so they may not punt and they may rule in a way that doesn't split the baby in half.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at April 18, 2025 01:49 PM (XV/Pl)

=======

On merits, SCOTUS has been shockingly on our side.

Procedurally, SCOTUS has been like a teasing minx...but fat and ugly.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, looking for laughs with Ivan Reitman at April 18, 2025 01:49 PM (GBKbO)

112 Then time to deport all men who've fathered children in & of the US but are not citizens?

Posted by: L - No nic, another fine day at April 18, 2025 01:49 PM (NFX2v)

No. just the women, which includes the Chinese who come here to push out a puppy and go home.

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 01:50 PM (FZn/N)

113

Every human being anywhere in the world is a US citizen, and subject to income tax!

Posted by: J. Roberts, who has a skeleton in the closet at April 18, 2025 01:50 PM (pt3r0)

114
Roberts limpdickery pales in comparison to the flacidness of congresscritters.

But yeah, their job is getting rich.

Posted by: Auspex at April 18, 2025 01:50 PM (j4U/Z)

115 IDK, on the really big issues, SCOTUS has been with us, the fact that they have decided to hear this case, seems like ARBFD, so they may not punt and they may rule in a way that doesn't split the baby in half.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at April 18, 2025 01:49 PM (XV/Pl)

Children born in a month with an 'r' in the name are citizen, all others are not.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at April 18, 2025 01:51 PM (ExV1e)

116 Alright.

I'm heading out for a week.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, looking for laughs with Ivan Reitman at April 18, 2025 01:51 PM (GBKbO)

117 Post Civil War intent was NOT to have birthright citizenship. It was argued in Congress that wouldn't happen. In the Congresscritter Record.

Posted by: torabora at April 18, 2025 01:51 PM (CVTPU)

118 We don't know who the baby daddy is with as great certainty as we do the mama who can't wait to bring over the whole family.

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 01:51 PM (FZn/N)

119 Especially for those doing the birth tourism, I'd love it if the authorities said, no sorry you can't take your baby back with you. He is a citizen of these United States and it is our duty to protect our citizens, especially one so vulnerable, from such a horrible fate that awaits him in your shithole country. We will, however reluctantly, allow you to take him if you renounce his US citizenship on his behalf. We are not a heartless people.

Posted by: Chuck Martel at April 18, 2025 01:52 PM (Dv3i1)

120 I have hopes the SC writes a clear decision tossing birthright citizenship ,but that's it. However from now until the case is decided at least the left will be shitting itself

Posted by: Smell the Glove at April 18, 2025 01:52 PM (6TePA)

121 We will, however reluctantly, allow you to take him if you renounce his US citizenship on his behalf. We are not a heartless people.
Posted by: Chuck Martel at April 18, 2025 01:52 PM (Dv3i1)

I don't think mama can renounce on behalf of her spawn

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 01:52 PM (FZn/N)

122 And so it begins.

Posted by: The person who thinks its always beginning at April 18, 2025 01:53 PM (6vpu3)

123 To settle this immigration question, once and for all, I am hereby adopting all illegal immigrants in America, making them citizens. Children, adults, MS-13: they are all blessings of diversity, and giving them the full rights of citizenship is what my twisted interpretation of Catholicism compels me to do.

Posted by: Amy Coney Barrett at April 18, 2025 01:53 PM (l3YAf)

124 We could pass a law that requires pregnancy tests for all non citizens. If pregnant they have to leave. Four times a year.

Posted by: torabora at April 18, 2025 01:53 PM (CVTPU)

125
120 I have hopes the SC writes a clear decision tossing birthright citizenship ,but that's it. However from now until the case is decided at least the left will be shitting itself
Posted by: Smell the Glove at April 18, 2025 01:52 PM (6TePA)

Feeding the News Cycles for weeks and months... That's Entertainment!!!!!

Posted by: tubal at April 18, 2025 01:53 PM (PCK5/)

126
Speculating about this is moot. This court will not rock the boat.
Posted by: tubal

Don't tip the boat over.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at April 18, 2025 01:54 PM (63Dwl)

127 Kicking visa holder out of the birthright, would have spared us Kamala and Huma.

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 01:54 PM (FZn/N)

128 >>> The policy would eliminate automatic citizenship for individuals born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally--a direct challenge to a longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation... what's the difference.

Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at April 18, 2025 01:54 PM (/lPRQ)

129 By the way, if you want to sleep, read NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel opinion for laughs.

That murky decision allowed the court to later rely on it in Wickard as to make the commerce clause plenary which was against the meaning and origin of that particular clause. The two accomplishments that Rehnquist Court did was reining in the commerce clause as a universal fix all power for Congress and trampling over Blackmun's ridiculous statement in Garcia v. Samta that the 10th was a truism--basically destroying the idea of reserved powers---so that any power that the feds did not take, the states get the remainder, and the people get crumbs. Basically eviscerated the 10th by judicial amendment.

Contrary to most people's conception of me as an apologists for courts, I am not. But whatever I think does not matter as to how Scotus will rule. That requires taking their nonsense objectively. Same issue with congressional legislation or presidential actions at times as well.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 01:54 PM (ctrM5)

130 Win, lose, or draw. This is a win of the first battle.

If it is to be by Constitutional Amendment, this is a necessary first step, and I applaud Trump's tenacity and fortitude for going after such an issue of national importance.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at April 18, 2025 01:55 PM (i24o9)

131 124 We could pass a law that requires pregnancy tests for all non citizens. If pregnant they have to leave. Four times a year.
Posted by: torabora at April 18, 2025 01:53 PM (CVTPU)

I'm for it. Unless their kids are not automatically citizens, they should not be able to remain.

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 01:55 PM (FZn/N)

132 A flaccid limpdick is no way to go through life, son.

Posted by: Dean Wormer at April 18, 2025 01:55 PM (6vpu3)

133 If I may your honor submit this as exihibit 345C that establishes precedent as to how birth can change not only ones citizen status but also species.

-some dufus liberal lawyer wannabe. You know the type with long hair wearing a suit and tie. (oh I am so rebel)

https://tinyurl.com/48mwj6su

Posted by: I was Gumby Damn It! now I'm not at April 18, 2025 01:55 PM (r3F/z)

134 Roberts limpdickery

************

limpdickery (n.)

1. a short, humorous, often ribald form of doggerel consisting of five lines, with an AABBA rhyme scheme.

Posted by: muldoon at April 18, 2025 01:55 PM (/iMjX)

135 This will be interesting. There are hospitals across the country that actually use the "anchor baby" premise in their advertising (and not just in border states).

In California, there are medical clinics set up along the southern border with the express purpose of catering to pregnant illegal immigrants and the desired goal of securing "anchor babies." I understand that "coyote smugglers" actually have a going rate for smuggling pregnant women that is higher than the usual cost to traffick.

Posted by: Orson at April 18, 2025 01:56 PM (dIske)

136 By the way, if you want to sleep, read NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel opinion for laughs.

That murky decision allowed the court to later rely on it in Wickard as to make the commerce clause plenary which was against the meaning and origin of that particular clause. The two accomplishments that Rehnquist Court did was reining in the commerce clause as a universal fix all power for Congress and trampling over Blackmun's ridiculous statement in Garcia v. Samta that the 10th was a truism--basically destroying the idea of reserved powers---so that any power that the feds did not take, the states get the remainder, and the people get crumbs. Basically eviscerated the 10th by judicial amendment.

Contrary to most people's conception of me as an apologists for courts, I am not. But whatever I think does not matter as to how Scotus will rule. That requires taking their nonsense objectively. Same issue with congressional legislation or presidential actions at times as well.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 01:54 PM (ctrM5)

Geez. I almost fell asleep twice just reading your nutshell.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at April 18, 2025 01:56 PM (i24o9)

137 After giving this some careful thought I've come to the conclusion that it's pretty oppressive of us to force people to actually make the trip to cross our borders. Think of all the hardship they have to endure. And all because we're so selfish in not wanting to share our (ill-gotten) wealth. We should just bestow citizenship on the entire world and be done with it.

So there.

Posted by: Chairborne!...Desk From Above! at April 18, 2025 01:56 PM (aaRct)

138 Prior:

Any bets on them sabotaging SS payouts and blaming PDT?

Posted by: DaveA at April 18, 2025 01:56 PM (FhXTo)

139 In California, there are medical clinics set up along the southern border with the express purpose of catering to pregnant illegal immigrants and the desired goal of securing "anchor babies." I understand that "coyote smugglers" actually have a going rate for smuggling pregnant women that is higher than the usual cost to traffick.
Posted by: Orson at April 18, 2025 01:56 PM (dIske)

These fuckers need jail time.

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 01:56 PM (FZn/N)

140
As of 2025, 33 countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

I don't see one European country on the list, but maybe I just skimmed it too fast.
Posted by: SpeakingOf

=================

Is anyone else surprised at this number of countries that permit anchor babies? I really am. I thought the US was the #1 Su!cide Pact nation.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 01:57 PM (M4PBL)

141 Exactly, but it is still going to hinge on DOJ coming up with a workable and convincing regime that can be applicable to most scenarios.
--
But why?

That's the exact reasoning there are so many bullshit "laws" created by the Court:
Solving problems is not the job of the Court--ruling on the legality of the question before the Court is the only job.

