Sam Lowry said:

---

Trump's executive order is so blatantly unconstitutional you can't even be mad at it. It's just plain funny.

---

Not particularly funny.
Many countries have similar restrictions.

But in today's cultural climate, I can't see the Supreme Court allowing Trumps EO to stand.

Redbrickbear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Quote:

---

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

---

Birthright citizenship was clearly for people here legally. The left always leaves that part out. Don't let the slick progressives convince you of a false narrative. There's absolutely no reason "under the constitution" that we need extend birthright citizenship to illegals.

Quote:

---

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.

The amendment was primarily aimed at granting citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to formerly enslaved people following the Civil War.

---

---

Absolutely right

Its why remembering History accurately is so important

And why its dangerous to let the Left and Liberals dominate our History departments and Universities

The 14th Amendment was about making sure Black Americans who had been living here for hundreds of years got citizenship...........no Congressman or Court at the time ever envisioned it would mean millions of foreign people could get citizenship

Nor could they have imagined air travel and the fact a pregnant woman could get to the USA in a matter of a few hours and have kid here to gain citizenship.

---

Years ago, in. El Paso Texas hospitals , in was common for pregnant women from Mexico to wait till the last possible minute….then go to the emergency rooms to have their babies delivered.

That way the baby got US citizenship, at the expense of US taxpayers.

Do not know if such practices are still allowed today.

I would propose that Congress put forth the 28th amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship unless one or both parents are citizens.

I don't say that lightly. I have amazing respect for the Constitution. In the 200+ years of this living document, we've only had 27 changes/amendments. To put into perspective, Texas has 530 amendments to her constitution.

The sad thing is, in today's politicized society, I seriously doubt that the proposed amendment could get the necessary 2/3's vote from Congress. The amount of political, backroom deal-making required to push this across would be staggering.

Republicans would have one shot before the 2026 election.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Quote:

---

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

---

Birthright citizenship was clearly for people here legally. The left always leaves that part out. Don't let the slick progressives convince you of a false narrative. There's absolutely no reason "under the constitution" that we need extend birthright citizenship to illegals. Doing so is/was at the country's prerogative. It doesn't need to continue, the constitution is quite clear on the matter. Unfortunately, liberal and globalist wordsmiths and lawyers want to pretend otherwise.

And for the idiots who want to argue the fact, just know it originally didn't apply to Indians because they were not considered part of the US until much much later. The intention is clear to anyone that is objective.

Quote:

---

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.

The amendment was primarily aimed at granting citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to formerly enslaved people following the Civil War. However, it originally excluded Native Americans from citizenship2. The phrase "excluding Indians not taxed" was included in the amendment, meaning that Native Americans who were not subject to federal taxes were not considered citizens.

---

---

while I agree with you on the intent. I am a stickler for the letter of the law. I do not believe the constitution is a living, breathing document to be interpreted for the current times.

If you want a better law, write a better law. If you want a better amendment, write a better amendment (and pass it)

Being a strict constitutionalist sometimes has its drawbacks

""It may well be stupid, but if it's stupid, pass a law!" he said. "Don't think the originalist interpretation constrains you. To the contrary. My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You want a right to abortion? Create it the way all rights are created in a democracy, pass a law. The death penalty? Pass a law. That's flexibility."

He suggested that the notion of flexibility among those who support interpretation of a "living Constitution" is an illusion.

"They want rigidity," Scalia said. "They want the whole country to do it their way from coast to coast. They want to drive one issue after another off the stage of political debate Every time you insert into the Constitution - by speculation - new rights that aren't really there you are impoverishing democracy. You are pushing one issue after another off the democratic stage.""
Antonin Scalia

The Court will decide, as is our system.

Elections have consequences. - BHO

GrowlTowel said:

---

The Court will decide, as is our system.

Elections have consequences. - BHO

---

Yep the courts will decide, but it is absolutely clear what the intent was at the time it was first done.