All they have to do is say "the Amendment as drafted, as intended by the drafters, and as understood in common English, applies only to those persons legally, lawfully and permanently residing in the United States.
The resolution of the status of those children now residing in the United States born to parents here illegally is a political question beyond the power and authority of this Court.
And must be resolved in the political arena."

Democrats and RINOs want the Court to save them from this hot potato--they should toss it into their laps where it belongs.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 18, 2025 01:57 PM (11WUE)

142 Babies don't sink quick enough to make a good anchor.

Posted by: DaveA at April 18, 2025 01:57 PM (FhXTo)

143 These fuckers need jail time.

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 01:56 PM (FZn/N)

Hang them all.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at April 18, 2025 01:58 PM (i24o9)

144 In California, there are medical clinics set up along the southern border with the express purpose of catering to pregnant illegal immigrants and the desired goal of securing "anchor babies." I understand that "coyote smugglers" actually have a going rate for smuggling pregnant women that is higher than the usual cost to traffick.

every L&D nurse in Texas can tell you at least one story of getting screamed at in broken English by a father who wants those birth papers right now dammit so he can go sign up for those benefits (the state mails the birth certificate later)

Posted by: brak at April 18, 2025 01:58 PM (jGJov)

145 128 >>> The policy would eliminate automatic citizenship for individuals born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally--a direct challenge to a longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
---------
It was never the interpretation in Wong Ark Kim. His parents were here legally and Wong Ark got barred from reentry despite being born here.

The limiting language is subject to the jurisdiction thereof which explicitly overrules jus solis common law before then and created the language that permitted overriding Dred Scott's assertion that blacks could never be citizens of teh United States. That was the purpose for the amendment, not illegals or sojourners (travelers here temporarily).

If you care to read the opinion, Gray dances with trying to distinguish Native Americans who were not US citizens if they were on reservations at the time versus Wong Ark. He failed miserably. Congress in the 1920's eventually made Native Americans citizens by birth using legislation.

That is the out that I think Scotus may take. Leave it up to Congress.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 01:58 PM (ctrM5)

146 Is anyone else surprised at this number of countries that permit anchor babies? I really am. I thought the US was the #1 Su!cide Pact nation.
Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 01:57 PM (M4PBL)

Most of those are craphole countries nobody is going to sneak into to drop an anchor baby.

Except Canada, which is more suicidal than America and is currently trying to euthanize itself.

Posted by: Amy Coney Barrett at April 18, 2025 02:00 PM (l3YAf)

147 That is the out that I think Scotus may take. Leave it up to Congress.
Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 01:58 PM (ctrM5)

Thank goodness we can count on Congress to act both expeditiously AND in the nation's best interest.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at April 18, 2025 02:00 PM (ExV1e)

148 Geez. I almost fell asleep twice just reading your nutshell.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder
=======
I have that superpower. I can give it fast if wordy or I can trim it down which takes a lot more time than threads allow.

So, you tend to get the wordy version here. Students got the more concise version plus the wordy version upon request. Most did not.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:00 PM (ctrM5)

149 126
Speculating about this is moot. This court will not rock the boat.
Posted by: tubal

Don't tip the boat over.
-------------
Never get out of the boat. Chef.

Posted by: Pudinhead at April 18, 2025 02:01 PM (pZ64F)

150 Whig, am I understanding correctly that you think the SCOTUS will punt / maintain status quo?

Posted by: Boron Cobbie - Are you honest enough to acknowledge Darwin disproved evolution? at April 18, 2025 02:01 PM (rlK7S)

151 Oh fuck off. That's not what the SC held in Ark. That's what lefty fucknuggets who never read the case, and who don't know dick about immigration law, say about the case. The case didn't involve illegals at all. Ark was born here to legal US residents.
Posted by: Elric Blade

Read it years ago. In context, to my layman's eyes it, it said he has the same status as his parents.

BTW - this was pre-19th and his status would have been derived from the father's status (mother if father unknown, or a foundling), as would the mother's status. 19th unexpectantly squashed the concept of 'derived' citizenship - As of c.2000 there were still forms on-line for women to resestablish their citizenship if they married an alien post-19th.

Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at April 18, 2025 02:01 PM (/lPRQ)

152 How about: amnesty for those over 21, gainfully employed, and with no history of criminal activity? All others, (points) the door's thataway.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at April 18, 2025 01:44 PM (8zz6B)

No. Deport them all.

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at April 18, 2025 02:01 PM (l3YAf)

153 @141

>>But why?

Because the justices are going to be peppering the DOJ on if they wan't to end BRC how are they going to determine who BRC does and does not apply to and how is that going to work federally and in the states.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at April 18, 2025 02:01 PM (XV/Pl)

154

Pardon me while I rub one out, jefe...

Posted by: Sheriff Bartino at April 18, 2025 02:02 PM (pt3r0)

155 @145 agree on this. The four conservatives , Coney Barrett and Roberts may draw the line that Congress, aka the people, are the ones who delineate citizenship, not courts. That would be clear. Of course Congress would proceed to eff it up

Posted by: Smell the Glove at April 18, 2025 02:02 PM (6TePA)

156 That is the out that I think Scotus may take. Leave it up to Congress.
Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 01:58 PM (ctrM5)

Thank goodness we can count on Congress to act both expeditiously AND in the nation's best interest.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at April 18, 2025 02:00 PM (ExV1e)

I nearly spewed chips on my monitor reading that.

Thanks.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at April 18, 2025 02:02 PM (i24o9)

157 I am concerned about the thing.

Posted by: Don Black at April 18, 2025 02:03 PM (AOsQT)

158 Don't tip the boat over.
-------------
Never get out of the boat. Chef.

********

We're going to need a bigger boat...

Posted by: muldoon at April 18, 2025 02:03 PM (/iMjX)

159 I would bet the house no more Amendments will be made as long as I am living. We are a house divided and that will stop any

Posted by: Skip at April 18, 2025 02:03 PM (ypFCm)

160 I always thought it was neat that the SCOTUS could write laws when they wanted to, and just say "No, not our responsibility" when it was stuff that would put them in positions to not be invited to Christmas parties.

Posted by: Boron Cobbie - Are you honest enough to acknowledge Darwin disproved evolution? at April 18, 2025 02:04 PM (rlK7S)

161 Except Canada, which is more suicidal than America and is currently trying to euthanize itself.
Posted by: Amy Coney Barrett at April 18, 2025 02:00 PM (l3YAf)
______________________

A little tidbit about Canada and their MAID program for euthanasia. That program secured Canada's #1 spot in securing organ donor parts from Euthanasia. That's #1 in the world. You can't tell me that isn't a factor in why they allow it (and actually push its use) so readily. There is A LOT of money in organ donor efforts (for a lot of different parties).

Posted by: Orson at April 18, 2025 02:04 PM (dIske)

162 Thank goodness we can count on Congress to act both expeditiously AND in the nation's best interest.
Posted by: I used to have a different nic

I'll take Congress, as fleabitten and conflict of interest ridden, more than Court diktats. That was a particular conceit of Scalia that does not reflect well on him. He disliked Congress as an institution after spending time working there early in his career. Judicial Supremacy is not a fit substitute because constitutional amendments are very hard to get passed, almost impossible under the current climate. So, justices invent, distort, or otherwise mangle the Constitution and Bill of Rights without oversight nor the slap in the face of amendments. It took a Civil War to fix what Scotus had been doing for 75 years via THREE amendments.

And they did it early one with their funhouse mirror decision in the 1790's that caused the 11th amendment to be ratified to check the court early on.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:04 PM (ctrM5)

163 Don't tip the boat over.
-------------
Never get out of the boat. Chef.

********

We're going to need a bigger boat...

Posted by: muldoon at April 18, 2025 02:03 PM (/iMjX)

I'm on a boat.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at April 18, 2025 02:04 PM (i24o9)

164 Can't walk on the water if you don't step out of the boat.

Posted by: Boron Cobbie - Are you honest enough to acknowledge Darwin disproved evolution? at April 18, 2025 02:04 PM (rlK7S)

165 but will review the legality of nationwide injunctions.

It twitched!

Posted by: DaveA at April 18, 2025 02:04 PM (FhXTo)

166 The results have been a disaster for this country, reason enough to change course.

Posted by: San Franpsycho at April 18, 2025 02:05 PM (RIvkX)

167 I am concerned about the thing.

Posted by: Don Black at April 18, 2025 02:03 PM (AOsQT)

Your concern concerns me.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at April 18, 2025 02:05 PM (i24o9)

168 I'm reading this case has bearing on birthright citizenship and in addition will curtail district judges to a degree from swerving into the Executive Branches lane... Wha? Um Alrighty Then!!!!

I read yesterday Supreme Court Justice Kagan....S
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan denied an emergency appeal to temporarily block the deportation of the family of four Mexican nationals, who, according to their filing, "are targets of cartel violence due to their family ties and refusal to comply with extortion demands."

Posted by: I was Gumby Damn It! now I'm not at April 18, 2025 02:06 PM (r3F/z)

169 https://tinyurl.com/n6ctdtes

Affordable Hunter Biden art for the discerning collector. As low as twenty bucks.

Posted by: torabora at April 18, 2025 02:06 PM (CVTPU)

170 and have time to stop for lunch on the way.

There's a drive-thru at the wall?

Posted by: DaveA at April 18, 2025 02:06 PM (FhXTo)

171 I never thought you were an appologist for anything, Whig, either definition of the term.

Posted by: Kindltot at April 18, 2025 02:06 PM (D7oie)

172 There is A LOT of money in organ donor efforts (for a lot of different parties).
____

Be extra careful when travelling to a country where the #1 export is human organs.

Posted by: Chuck Martel at April 18, 2025 02:07 PM (Dv3i1)

173
Most of those are craphole countries nobody is going to sneak into to drop an anchor baby.

Except Canada, which is more suicidal than America and is currently trying to euthanize itself.
Posted by: Amy Coney Barrett

===============

Canada was the one that surprised me. I don't see it as much of an anchor baby destination, but I think I've heard something about Canadian passports being valuable. Maybe because they get you all over the British Commonwealth, can't remember.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 02:07 PM (M4PBL)

174 >That is the out that I think Scotus may take. Leave it up to Congress.
Posted by: whig
----

which means it dies

Posted by: Don Black at April 18, 2025 02:07 PM (AOsQT)

175 If I had a boat, I'd go out on the ocean
And if I had a pony, I'd ride him on my boat.

Damn. Now I want a pony.

Posted by: muldoon at April 18, 2025 02:07 PM (/iMjX)

176 Birth tourism is a big thing. other than the illegals, a lot of people pay big "tourist" dollars to come here on whatever visa, give birth and ..US citizen!

Posted by: runner at April 18, 2025 02:08 PM (g47mK)

177 Why can't we deport illegals who claim danger in their home countries with AR's RPG's grenades LAWS rockets and a shit ton of ammo?

Posted by: torabora at April 18, 2025 02:08 PM (CVTPU)

178 @141

>>But why?

Because the justices are going to be peppering the DOJ on if they wan't to end BRC how are they going to determine who BRC does and does not apply to and how is that going to work federally and in the states.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at April 18, 2025 02:01 PM (XV/Pl)

Just tell 'em it's a tax, and they'll get Roberts.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at April 18, 2025 02:08 PM (i24o9)

179 150 Whig, am I understanding correctly that you think the SCOTUS will punt / maintain status quo?
Posted by: Boron Cobbie
=========
Much as I like Trump's order emotionally as righting a serious wrong in depreciating US citizenship, I think it is a reach for the president to do it alone absent wartime conditions.

Given the limit on citizenship in the 14th aka "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (acknowledging both Indians and what common law called sojourners aka travelers), did not get birthright citizenship, the word jurisdiction is very important. It implies that Congress (which is repeated multiple times elsewhere) has control of what the court can hear including who is a citizen and who is not. Thus, they can regulate aka make laws about it.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:08 PM (ctrM5)

180 147 That is the out that I think Scotus may take. Leave it up to Congress.
Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 01:58 PM (ctrM5)

Thank goodness we can count on Congress to act both expeditiously AND in the nation's best interest.
Posted by: I used to have a different nic at April 18, 2025 02:00 PM (ExV1e)

By the way, this is why, even though I believe Congress has the right to set tariff policy, then decided to give that power to POTUS so they can avoid making the tough decisions, Trump should fight to keep the power that he has. If Congress gets that 'right' back, they will never, ever use it.

Posted by: Darrell Harris at April 18, 2025 02:09 PM (mUH8I)

181 Maybe my favorite semi-related quote:

"Don't tell me how rocky the sea is. Just bring the ship in."
- Lou Holtz

Posted by: Boron Cobbie - Are you honest enough to acknowledge Darwin disproved evolution? at April 18, 2025 02:09 PM (rlK7S)

182 I'll be pleasantly surprised if the SC does away with illegal aliens getting birthright citizenship but I happy we are at least putting some visibility on this issues. If the current polling is to believed the country is moving toward Trump on the issue of removing all illegals not just the criminals, yes I'm aware crossing the border is a crime, with a majority now in favor.

The energy is with us now. Maybe we don't get it this time but we are moving in the right direction.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 18, 2025 02:09 PM (viF8m)

183 Every alien who comes here should have to pass a no pregnancy test. Even the men.

Posted by: torabora at April 18, 2025 02:09 PM (CVTPU)

184 Birthright Citizenship is inherently unconstitutional. Why?

Because when citizenship was extended to the American Indians, who were born in the borders of the US, Congress had to pass a law to do so.

If Birthright Citizenship was a real thing those Indians would have been citizens merely by being born on land the US had acquired.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2025 02:10 PM (t0Rmr)

185 Because the justices are going to be peppering the DOJ on if they want to end BRC how are they going to determine who BRC does and does not apply to and how is that going to work federally and in the states.
---
Which is why the Solicitor General needs to be forceful on the response:
The resolution of the status of those here born to parents not legal permanent residents is not before the Court at this time.
The only question before the Court is whether the 14th means those born to parents here illegally are citizens.
The President intends to follow the law and has determined they are not citizens.
Congress--and only Congress--as it did for American Indians--can resolve the question as to what to do with those children.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 18, 2025 02:10 PM (11WUE)

186 ...the word jurisdiction is very important. It implies that Congress (which is repeated multiple times elsewhere) has control of what the court can hear including who is a citizen and who is not. Thus, they can regulate aka make laws about it.
Posted by: whig

-

Thanks whig.

Posted by: Boron Cobbie - Are you honest enough to acknowledge Darwin disproved evolution? at April 18, 2025 02:11 PM (rlK7S)

187 Don't tip the boat over.

On my playlist. One of the very first disco songs.

Posted by: San Franpsycho at April 18, 2025 02:11 PM (RIvkX)

188 We're going to need a bigger boat...
Posted by: muldoon at April 18, 2025 02:03 PM (/iMjX)

Said the man in the boat.

Posted by: anchorbabe fashion cop at April 18, 2025 02:11 PM (ufFY8)

189 I'll betcha SC finds LEGAL aliens get birthright citizenship but illegal ones don't.

Still has a problem with fake asylum seekers and orphans.

Posted by: torabora at April 18, 2025 02:11 PM (CVTPU)

190 which means it dies
Posted by: Don Black
=======
It means that citizens, if they want this, get off their ass and prod their idiot members of Congress to pass it.

For obvious reasons, leaving it to Congress removes the problem of anchor baby adjudication from the court as to whether their decision withdrew existing citizenship etc. If they leave it to Congress, then they can ignore applications of the decision retroactively.

Otherwise, you might just get a Scotus decision that puts anchor baby status beyond reach without a constitutional amendment.

Once again, what I prefer, I do not make the mistake that Scotus will agree so my analysis is objective, not normative.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:12 PM (ctrM5)

191 Canada was the one that surprised me. I don't see it as much of an anchor baby destination, but I think I've heard something about Canadian passports being valuable. Maybe because they get you all over the British Commonwealth, can't remember.
Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 02:07 PM (M4PBL)

Canada has the benefit that illegals usually have to pass through America first. And American citizenship is more valuable than Canadian citizenship.

People do do birth tourism in Canada, though. A lot of Asians.

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at April 18, 2025 02:12 PM (l3YAf)

192 >>Said the man in the boat.

I wonder if that Tidy Bowl man ever got out of the tank?

Posted by: JackStraw at April 18, 2025 02:13 PM (viF8m)

193 People do do birth tourism in Canada, though. A lot of Asians.

Of course the irony is Chairman Xi controls the Canadian government just as much as he does the Chinese one.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2025 02:13 PM (t0Rmr)

194 Don't tip the boat over.

On my playlist. One of the very first disco songs.
Posted by: San Franpsycho

"Sit down, sit down, sit down! Sit down, you're rockin' the boat!"

Stubby Kaye rocked that number.

Posted by: Bulg at April 18, 2025 02:13 PM (77rzZ)

195 If Birthright Citizenship was a real thing those Indians would have been citizens merely by being born on land the US had acquired.
Posted by: 18-1

Good point. I had never thought of that.

Posted by: Bulg at April 18, 2025 02:14 PM (77rzZ)

196 never thought you were an appologist for anything, Whig, either definition of the term.
Posted by: Kindltot at April 18, 2025 02:06 PM (D7oie)

He's certainly never apologized to Unisom for driving their stock price down.

Posted by: ... at April 18, 2025 02:14 PM (u9Npv)

197
Every alien who comes here should have to pass a no pregnancy test. Even the men.
Posted by: torabora

===============

The following conversation takes place in Spanish at an immigration court:

CBP: All right, buddy, step into this room for your pregnancy test.

Illegal alien: wtf? I'm a man, are you blind?

CBP: Men can get pregnant in America.

Illegal alien: *self-deports*

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 02:15 PM (M4PBL)

198 By the way, this is why, even though I believe Congress has the right to set tariff policy, then decided to give that power to POTUS so they can avoid making the tough decisions, Trump should fight to keep the power that he has. If Congress gets that 'right' back, they will never, ever use it.
Posted by: Darrell Harris
=======
Under Trump, at least, and probably future presidents not named Pence, would veto such actions requiring a 2/3rds majority to repeal it. Not happening. Presidents, even Biden, used the same authority to punish countries such as South Africa, North Korea, etc. Too useful a tool in diplomacy to give up.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:15 PM (ctrM5)

199 Stubby Kaye rocked that number.
Posted by: Bulg

The ladies call me "Stubby" for a reason.

Posted by: Stubby Kaye at April 18, 2025 02:15 PM (UOzvC)

200 It means that citizens, if they want this, get off their ass and prod their idiot members of Congress to pass it.

How many Americans live in a congressional district where there weren't an overwhelming number of fraudulent votes.