UNDER THE JURISDICTION

super clear in context, applied to those legally here

We will know the SCOTUS decision by who is howling in rage.

For sure there will be gnashing of teeth when that decision comes out, and a decent chance it gets leaked from recent history.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Trump's executive order is so blatantly unconstitutional you can't even be mad at it. It's just plain funny.

---

Not particularly funny.
Many countries have similar restrictions.

But in today's cultural climate, I can't see the Supreme Court allowing Trumps EO to stand.

---

Most EOs are inadequate by themselves. Congress needs to pass the appropriate legislation to clarify and fix this gross injustice, and many others. A well crafted has the potential to spur such a development. We shall see if this happens.

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Trump's executive order is so blatantly unconstitutional you can't even be mad at it. It's just plain funny.

---

Not particularly funny.
Many countries have similar restrictions.

But in today's cultural climate, I can't see the Supreme Court allowing Trumps EO to stand.

---

Most EOs are inadequate by themselves. Congress needs to pass the appropriate legislation to clarify and fix this gross injustice, and many others. A well crafted has the potential to spur such a development. We shall see if this happens.

---

I know most of us can't imagine the supreme court upholding the constitution when it contradicts the globalist agenda and programming we've all had since we were young.

But the truth is, it's clear by contextual history and wording that it was meant for people under the jurisdiction of the US. Illegal aliens sure don't qualify. This should be a slam dunk, but Ivy League justices have typically been known to side with the globalist agenda.

It is a fantasy EO because no court has interpreted it that way, ever. The phrase was intended to apply to foreign diplomats, and in a theoretical scenario, even the children of foreign troops occupying our country.

Nobody has forgotten about the phrase except Republicans, who didn't know what it meant, and still don't, apparently.

If the states want to modify the Amendment to be what Trump wants, that is one thing, but it is a hail Mary attempt at best to try to do it by executive order.

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Trump's executive order is so blatantly unconstitutional you can't even be mad at it. It's just plain funny.

---

Not particularly funny.
Many countries have similar restrictions.

But in today's cultural climate, I can't see the Supreme Court allowing Trumps EO to stand.

---

Most EOs are inadequate by themselves. Congress needs to pass the appropriate legislation to clarify and fix this gross injustice, and many others. A well crafted has the potential to spur such a development. We shall see if this happens.

---

Congress has become almost completely incapable of passing any meaningful legislation.

The Feferal Courts and President Executive Orfers are filling in the void.

Porteroso said:

---

It is a fantasy EO because no court has interpreted it that way, ever. The phrase was intended to apply to foreign diplomats, and in a theoretical scenario, even the children of foreign troops occupying our country.

Nobody has forgotten about the phrase except Republicans, who didn't know what it meant, and still don't, apparently.

If the states want to modify the Amendment to be what Trump wants, that is one thing, but it is a hail Mary attempt at best to try to do it by executive order.

---

This is just wrong. The amendment was certainly using immigration laws since 1790 as its contextual basis. The US did not extend citizenship to illegal aliens then and shouldnt now. It's absolutely illogical, unless you are on the side of the globalists. Granting birthright citizenship is a prerogative of the US, not a constitutional mandate.

There is zero percent chance the authors of the 14th Amendment believed Russian women should be able to fly over, give birth, and have a U.S. citizen baby.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

There is zero percent chance the authors of the 14th Amendment believed Russian women should be able to fly over, give birth, and have a U.S. citizen baby.

---

False. Citizenship was through the *legal* citizenship of the father at some point before the 14th. So while they may not have known planes, they knew boats.

Illegal aliens birthright constitutionality is a fiction. Unfortunately a bunch of Ivy Leaguers will decide this and our congress won't do squat.
Only option is for ICE to be hugely aggressive.

Porteroso said:

---

It is a fantasy EO because no court has interpreted it that way, ever. The phrase was intended to apply to foreign diplomats, and in a theoretical scenario, even the children of foreign troops occupying our country.