The odd thing about our current political state is that most of the red House seats are mostly fair elections which is why occasionally Dems can get elected even in deep red areas if the R office holder pisses the voters off enough.

But most of the blue seats are controlled by fake votes. In theory if you did get 80% or more of the actual citizens there out to vote maybe they could overcome the fraud but...they don't and won't.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2025 02:15 PM (t0Rmr)

201 Don't tip the Guam over...

Posted by: Hank Johnson at April 18, 2025 02:16 PM (6vpu3)

202 Just farting around online and found these recent SCOTUS rulings pertaining to immigration. Kind of a BOOM! moment

Supreme Court Justice Kagan Rejects Appeal From Family Facing Deportation
https://tinyurl.com/bnyavefe

Supreme Court Sides With US in Deportation Notice Dispute
https://tinyurl.com/48mwj6su

Posted by: I was Gumby Damn It! now I'm not at April 18, 2025 02:17 PM (r3F/z)

203 1. a short, humorous, often ribald form of doggerel consisting of five lines, with an AABBA rhyme scheme.

When i first ready that, my brain saw 'ABBA' and now I have 'Voulez-vous' stuck in my head.

Posted by: Nelly at April 18, 2025 02:17 PM (pSknm)

204 Birthright Citizenship is biological warfare.

Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats at April 18, 2025 02:17 PM (yCLJY)

205 It means that citizens, if they want this, get off their ass and prod their idiot members of Congress to pass it.

--

It's incredible to me that we're at a point in our nation's history where this has true potential of changing in two different methods. That's astounding. And then you add all the other stuff that's happening...

I enjoyed teasing (D)s about "all it would've taken was a $5B wall and honest election" to remind them Trump would've been leaving office after accomplishing almost nothing with a divided Congress, but I more and more realize their actions were a gift and an opportunity from God.

I mean, I'll still tease them, but...

Posted by: Boron Cobbie - Are you honest enough to acknowledge Darwin disproved evolution? at April 18, 2025 02:18 PM (rlK7S)

206 America used to have the greatest public education system in the world. Our cities were thriving and the envy of the world.

I’m really glad we destroyed all of that to satisfy the Communists’ perverted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at April 18, 2025 02:18 PM (l3YAf)

207 Ooh The taylor llorenze old woman just popped up on a documentary im watching

Posted by: LASue at April 18, 2025 02:18 PM (lCppi)

208 The indians were a weird case.

Legally, they were looked at as the results of conquest, which did not make them citizens.

Andrea Burkhart has a fascinating interview with sone Italian professor in CA about the topic, and about a significant case involving indians that were removed to OK, but went back to NE to resettle.

I can't recall the case, but the story was fascinating.

Posted by: Deplorable Ian Galt at April 18, 2025 02:19 PM (ufFY8)

209 Sorry, not optimistic with this Court

Posted by: Jm on Illinois at April 18, 2025 02:19 PM (Xusvd)

210 Of course the irony is Chairman Xi controls the Canadian government just as much as he does the Chinese one.
Posted by: 18-1 at April 18, 2025 02:13 PM (t0Rmr)

And lots of American universities, too.

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 02:19 PM (FZn/N)

211 12 Prepare for the Anal TheRapist
Posted by: Field Marshal Zhukov at April 18, 2025 01:22 PM (7leMO)

Hopefully my good man, you'll settle for a humble Analrapist?

Posted by: Tobias Funke at April 18, 2025 02:19 PM (lg881)

212 I’m really glad we destroyed all of that to satisfy the Communists’ perverted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at April 18, 2025 02:18 PM (l3YAf)

How else were they going to get more voters?

Posted by: ... at April 18, 2025 02:19 PM (u9Npv)

213 Of course the irony is Chairman Xi controls the Canadian government just as much as he does the Chinese one.
-

And lots of American universities, too.
Posted by: Night lifted....

-

Can we please go one thread without talking about Harvard?

Posted by: Boron Cobbie - Are you honest enough to acknowledge Darwin disproved evolution? at April 18, 2025 02:20 PM (rlK7S)

214 When i first ready that, my brain saw 'ABBA' and now I have 'Voulez-vous' stuck in my head.
Posted by: Nelly at April 18, 2025 02:17 PM (pSknm)

Fernando. The song you are thinking of is Fernando.

You are welcome.

Posted by: Kindltot at April 18, 2025 02:20 PM (D7oie)

215 196 never thought you were an appologist for anything, Whig, either definition of the term.
Posted by: Kindltot at April 18, 2025 02:06 PM (D7oie)

He's certainly never apologized to Unisom for driving their stock price down.
Posted by: ...
=========
Eh, I get it sometimes. Just wanted to make clear that my views of what the Court will do and what I prefer they do (same goes for other branches) are not the same in many cases.

Ellipsis, you would be bemused to read my dissertation or one of my last 75 pages or so conference papers on the evolution of state bill of rights in the south. Both are snooze material that take time to condense and leave off all the scholarly blather required for such things.

I can put my wife to sleep if she asks me a question about something related to government as well.

I am much shorter though than most political theorists tend to be. Those guys can write some doorstoppers.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:20 PM (ctrM5)

216 Still has a problem with fake asylum seekers and orphans.
Posted by: torabora at April 18, 2025 02:11 PM (CVTPU)

And also the temporary ones that become permanent as soon as he anchor is dropped in the maternity ward.

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 02:20 PM (FZn/N)

217 Fernando. The song you are thinking of is Fernando.

You are welcome.
Posted by: Kindltot

I hate that song. Nasty earwig to start and the Mexican Revolution in 1910 (or ones before that) tended to be bloody nasty affairs where all the key players were despicable monsters.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:21 PM (ctrM5)

218 Ask your doctor if Ribald Doggerel is right for you.

Posted by: Big Doggerel at April 18, 2025 02:21 PM (6vpu3)

219 I’m really glad we destroyed all of that to satisfy the Communists’ perverted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at April 18, 2025 02:18 PM (l3YAf)

That was under deconstruction since outsourcing began and, of course, the rise of the DoE.

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 02:22 PM (FZn/N)

220
Just farting around online and found these recent SCOTUS rulings pertaining to immigration. Kind of a BOOM! moment

Posted by: I was Gumby Damn It!

=============

It's a BOOM! moment for me that they're considering it, but I still wish that DHS or DOS would be more transparent about these headline-grabbing deportees. My homepage is chock-full of bewildered grad students, teachers, and doctors who "had a speeding ticket seven years ago that was dismissed" but they just got the dread notice that their visa has been yanked. WHAT is the rest of the story?

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 02:23 PM (M4PBL)

221 And also the temporary ones that become permanent as soon as he anchor is dropped in the maternity ward.
Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 02:20 PM (FZn/N)

I wonder if I could make a buck by buying a bunch of cheap-ass Chinese mushroom anchors, wrapping Cabbage Patch dolls around the shank, and selling them on Etsy as "anchor babies"? Buy two, and put them on your driveway corners with lights.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at April 18, 2025 02:23 PM (8zz6B)

222 Just had my new refrigerator delivered by three persons working for Home Depot. They spoke very little English. Like I said, it’s going to be very difficult to deal with the amount of illegals in this country

Posted by: Joe at April 18, 2025 02:23 PM (rzwGB)

223 Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:20 PM (ctrM5)

Sometimes I'm bemused just reading my alarm clock.

Before we had the character limit I'm pretty certain I competed with both you and rhomboid for length if not breadth. The main difference being people just skipped mine.

Posted by: ... at April 18, 2025 02:24 PM (u9Npv)

224 DHS has released body cam images of the Tennessee police stop of the Maryland Man driving a carload of illegals from CA to MD.

This is going to be a rock around Van Hollen's neck forever.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 18, 2025 02:24 PM (viF8m)

225 This is an extremely important (and long overdue) thing that needs to happen to fix our immigration-related problems. I give it about 1% chance that it will though, and that only because there's always some hope.

Posted by: Dr. Fausti - I WAS The Science at April 18, 2025 02:24 PM (lg881)

226 Fernando. The song you are thinking of is Fernando.

+++

Dominique.

Posted by: The Singing Nun at April 18, 2025 02:24 PM (6vpu3)

227 18, 2025 02:13 PM (77rzZ)

195 If Birthright Citizenship was a real thing those Indians would have been citizens merely by being born on land the US had acquired.
Posted by: 18-1

Good point. I had never thought of that.
Posted by: Bulg at April 18, 2025 02:14 PM (77rzZ)

Bad argument. The 14th amendment specifically excluded them; they were not granted any citizenship until 1924.

Posted by: Tom Servo at April 18, 2025 02:24 PM (ZEzFB)

228 My homepage is chock-full of bewildered grad students, teachers, and doctors who "had a speeding ticket seven years ago that was dismissed" but they just got the dread notice that their visa has been yanked. WHAT is the rest of the story?

-

(wonders why they're not citizens after more than 7 years)

Posted by: Boron Cobbie - Are you honest enough to acknowledge Darwin disproved evolution? at April 18, 2025 02:25 PM (rlK7S)

229 208 The indians were a weird case.

Legally, they were looked at as the results of conquest, which did not make them citizens.

Andrea Burkhart has a fascinating interview with sone Italian professor in CA about the topic, and about a significant case involving indians that were removed to OK, but went back to NE to resettle.