Nobody has forgotten about the phrase except Republicans, who didn't know what it meant, and still don't, apparently..

---

The why did it not apply to Indians born in the USA?

Why did Congress have to pass a Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 to address that issue?

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Trump's executive order is so blatantly unconstitutional you can't even be mad at it. It's just plain funny.

---

Not particularly funny.
Many countries have similar restrictions.

But in today's cultural climate, I can't see the Supreme Court allowing Trumps EO to stand.

---

Most EOs are inadequate by themselves. Congress needs to pass the appropriate legislation to clarify and fix this gross injustice, and many others. A well crafted has the potential to spur such a development. We shall see if this happens.

---

I know most of us can't imagine the supreme court upholding the constitution when it contradicts the globalist agenda and programming we've all had since we were young.

But the truth is, it's clear by contextual history and wording that it was meant for people under the jurisdiction of the US. Illegal aliens sure don't qualify. This should be a slam dunk, but Ivy League justices have typically been known to side with the globalist agenda.

---

For decades that has been true. Lately, not so much.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

It is a fantasy EO because no court has interpreted it that way, ever. The phrase was intended to apply to foreign diplomats, and in a theoretical scenario, even the children of foreign troops occupying our country.

Nobody has forgotten about the phrase except Republicans, who didn't know what it meant, and still don't, apparently..

---

The why did it not apply to Indians born in the USA?

Why did Congress have to pass a Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 to address that issue?

---

Native Americans have always been treated differently. They have some measure of sovereignty in the US.

Here is a great list of Supreme Court rulings on the issue. The most relevant is United States v Wong Kim Ark. (1898)

https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html

Quote:

---

"The Fourteen Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory . . . . The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate [while in the United States and] . . . 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;' and his child . . . 'is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'"

****

"To hold that the Fourteen Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States."

---

Same page

Quote:

---

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...

---

Regarding your post,

I mean we've already admitted that the ivy league judges will support your take, but it is not the slam dunk you want it to be. It's an "interpretation" with loose reasoning. It certainly was not meant to be the law of the land when it was framed.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Same page

Quote:

---

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...

---

Regarding your post,

I mean we've already admitted that the ivy league judges will support your take, but it is not the slam dunk you want it to be. It's an "interpretation" with loose reasoning. It certainly was not meant to be the law of the land when it was framed.

---

It is the way it has been since it was challenged in court, so blaming the modern Ivy Leagues is not quite fair.

It is called precedent, not slam dunk, and to overcome 127 years of precedent would be quite difficult on the sole basis of an executive order.

As I said, the EO will not stand. However the States can clarify this either way, if they choose.

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Same page

Quote:

---

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...

---

Regarding your post,

I mean we've already admitted that the ivy league judges will support your take, but it is not the slam dunk you want it to be. It's an "interpretation" with loose reasoning. It certainly was not meant to be the law of the land when it was framed.

---

It is the way it has been since it was challenged in court, so blaming the modern Ivy Leagues is not quite fair.

It is called precedent, not slam dunk, and to overcome 127 years of precedent would be quite difficult on the sole basis of an executive order.

As I said, the EO will not stand. However the States can clarify this either way, if they choose.

---

The precedent that you're claiming of 127 years doesn't really exist. Each of those early cases is different than illegal aliens and birthright citizenship. Did you bother to read what you posted?

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Same page

Quote:

---

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...

---

Regarding your post,

I mean we've already admitted that the ivy league judges will support your take, but it is not the slam dunk you want it to be. It's an "interpretation" with loose reasoning. It certainly was not meant to be the law of the land when it was framed.

---

It is the way it has been since it was challenged in court, so blaming the modern Ivy Leagues is not quite fair.

It is called precedent, not slam dunk, and to overcome 127 years of precedent would be quite difficult on the sole basis of an executive order.

As I said, the EO will not stand. However the States can clarify this either way, if they choose.

---

The precedent that you're claiming of 127 years doesn't really exist. Each of those early cases is different than illegal aliens and birthright citizenship. Did you bother to read what you posted?

---

Yes.

And the precedent does exist, to the best of my knowledge, because all the European illegals got birthright citizenship for their kids. I'm not aware of any missing out on it.

For example, there are no Irish here today without statehood, though many Irish came illegally. And it's not because we deported them.

MAWA

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Same page

Quote:

---

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...

---

Regarding your post,

I mean we've already admitted that the ivy league judges will support your take, but it is not the slam dunk you want it to be. It's an "interpretation" with loose reasoning. It certainly was not meant to be the law of the land when it was framed.

---

It is the way it has been since it was challenged in court, so blaming the modern Ivy Leagues is not quite fair.

It is called precedent, not slam dunk, and to overcome 127 years of precedent would be quite difficult on the sole basis of an executive order.

As I said, the EO will not stand. However the States can clarify this either way, if they choose.

---

The precedent that you're claiming of 127 years doesn't really exist. Each of those early cases is different than illegal aliens and birthright citizenship. Did you bother to read what you posted?

---

Yes.

And the precedent does exist, to the best of my knowledge, because all the European illegals got birthright citizenship for their kids. I'm not aware of any missing out on it.

For example, there are no Irish here today without statehood, though many Irish came illegally. And it's not because we deported them.

---

What are you referring to. What European illegals?

"Europe no longer contains *any* states that offer birthright citizenship"@ryanmcmaken explains why the US and Canada will likely soon join Europe in having no birthright citizenship.

Link… pic.twitter.com/BA8qWWFtfS

— Stephen W. Carson (@RadicalLib) January 26, 2025

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Same page

Quote:

---

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...

---

Regarding your post,

I mean we've already admitted that the ivy league judges will support your take, but it is not the slam dunk you want it to be. It's an "interpretation" with loose reasoning. It certainly was not meant to be the law of the land when it was framed.

---

It is the way it has been since it was challenged in court, so blaming the modern Ivy Leagues is not quite fair.

It is called precedent, not slam dunk, and to overcome 127 years of precedent would be quite difficult on the sole basis of an executive order.

As I said, the EO will not stand. However the States can clarify this either way, if they choose.

---

The precedent that you're claiming of 127 years doesn't really exist. Each of those early cases is different than illegal aliens and birthright citizenship. Did you bother to read what you posted?

---

Yes.

And the precedent does exist, to the best of my knowledge, because all the European illegals got birthright citizenship for their kids. I'm not aware of any missing out on it.

For example, there are no Irish here today without statehood, though many Irish came illegally. And it's not because we deported them.

---

What are you referring to. What European illegals?

---

In the example, all the undocumented Irish that came over during the potato famine. In each wave of European immigration, some of it was undocumented.

While we're waiting for SCOTUS to take care of birthright citizenship, we need to outlaw dual citizenship.

— Jay Fivekiller (@JayFivekiller) January 26, 2025

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Same page

Quote:

---

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...

---

Regarding your post,

I mean we've already admitted that the ivy league judges will support your take, but it is not the slam dunk you want it to be. It's an "interpretation" with loose reasoning. It certainly was not meant to be the law of the land when it was framed.

---

It is the way it has been since it was challenged in court, so blaming the modern Ivy Leagues is not quite fair.

It is called precedent, not slam dunk, and to overcome 127 years of precedent would be quite difficult on the sole basis of an executive order.

As I said, the EO will not stand. However the States can clarify this either way, if they choose.

---

The precedent that you're claiming of 127 years doesn't really exist. Each of those early cases is different than illegal aliens and birthright citizenship. Did you bother to read what you posted?

---

Yes.

And the precedent does exist, to the best of my knowledge, because all the European illegals got birthright citizenship for their kids. I'm not aware of any missing out on it.

For example, there are no Irish here today without statehood, though many Irish came illegally. And it's not because we deported them.

---

What are you referring to. What European illegals?

---

In the example, all the undocumented Irish that came over during the potato famine. In each wave of European immigration, some of it was undocumented.