I can't recall the case, but the story was fascinating.
Posted by: Deplorable Ian Galt
=====
It was and is more to the point that Indians did and do have sovereignty on reservations equivalent to states. That means only the federal government has power over them, not states nor localities.

As a result, I would, however, be very careful not to violate the law on reservations as federal review of Native American courts on reservations tends to be very slow. And doubly careful for any financial contract dealing with natives on reservations.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:25 PM (ctrM5)

230 The left tries to claim that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" merely means "can be arrested by."
Like, if the US can exercise it's law enforcement power over the person, that person is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

But, ask them to name a class of persons who could enter this country and NOT be arrested if they commit a crime.
Name one person who enters the United States that isn't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" under their definition.

They can't.

They'll try to cite diplomats. But that's not immune from arrest--that's immune from prosecution.
And that's not a "get out of jail free" card for all crimes.
It's only for some crimes.
Even diplomats are "subject to arrest."
Yet, the 14th drafters felt it necessary to specifically exclude diplomats.

Why would it have to say "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" if diplomats were already specifically excluded?

So that's were we need to go:
Demand they name one class of people--any at all--that enter and are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 18, 2025 02:25 PM (11WUE)

231 DHS has released body cam images of the Tennessee police stop of the Maryland Man driving a carload of illegals from CA to MD.
---------

Only CNN is allowed to watch it. Don Lemon will explain.

Posted by: ... at April 18, 2025 02:25 PM (u9Npv)

232 Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 02:23 PM (M4PBL)

Is it DHS putting out the sob story headline or is he MSM putting out headlies?

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 02:25 PM (FZn/N)

233 This is going to be a rock around Van Hollen's neck forever.
Posted by: JackStraw at April 18, 2025 02:24 PM (viF8m)

The fucker should have opted for the millstone.

Posted by: Deplorable Ian Galt at April 18, 2025 02:25 PM (ufFY8)

234 Dominique.
Posted by: The Singing Nun at April 18, 2025 02:24 PM (6vpu3)

My Sharona.

Posted by: The Knaack at April 18, 2025 02:26 PM (8zz6B)

235 222 Just had my new refrigerator delivered by three persons working for Home Depot. They spoke very little English. Like I said, it’s going to be very difficult to deal with the amount of illegals in this country.
---
We got to move these refrigerators.
We got to move these color TVs.

Posted by: Mark Knopfler at April 18, 2025 02:26 PM (6vpu3)

236 Skimmed a heartbreaking/not article on Yahoo yesterday of a weeping woman, with greasy black hair, posing for the photo with her hairband on her wrist.
Mexican. Came to Georgia 20yrs or so ago and popped out a son. Returned to Mexico with son and was there til he was about 16yrs.

Son, who speaks no English but some sort of Mexican, was arrested in Florida driving with a suspended license. Had been arrested with a DUI a few weeks prior. Now in ICE custody for deportation.

His mother arrived to the court waving his birth certificate and, I guess, SS card. The FL judge said the birth certificate had "water marks" as real. And that she could not save his sorry ass. I can't recall if Mama speaks English, altho she needs to wash her hair.

The wails of the commenters ranged from "we will all be deported" to he is a citizen. One who speaks no English and spent most of his life in Mexico. Simply arriving on our soil to be hatched for future gain. The two illegals in the car with him were also detained.

The commenters are fixated on Hitler and, while their nationality is unknown, this is Hitler and no one will be left in the USA soon. Good. My ancestors did not arrive illegally.

Posted by: ChristyBlinkyTheGreat at April 18, 2025 02:26 PM (6PCLE)

237 OK, a huge group is legally designated as anchor babies or the law says, no more anchor babies. Then what? Who, what dates get grandfathered?

And what of all of the parents who were sponsored for green cards by their "US citizen" child born in the US?

No lawyer but wouldn't there need to be one clearly defined law - you are, you aren't - from X date forward?

It's so complicated. It's so intentional.

Posted by: Joe Biden is a dope at April 18, 2025 02:26 PM (NFX2v)

238 195 If Birthright Citizenship was a real thing those Indians would have been citizens merely by being born on land the US had acquired.
Posted by: 18-1

Good point. I had never thought of that.
Posted by: Bulg at April 18, 2025 02:14 PM (77rzZ)

Hmm. I agree. Great point. The US always treated them as a separate nation.

Posted by: Darrell Harris at April 18, 2025 02:26 PM (7w+5t)

239 Just had my new refrigerator delivered by three persons working for Home Depot. They spoke very little English. Like I said, it’s going to be very difficult to deal with the amount of illegals in this country
Posted by: Joe

-

I suspect just enforcing the law would work, same as always.

If that fails, asset forfeiture of companies hiring them would be a decent next step.

See also: Drug dealers

Posted by: Boron Cobbie - Are you honest enough to acknowledge Darwin disproved evolution? at April 18, 2025 02:26 PM (rlK7S)

240 Now all the robed cocksuckers need to do is hear the Snope vs Brown and Ocean State Tactical vs RI.

F*ck these elitist scumbags.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at April 18, 2025 02:27 PM (/U5Yz)

241
No lawyer but wouldn't there need to be one clearly defined law - you are, you aren't - from X date forward?

It's so complicated. It's so intentional.

Posted by: Joe Biden

================

India managed to do one of those laws when a ton of Bangaladeshis swarmed in illegally and had babies. It's a little complicated, but they construed the law around date of birth.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 02:28 PM (M4PBL)

242 And the Cradle will rock.

Posted by: Von Hollen at April 18, 2025 02:28 PM (0fMex)

243 My Sharona.
Posted by: The Knaack
+++
My Bologna.

Posted by: Weird Al at April 18, 2025 02:28 PM (6vpu3)

244 7-2 against Trump. Thomas and Alito the holdouts.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at April 18, 2025 02:28 PM (DKKgv)

245 It's so complicated. It's so intentional.

Posted by: Joe Biden is a dope at April 18, 2025 02:26 PM (NFX2v)

Backdate it to 1900

Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 02:28 PM (FZn/N)

246 I hate that song. Nasty earwig to start and the Mexican Revolution in 1910 (or ones before that) tended to be bloody nasty affairs where all the key players were despicable monsters.
Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:21 PM (ctrM5)

first time I ever heard it in Spanish was in a Mexico City market.
Simon Bolivar wrote his Letter from Jamaica with its prescient view of the Americas, and he predicted the central American Republic's break up, but I have always wondered a bit at why such a diverse country like Mexico never broke into separate states in the same sort of way.

Posted by: Kindltot at April 18, 2025 02:28 PM (D7oie)

247 This is going to be a rock around Van Hollen's neck forever.
Posted by: JackStraw at April 18, 2025 02:24 PM (viF8m)

I would say that it would be a dick in Van Hollen’s mouth, but he’d like that.

Posted by: Tom Servo at April 18, 2025 02:29 PM (ZEzFB)

248 Imagine if black men and families were talked to honestly about where their jobs went.

I mean, it probably wouldn't change the existing racial animosity, but it would at least help them understand the issue a bit better.

Posted by: Boron Cobbie - Are you honest enough to acknowledge Darwin disproved evolution? at April 18, 2025 02:29 PM (rlK7S)

249 Trump should declare that the only place in the US where a person is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is reservations.

Meaning, all the children of illegals can be move (be moved) to reservations.

A nice little 19th Century solution to a modern problem.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 18, 2025 02:29 PM (11WUE)

250 Bad argument. The 14th amendment specifically excluded them; they were not granted any citizenship until 1924.
Posted by: Tom Servo
======
Not so. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof language did not explicitly refer to Indians not taxed in that day's vernacular. The 14th was made specifically to reverse Dred Scott's ruling that blacks could not be citizens of the US despite what states did. You can go read up on the debates in Congress and even state legislatures about it. It was never intended to ratify jus soli as Gray proposed as the subject to the jurisdiction thereof actually limits jus soli to special cases and jurisdiction (using Article III) means something that Congress can regulate as it does for the Court in general.

That was the intention and the words behind the 14th and your argument is ahistoric as far as what was intended. The Civil War amendments were passed as a package to ensure that Dred Scott (and its predecessor of Barron v. Baltimore) were explicitly overridden. Remember, they fought a war over citizenship for blacks. Not so for illegals nor Indians.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:30 PM (ctrM5)

251 White Hispanics have no guilt toward the black man. Will be interesting...

Posted by: ... at April 18, 2025 02:30 PM (u9Npv)

252 >>> 249 Trump should declare that the only place in the US where a person is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is reservations.

Meaning, all the children of illegals can be move (be moved) to reservations.

A nice little 19th Century solution to a modern problem.
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 18, 2025 02:29 PM (11WUE)

HOW?!?!?!

Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at April 18, 2025 02:30 PM (Vqx30)

253 Trump should declare that the only place in the US where a person is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is reservations.

-

oooh, I like the way you think.

Posted by: Boron Cobbie - Are you honest enough to acknowledge Darwin disproved evolution? at April 18, 2025 02:30 PM (rlK7S)

254 JUST IN: The father of Austin Metcalf, who was slain by Karmelo Anthony, was SWATTED last night in Texas

This occurred just hours after Karmelo’s “spokesman” disparaged Mr. Metcalf at a press conference

Posted by: Don Black at April 18, 2025 02:31 PM (AOsQT)

255 So that's were we need to go:
Demand they name one class of people--any at all--that enter and are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 18, 2025 02:25 PM (11WUE)

Foreign ambassadors and their children. That’s about it.

Posted by: Tom Servo at April 18, 2025 02:31 PM (ZEzFB)

256 195 If Birthright Citizenship was a real thing those Indians would have been citizens merely by being born on land the US had acquired.
Posted by: 18-1

Good point. I had never thought of that.
Posted by: Bulg at April 18, 2025 02:14 PM (77rzZ)

Bad argument. The 14th amendment specifically excluded them; they were not granted any citizenship until 1924.
Posted by: Tom Servo

Shouldn't the Ark ruling then have overturned that portion of the 14th that excluded the Indians? Did anyone bring that up at the time?

Posted by: Bulg at April 18, 2025 02:31 PM (77rzZ)

257 I have always wondered a bit at why such a diverse country like Mexico never broke into separate states in the same sort of way.
Posted by: Kindltot

They did, kinda. Republic of California, Yucatan almost became a US state....

Posted by: El Mikloso de Yucatan at April 18, 2025 02:32 PM (UOzvC)

258 Trump should declare that the only place in the US where a person is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is reservations.

-

oooh, I like the way you think.
Posted by: Boron Cobbie - Are you honest enough to acknowledge Darwin disproved evolution? at April 18, 2025 02:30 PM (rlK7S)

And turn Puerto Rico into the reservation.

Posted by: The Knaack at April 18, 2025 02:32 PM (8zz6B)

259 first time I ever heard it in Spanish was in a Mexico City market.
Simon Bolivar wrote his Letter from Jamaica with its prescient view of the Americas, and he predicted the central American Republic's break up, but I have always wondered a bit at why such a diverse country like Mexico never broke into separate states in the same sort of way.
Posted by: Kindltot
----------
More like a bad imitation of the Chinese. Warlordism then regrouping and recentralization leading eventually to warlordism again. Time cycle appears to be shorter though. Arguably, given the power of cartels in Mexico, they are in the warlordism phase again with the president ruling only in Mexico City.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:32 PM (ctrM5)

260 Stubby Kaye rocked that number.
Posted by: Bulg

The ladies call me "Stubby" for a reason.
Posted by: Stubby Kaye

Because the water was cold.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 18, 2025 02:32 PM (/iLcI)

261 Not just construction employers, unions (halls, apprentice programs, etc.) would have to be raided too. And law firms. City halls. Hospitals. Schools. Government, if fact, hunt through the SES.

And what's going on with the DACAs? It's been years and there must be many children born from the originally designated groups.

Posted by: Joe Biden is a dope at April 18, 2025 02:32 PM (NFX2v)

262 That was under deconstruction since outsourcing began and, of course, the rise of the DoE.
Posted by: Night lifted.... at April 18, 2025 02:22 PM (FZn/N)

It started in 1954 when the monstrous Warren Court decided people had just been misreading the 14th Amendment for the last 90 years, and that these little sparks of the divine needed an opportunity to stab white kids in the heart. Because equality. (Communism.)

It’s a direct line from that to the rise of the welfare state, “disparate impact” (because if anything results in inequality of outcome it must be a violation of the 14th Amendment), DEI, and anchor babies.

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at April 18, 2025 02:32 PM (l3YAf)

263
His mother arrived to the court waving his birth certificate and, I guess, SS card. The FL judge said the birth certificate had "water marks" as real. And that she could not save his sorry ass.

Posted by: ChristyBlinkyTheGreat

==============

I don't follow. If she dropped the kid in the US, he's a citizen. And the judge acknowledged the validity of the birth certificate?

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 02:32 PM (M4PBL)

264 >>> 254 JUST IN: The father of Austin Metcalf, who was slain by Karmelo Anthony, was SWATTED last night in Texas

This occurred just hours after Karmelo's "spokesman" disparaged Mr. Metcalf at a press conference
Posted by: Don Black at April 18, 2025 02:31 PM (AOsQT)

Hmm, doesn't make it look *less* likely that the derp clown state is messing around here...

Posted by: Helena Handbasket at April 18, 2025 02:33 PM (Vqx30)

265 Is the power back on in Puerto Rico yet?

Posted by: Von Hollen at April 18, 2025 02:33 PM (0fMex)

266 112. No. just the women, which includes the Chinese who come here to push out a puppy and go home.
Posted by: Night lifted.

Sigh.

Posted by: Joe Biden is a dope at April 18, 2025 02:34 PM (NFX2v)

267 I have based all of my interactions with repair people, roofers, etc on if they speak English. If not, I brand them illegal. Now I wish I had a real red hot brand like for cattle, as this just occured to me to speed up deportations!

I once had an entire conversation on our front porch with a guy, working on pipes in the common area, using his phone to translate what I said to his supervisor. I was wanting to know how much digging they were going to do to my front lawn. I can look fierce and he was a small guy.

I should whip out my ILLEGAL stamp for their foreheads as they won't be able to read it anyway.

To assimilate and become a US citizen you have to read and speak English and pass the test. Not just arrive over the border and claim our soil as your own. Nor our benefits from popping a cartel baby out of your nethers.

Posted by: ChristyBlinkyTheGreat at April 18, 2025 02:34 PM (6PCLE)

268 JUST IN: The father of Austin Metcalf, who was slain by Karmelo Anthony, was SWATTED last night in Texas

This occurred just hours after Karmelo’s “spokesman” disparaged Mr. Metcalf at a press conference
Posted by: Don Black at April 18, 2025 02:31 PM (AOsQT)

It'd be a damned shame if the Anthony family got swatted in their new digs, eh? And those ghetto trash are just the sort to open the door with a gin in hand, too...

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at April 18, 2025 02:34 PM (8zz6B)

269 Is anyone else surprised at this number of countries that permit anchor babies? I really am. I thought the US was the #1 Su!cide Pact nation.
Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 01:57 PM (M4PBL)

Yeah but look at those countries. Probably not a lot of takers! 3rd world shit holes.

Posted by: haffhowershower at April 18, 2025 02:35 PM (144I4)

270 I have always wondered a bit at why such a diverse country like Mexico never broke into separate states in the same sort of way.
Posted by: Kindltot
_____

It has, except they call them cartels instead of states.

Posted by: Biff Pocoroba at April 18, 2025 02:35 PM (UBKzV)

271 Shouldn't the Ark ruling then have overturned that portion of the 14th that excluded the Indians? Did anyone bring that up at the time?
Posted by: Bulg
---------
Justice Gray did a bad tapdance to distinguish the case from non taxed Indians aka Indians living on reservations who do not pay federal taxes when living and working on it. But the court's poorly worded and supported decision was essentially because Wong Ark Kim's parents were here legally under federal immigration laws at the time and then Wong Ark was born here, he is a citizen.

The fact that Wong Ark Kim's parents were here legally in the first place under congressional laws is close enough to meet the definition of subject to the jurisdiction thereof and thus that applied to their child.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:35 PM (ctrM5)

272 >>And those ghetto trash are just the sort to open the door with a gin in hand, too...

Doesn't matter if that was a typo, still works.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 18, 2025 02:35 PM (viF8m)

273 My brother was born in France in 1956 while my father was a student at the Sorbonne (my Father was a native born American). When my brother returned to France in 1978 he immediately renounced his French citizenship because the practice in France, at least for adult males, if you claim citizenship by birth, you are immediately inducted into the Foreign Legion to serve your duty to la belle France. The Legion is a tough outfit, and you better have a passable understanding of French which my brother did not have. Amusingly, I had been spending that summer studying French in France in a program affiliated with the University of Poitiers. I was actually thinking in French by the end of that summer, but I had been born back in the good old USA so there was never an issue like that for me. My brother is pretty good in Spanish and Russian but has no French.

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at April 18, 2025 02:36 PM (g/Chl)

274 Why would it have to say "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" if diplomats were already specifically excluded?

So that's were we need to go:
Demand they name one class of people--any at all--that enter and are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice

I recall that during naturalization procedures they are very clear that unless you shiny new US Citizens formally (i.e.: with paperwork) do not renounce your foreign citizenship if your home country demands your return your ass is going as they still have jusirdiction over you (such as their draft).

Some words and terms are unremarkable in their meaning until suddenly nobody knows what they ever meant.

Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at April 18, 2025 02:36 PM (/lPRQ)

275 And those ghetto trash are just the sort to open the door with a gin in hand, too...
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon

And tonic.

Don't forget the tonic and lime.

Posted by: Miklos with pinky extended at April 18, 2025 02:36 PM (UOzvC)

276 >>And those ghetto trash are just the sort to open the door with a gin in hand, too...

Doesn't matter if that was a typo, still works.
Posted by: JackStraw at April 18, 2025 02:35 PM (viF8m)

Thought the same thing.

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at April 18, 2025 02:36 PM (l3YAf)

277 And those ghetto trash are just the sort to open the door with a gin in hand, too...
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon

-

The best part is that this isn't necessarily a typo

Posted by: Boron Cobbie - Are you honest enough to acknowledge Darwin disproved evolution? at April 18, 2025 02:37 PM (rlK7S)

278 Foreign ambassadors and their children. That’s about it.
---
And they can still be arrested.
Depending on the crime, we may waive prosecution and/or expel them.

But: Imagine an ambassador rapes and murders a child.

You think any President is going to allow him to go back home to Iran?

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 18, 2025 02:37 PM (11WUE)

279 Citizenship for Indians wasn’t clarified until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, and I bring that up because I believe that is the precedent, and the model, for how birthright citizenship under the 14th should be addressed. A bill passed by Congress with the Presidents signature, specifying and clarifying citizenship status.