---

Some came illegally….most came legally

And we are talking small numbers compared with the 10 million or so who entered the country in the last 4 years

[It is estimated that as many as 4.5 million Irish arrived in America between 1820 and 1930.]

In 100 years of mass Irish immigration we did not even have 5 million enter….we beat that number with just 24 months of immigration under Biden

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Same page

Quote:

---

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...

---

Regarding your post,

I mean we've already admitted that the ivy league judges will support your take, but it is not the slam dunk you want it to be. It's an "interpretation" with loose reasoning. It certainly was not meant to be the law of the land when it was framed.

---

It is the way it has been since it was challenged in court, so blaming the modern Ivy Leagues is not quite fair.

It is called precedent, not slam dunk, and to overcome 127 years of precedent would be quite difficult on the sole basis of an executive order.

As I said, the EO will not stand. However the States can clarify this either way, if they choose.

---

The precedent that you're claiming of 127 years doesn't really exist. Each of those early cases is different than illegal aliens and birthright citizenship. Did you bother to read what you posted?

---

Yes.

And the precedent does exist, to the best of my knowledge, because all the European illegals got birthright citizenship for their kids. I'm not aware of any missing out on it.

For example, there are no Irish here today without statehood, though many Irish came illegally. And it's not because we deported them.

---

What are you referring to. What European illegals?

---

In the example, all the undocumented Irish that came over during the potato famine. In each wave of European immigration, some of it was undocumented.

---

Some came illegally….most came legally

And we are talking small numbers compared with the 10 million or so who entered the country in the last 4 years

[It is estimated that as many as 4.5 million Irish arrived in America between 1820 and 1930.]

In 100 years of mass Irish immigration we did not even have 5 million enter….we beat that number with just 24 months of immigration under Biden

---

I'm not talking about how many, but instead whether anyone has ever argued they should not receive birthright citizenship.

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Same page

Quote:

---

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...

---

Regarding your post,

I mean we've already admitted that the ivy league judges will support your take, but it is not the slam dunk you want it to be. It's an "interpretation" with loose reasoning. It certainly was not meant to be the law of the land when it was framed.

---

It is the way it has been since it was challenged in court, so blaming the modern Ivy Leagues is not quite fair.

It is called precedent, not slam dunk, and to overcome 127 years of precedent would be quite difficult on the sole basis of an executive order.

As I said, the EO will not stand. However the States can clarify this either way, if they choose.

---

The precedent that you're claiming of 127 years doesn't really exist. Each of those early cases is different than illegal aliens and birthright citizenship. Did you bother to read what you posted?

---

Yes.

And the precedent does exist, to the best of my knowledge, because all the European illegals got birthright citizenship for their kids. I'm not aware of any missing out on it.

For example, there are no Irish here today without statehood, though many Irish came illegally. And it's not because we deported them.

---

What are you referring to. What European illegals?

---

In the example, all the undocumented Irish that came over during the potato famine. In each wave of European immigration, some of it was undocumented.

---

Some came illegally….most came legally

And we are talking small numbers compared with the 10 million or so who entered the country in the last 4 years

[It is estimated that as many as 4.5 million Irish arrived in America between 1820 and 1930.]

In 100 years of mass Irish immigration we did not even have 5 million enter….we beat that number with just 24 months of immigration under Biden

---

I'm not talking about how many, but instead whether anyone has ever argued they should not receive birthright citizenship.

---

There is a very strong case that the Irish that came illegally should not have been subject to the protections of birthright citizenship

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Trump's executive order is so blatantly unconstitutional you can't even be mad at it. It's just plain funny.

---

Not particularly funny.
Many countries have similar restrictions.

But in today's cultural climate, I can't see the Supreme Court allowing Trumps EO to stand.

---

It's not the restriction that I'm laughing at, it's the idea that illegal immigrants aren't subject to US jurisdiction. If that were true, they couldn't be deported because the immigration courts would have no power over them.