Posted by: Tom Servo at April 18, 2025 02:37 PM (ZEzFB)

280
I was actually thinking in French by the end of that summer, but I had been born back in the good old USA so there was never an issue like that for me. My brother is pretty good in Spanish and Russian but has no French.
Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit

===============

I've learned and forgotten five languages. I hate the way that happens.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 02:38 PM (M4PBL)

281 Leeeeeeeroy Jenkinnnns!!!

Posted by: Mudshark at April 18, 2025 02:38 PM (M8TvI)

282 I've learned and forgotten five languages. I hate the way that happens.
Posted by: Blonde Morticia

En is, basz Meg.

Posted by: Moderately Magyar Miklos at April 18, 2025 02:39 PM (UOzvC)

283 Hennessy.

Posted by: Boss Moss at April 18, 2025 02:39 PM (0fMex)

284 Before we had the character limit I'm pretty certain I competed with both you and rhomboid for length if not breadth. The main difference being people just skipped mine.
Posted by: ...
=======
Well, they fell asleep on mine so I guess we both provided the folks what they wanted.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:39 PM (ctrM5)

285 But: Imagine an ambassador rapes and murders a child.

You think any President is going to allow him to go back home to Iran?
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 18, 2025 02:37 PM (11WUE)

Well there’s the gap between practicality and legality. The host country has to decide if they want to start a war with the US over one idiots actions.

Posted by: Tom Servo at April 18, 2025 02:40 PM (ZEzFB)

286 And what's going on with the DACAs? It's been years and there must be many children born from the originally designated groups.

Posted by: Joe Biden is a dope at April 18, 2025 02:32 PM (NFX2v)

Every time a judge said DACA was illegal Obama/Biden just shrugged and kept going.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at April 18, 2025 02:40 PM (DKKgv)

287 Well, they fell asleep on mine so I guess we both provided the folks what they wanted.
Posted by: whig

So that's what the Social Security Administration land whale was reading at her desk.

MURDERER

Posted by: Miklos to and over conclusions at April 18, 2025 02:40 PM (UOzvC)

288 And those ghetto trash are just the sort to open the door with a gin in hand, too...

Doesn't matter if that was a typo, still works.
Posted by: JackStraw

Yeah. A Colt .45

Posted by: rickb223 at April 18, 2025 02:40 PM (/iLcI)

289 264 >>> 254 JUST IN: The father of Austin Metcalf, who was slain by Karmelo Anthony, was SWATTED last night in Texas

This occurred just hours after Karmelo's "spokesman" disparaged Mr. Metcalf at a press conference
Posted by: Don Black at April 18, 2025 02:31 PM (AOsQT)

Hmm, doesn't make it look *less* likely that the derp clown state is messing around here...
Posted by: Helena Handbasket at April 18, 2025 02:33 PM (Vqx30)

Not a lawyer, but I was thinking about Ace's post about this yesterday. If I were Anthony's lawyer, I know that there's no way that my client doesn't fry with a jury picked from the district - it's not in dispute that there are witnesses that saw the 1st degree murder take place. My only chance to win would be to change the venue. Looked at that way, everything that the family is doing now makes sense in that light. It's not like the TX media is going out of their way to publicize these shenanigans.

Posted by: Darrell Harris at April 18, 2025 02:40 PM (7w+5t)

290 Trump DOT takes over the renovation of Penn Station in NY because. the NY MTA is a grifting incompetent clown show. I didn't know Amtrak owns NY Penn Station. Rename it MAGA Station.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at April 18, 2025 02:40 PM (/U5Yz)

291 En is, basz Meg.

Posted by: Moderately Magyar Miklos at April 18, 2025 02:39 PM (UOzvC)

Nagyon egyezek veled.

Posted by: Chairborne!...Desk From Above! at April 18, 2025 02:40 PM (aaRct)

292
But: Imagine an ambassador rapes and murders a child.

You think any President is going to allow him to go back home to Iran?
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice

===============

Americans have been mugged and assaulted with impunity by foreign diplomats or their kids. There was an attempt in Congress to change the laws about that many years ago, in which Teddy Kennedy argued for the diplomats.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 02:41 PM (M4PBL)

293 I met up with my brother at the end of the summer in 1978. We went on a whirlwind tour of Europe together. I remember my brother chiding me for calling the waiter “garçon” because I was calling him “boy”. Well yes, but that is the word you use, at least if your waiter is male, no matter what his age.

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at April 18, 2025 02:42 PM (g/Chl)

294 279 Citizenship for Indians wasn’t clarified until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, and I bring that up because I believe that is the precedent, and the model, for how birthright citizenship under the 14th should be addressed. A bill passed by Congress with the Presidents signature, specifying and clarifying citizenship status.
Posted by: Tom Servo
==========
Which by doing so in the federal government, Congress is asserting jurisdiction over them (the legal right to make rules for that class and to have courts consider that class as having standing to argue about issues affecting them as citizens).

The most power that Congress has over the courts is both jurisdiction (see Marbury as well as Ex Parte McCardle) and spending such as creating new courts. Far easier to do either than impeachment.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:42 PM (ctrM5)

295 Nagyon egyezek veled.
Posted by: Chairborne!...Desk

>>>THIS GUY GETS IT<<<

Posted by: Agreeable Miklos at April 18, 2025 02:42 PM (UOzvC)

296 49 21 It will largely hinge on the DOJ lawyers coming up with a workable regime, otherwise SCOTUS is going to say the 14th grants anyone borne on US soil citizenship and that Congress is free to update the laws and or constitution.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at April 18, 2025 01:26 PM (XV/Pl)

=======
"A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States,"

According to the original decision, they have to live here, have a permanent residence, and be working.
So, even giving Ark all justice in the world, it doesn't say, "cross the border and pop out kids".
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, looking for laughs with Ivan Reitman at April 18, 2025 01:35 PM (GBKbO
You would think that by now that Manchurian Justice Amy Coney Island Barrett and Squish Roberts --along with the female Marxist Bloc of SCOTUS-- only issue Constitution- based opinions by accident.

Posted by: Beyond Norman Parameters at April 18, 2025 02:42 PM (TSCL1)

297 As of 2025, 33 countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

I don't see one European country on the list, but maybe I just skimmed it too fast.
Posted by: SpeakingOf at April 18, 2025 01:29 PM (6ydKt)

Jus Soli - right of soil
Jus Sanguinis - right of blood
Jus Penguinis - well, it's self explantory

Posted by: haffhowershower at April 18, 2025 02:42 PM (144I4)

298 >> I was actually thinking in French by the end of that summer

Like how to surrender without a fight? Or how to measure things using gay communism units?

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at April 18, 2025 02:42 PM (l3YAf)

299 I don't follow. If she dropped the kid in the US, he's a citizen. And the judge acknowledged the validity of the birth certificate?
Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 02:32 PM (M4PBL)

I am trying to figure out how you match someone who was born in the US, and spent his entire life in Mexico to a birth certificate and SSN without either a chain of custody or biometric data.

Posted by: Kindltot at April 18, 2025 02:42 PM (D7oie)

300 And they can still be arrested.
Depending on the crime, we may waive prosecution and/or expel them.

But: Imagine an ambassador rapes and murders a child.

You think any President is going to allow him to go back home to Iran?
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice

Depends on the presidential party in power.

Biden or Obola? Hell yes they would.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 18, 2025 02:43 PM (/iLcI)

301 I am concerned about the thing.

Posted by: Don Black at April 18, 2025 02:03 PM (AOsQT)

Your concern concerns me.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at April 18, 2025 02:05 PM

I think it should concern all of us.

*snaps on sunglasses*

Yaaaaaah

Posted by: Horatio Caine at April 18, 2025 02:43 PM (jc0TO)

302 295 Nagyon egyezek veled.
Posted by: Chairborne!...Desk

>>>THIS GUY GETS IT
Posted by: Agreeable Miklos at April 18, 2025 02:42 PM (UOzvC)

I don't get it.

- not TJM

Posted by: Darrell Harris at April 18, 2025 02:43 PM (7w+5t)

303 I don't follow. If she dropped the kid in the US, he's a citizen. And the judge acknowledged the validity of the birth certificate?
Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 02:32 PM (M4PBL)

He may have a birth certificate, maybe a real one vs forged, but he does not speak a word of English and ICE determined he was illegal. That was what the story said.

If I arrived in Italy to have a baby and then go back to the USA, perhaps son's birth certificate would read Italian. However, if my kid was raised in America and I am American I guess it is dual citizenship?

Whether or not he is in a gang I don't know. It may be a muddy deal to see through. However, between the dramatic glamour shot of Mama and it being Yahoo, there were a lot of gaps in the story.

Basically, in my opinion, if he spent most of his life in Mexico and can't speak a word of English, he is an anchor baby born here for our benefits. They did not stay.

Which is different from families who do. Why, after 20-30yrs they don't become legal citizens is a mystery. Still speak their native tongue and many don't bother to learn ours. Maybe they were criminals. Former DUI's are common with them here killing Americans.

Posted by: ChristyBlinkyTheGreat at April 18, 2025 02:43 PM (6PCLE)

304 Probably Tequila.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at April 18, 2025 02:43 PM (63Dwl)

305 My only chance to win would be to change the venue
-

Worked for me.
- OJ

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at April 18, 2025 02:44 PM (DKKgv)

306 Nood.

Weird Science.

Posted by: Darrell Harris at April 18, 2025 02:45 PM (7w+5t)

307 I really agree with you.

Posted by: Joe Biden is a dope at April 18, 2025 02:45 PM (NFX2v)

308 I don't get it.

- not TJM
Posted by: Darrell Harris

TJM is off for a week.

You can pick up some slack.

Posted by: Regional Manager Miklos at April 18, 2025 02:46 PM (UOzvC)

309 But: Imagine an ambassador rapes and murders a child.

You think any President is going to allow him to go back home to Iran?
______

Hmm. I can think of a couple.

Posted by: Chuck Martel at April 18, 2025 02:46 PM (Dv3i1)

310
If I arrived in Italy to have a baby and then go back to the USA, perhaps son's birth certificate would read Italian. However, if my kid was raised in America and I am American I guess it is dual citizenship?

—

Doesn’t matter what language the kids speaks or where he is raised. You as an American citizen give birth to a kid. That kid is a citizen as well. It’s why the Obama birth certificate thing was so dumb. Even if he was born in Kenya he’d still be a natural born citizen given his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at April 18, 2025 02:46 PM (DKKgv)

311
I am trying to figure out how you match someone who was born in the US, and spent his entire life in Mexico to a birth certificate and SSN without either a chain of custody or biometric data.
Posted by: Kindltot

==============

I don't know how you would either, but people do such things routinely. I knew people abroad who deliberately went to America pregnant and came back with a citizen who wouldn't go back to America until he or she was in their early 20s.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 02:46 PM (M4PBL)

312 Not a lawyer, but I was thinking about Ace's post about this yesterday. If I were Anthony's lawyer, I know that there's no way that my client doesn't fry with a jury picked from the district - it's not in dispute that there are witnesses that saw the 1st degree murder take place. My only chance to win would be to change the venue. Looked at that way, everything that the family is doing now makes sense in that light. It's not like the TX media is going out of their way to publicize these shenanigans.
Posted by: Darrell Harris
-------
The problem for Anthony is relocation to a urban hellhole jurisdiction is unlikely. Just as likely the trial would be held in a rural Texan court. Up to judge anyway and likely to be dismissed by the trial judge.

Awhile back, we had a prisoner takeover the courtroom and shoot people live on video so no way to dispute someone else did it. He got a change of venue but it was to a rural region where he was promptly convicted after a very expensive trial. About bankrupted the state's public defender fund because of it.

Defendants do not get to pick venue, court does it.

Posted by: whig at April 18, 2025 02:47 PM (ctrM5)

313 And those ghetto trash are just the sort to open the door with a gin in hand, too...
-----
Doesn't matter if that was a typo, still works.
Posted by: JackStraw
-----
Yeah. A Colt .45
Posted by: rickb223
-----
That's malt liquor, not gin....

Posted by: BifBewalski at April 18, 2025 02:47 PM (MsrgL)

314 You don’t need an SSN to be a citizen.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at April 18, 2025 02:47 PM (DKKgv)

315 Jus Penguinis - well, it's self explantory
Posted by: haffhowershower at April 18, 2025 02:42 PM (144I4)

Penguins au Jus is disgusting. You really want a tomato based sauce instead.

Posted by: Kindltot at April 18, 2025 02:48 PM (D7oie)

316 And they can still be arrested.
Depending on the crime, we may waive prosecution and/or expel them.

But: Imagine an ambassador rapes and murders a child.

You think any President is going to allow him to go back home to Iran?
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice

Depends on the presidential party in power.

Biden or Obola? Hell yes they would.
Posted by: rickb223
====

And take these pallets of unmarked $100 bills with you too!

Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at April 18, 2025 02:49 PM (/lPRQ)

317 DACA was a path to citizenship and was temorary, like green cards, I think.

Many did not bother to learn English nor become US citizens.

Obungo and company ignored the "temporary" status in their welcoming them in the USA but not Martha's Vineyard.

Posted by: ChristyBlinkyTheGreat at April 18, 2025 02:49 PM (6PCLE)

318 Doesn’t matter what language the kids speaks or where he is raised. You as an American citizen give birth to a kid. That kid is a citizen as well. It’s why the Obama birth certificate thing was so dumb. Even if he was born in Kenya he’d still be a natural born citizen given his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald

Akshully... You still had to have the kid naturalized as a US Citizen. Best do it soon otherwise all you have is a foreign birth certificate.
/ They did change these laws recently... But still advised that the cert of birth abroad be applied for at the nearest embassy.

Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at April 18, 2025 02:53 PM (/lPRQ)

319 Doesn’t matter what language the kids speaks or where he is raised. You as an American citizen give birth to a kid. That kid is a citizen as well. It’s why the Obama birth certificate thing was so dumb. Even if he was born in Kenya he’d still be a natural born citizen given his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at April 18, 2025 02:46 PM (DKKgv)

Mother is Mexican and not a US citizen in the Yahoo story. She popped out the kid (I almost wrote pooped out by accident, which could be true as well) in Georgia to return to Mexico after his birth. At age 20 or so he retuned here illegally.

The story does not mention why he returned. But ICE is going to deport him back to his homeland from FL.

I have no doubt immigration lawyers are involved and put this sob story out for sympathy. Commenters mourned. I did not comment nor mourn as he had a former DUI, was driving on a suspended license, and I have seen people injured or dead because of their illegal status when working in an ED.

Posted by: ChristyBlinkyTheGreat at April 18, 2025 02:54 PM (6PCLE)

320 My homepage is chock-full of bewildered grad students, teachers, and doctors who "had a speeding ticket seven years ago that was dismissed" but they just got the dread notice that their visa has been yanked. WHAT is the rest of the story?
Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 18, 2025 02:23 PM

I would ask your students if they have been attending any rally's protesting for Palestine or any anti Israeli activists. I know there is a tech group on X that can track mobile devices. The group has info of Antica Ops, BLM protests and Pro Palatine protests.
this might be part of the reason.
i feel bad for the students really but a National Emergency has been declared on the subject of immigration.
(M4PBL)

Yes Visa's are being revoked for minor infractions of the law.Yes is is sad and maybe considered collateral damage maybe.

Rubio says U.S has revoked hundreds of visas as Trump administration clamps down on foreign student activists.
https://tinyurl.com/4zmm5y35

I see the conflict You're referring to yes. I posted a little info.
Visa cancellations sow panic for international students
https://tinyurl.com/2kny3u4j

Posted by: I was Gumby Damn It! now I'm not at April 18, 2025 03:02 PM (r3F/z)

321 While they'll hear the case, we already know the outcome. The 5 leftist judges will rule it unconstitutional, while writing a ruling that wouldn't pass a 3rd grade exam, using completely flawed logic and made up laws. On the otherhand the dissent will be 12,000 pages of researched case law that shows how birthright citizenship should be ended.

The illegals on the trains in NYC already are packed with 8 children ages 1 month to 5 years (Sadly not an exaggeration, i see this basically every day on my way to and from work) so we should expect them to start popping out more and more "citizens" who will immediately boost their welfare earnings.

Posted by: Rbastid at April 18, 2025 03:03 PM (EqkVi)

322 Oh, I can use the gay communist units since I was trained as a physicist. I can use SI or cgs or even British units. I hated when the curriculum at my university gave up on teaching both British and metric. But I know by experience that the students are less and less intellectually able yeah by year, on the average. There are exceptions. I remember one girl came to us and finished her undergraduate degree in two years and went on to to earn dual PhDs in maths (as she put it) and physics at Trinity in Dublin (I suggested to her to apply to Trinity which worked out very well for her). Her mother was Irish IIRC.

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at April 18, 2025 03:06 PM (g/Chl)

323
A sheriff who takes no shite
https://tinyurl.com/yxsere4k

In the case of the Mexican anchor baby, now free, bless his heart. Did he present the birth certificate at the border legally, or just walk over four years ago? That might have saved him some trouble, other than his suspended driver's license.
https://tinyurl.com/59mzmwt8

Commenters and supporters who fear Hitler now think these innocents are being targeted by their tattoos. Like the Latin King tattoo. These bastards from Memphis burned a MS girl alive a few years ago with the same tats. I shed not one tear for any of them.

Posted by: ChristyBlinkyTheGreat at April 18, 2025 03:17 PM (6PCLE)

324 You might be interested in the units theoretical physicists use. For example, in special relativity it’s fun to us units such that the speed of light, c, is one distance unit per time units, so 1 light year per year, or to use smaller units the distance light travels in one nanosecond (about 30 cm or near enough one foot) over one nanosecond. Makes the light cone have a 45 degree angle, and keeps all the formulas simpler (you have to put back in all the factors of c if you want to do engineering with it, of course. Unless they cancel). Anyway, depending on the area of physics, you can play this game with all the units so you get to a bunch of equations that look dimensionless, but really aren’t. Much easier to work with, though.

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at April 18, 2025 03:25 PM (g/Chl)

325 Roberts and Barrett will reliably disappoint.

Posted by: Occasional Commenter at April 18, 2025 03:26 PM (MV++E)

326 ))))) Do you want to find a woman for one night? Go to -- Hot4.eu

Posted by: Cordella at April 18, 2025 07:40 PM (vJYB+)

Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0625 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0145 seconds, 334 records returned.
Page size 198 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.