TinFoilHatPreacherBear 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.

---

What's funny is your ability to grasp that you've been misled. It's OK, we get it, as a resident TDSer, your brain reacts poorly to information that goes against your programming.
The constitution and the reason this amendment was created is absolutely clear, it only applies to those who are here legally and viewed as citizens. It's why Indians and diplomats were exempted. You don't have to like it, but it's clear as day. You have to have an agenda to mis interpret it as including illegals.

---

And you want to exempt every illegal immigrant as if they were diplomats...that's what's funny.

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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.

---

Has to do with what we define jurisdiction as

Everyone who is in the USA is subject to the law enforcement power of the government in certain situations.

(Even foreign ambassadors…if they commit murder for instance against an American citizen could be subject to our laws…diplomatic immunity has it's limits)

But does that also mean millions of foreigners are subject to jurisdiction for citizenship purposes?

That is not at all clear and very open to debate

And we need to go back to the writers of the 14th amendment and its history.

Do we really think they intended for the situation today to be the norm?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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.

---

Has to do with what we define jurisdiction as

Everyone who is in the USA is subject to the law enforcement power of the government in certain situations.

(Even foreign ambassadors…if they commit murder for instance against an American citizen could be subject to our laws…diplomatic immunity has it's limits)

But does that also mean millions of foreigners are subject to jurisdiction for citizenship purposes?

That is not at all clear and very open to debate

And we need to go back to the writers of the 14th amendment and its history.

Do we really think they intended for the situation today to be the norm?

---

It's very clear. I'll be shocked if SCOTUS even takes the case.

The drafters knew people could cross borders and have babies. I doubt all of those women KaiBear talked about were utilizing air travel to get to the ER.

Did the drafters know we'd have illegal immigration on the scale we have now? Probably not, but it's up to us to amend the law if we want to.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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.

---

Has to do with what we define jurisdiction as

Everyone who is in the USA is subject to the law enforcement power of the government in certain situations.

(Even foreign ambassadors…if they commit murder for instance against an American citizen could be subject to our laws…diplomatic immunity has it's limits)

But does that also mean millions of foreigners are subject to jurisdiction for citizenship purposes?

That is not at all clear and very open to debate

And we need to go back to the writers of the 14th amendment and its history.

Do we really think they intended for the situation today to be the norm?

---

It's very clear. I'll be shocked if SCOTUS even takes the case.

The drafters knew people could cross borders and have babies. I doubt all of those women KaiBear talked about were utilizing air travel to get to the ER.

Did the drafters know we'd have illegal immigration on the scale we have now? Probably not, but it's up to us to amend the law if we want to.

---

You think that 19th century Republicans (passing the amendment to deal with millions of Blacks and their citizenship status in a post civil war environment) wanted anyone who happened to be here or could get to the USA anytime in the future to get citizenship if they could have a baby on US soil?

I think that is a bold claim….and I don't think it's supported by the Congressional record of the debates about the amendment or the history of the Act itself.

VP VANCE: "[The US] was founded by some immigrants and some settlers — but just because we were founded by immigrants doesn't mean that 240 years later that we have to have the dumbest immigration policy in the world." 🔥 pic.twitter.com/JWSzbiNQMQ

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) January 26, 2025

Courts won't get into the history when the language is plain. In this case there's no ambiguity.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Courts won't get into the history when the language is plain. In this case there's no ambiguity.

---

Agreed

Trump and common sense lose this one.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Courts won't get into the history when the language is plain. In this case there's no ambiguity.

---

Let's have SCOTUS have oral arguments on it and let's hear out the sides.

The language is far from clear that it intended millions of illegals and their children to be given citizenship.

Indeed if the 14th amendment really means that then it makes all immigration laws essentially meaningless….must enter the county and have a kid. It's that simple

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear 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.

---

What's funny is your ability to grasp that you've been misled. It's OK, we get it, as a resident TDSer, your brain reacts poorly to information that goes against your programming.
The constitution and the reason this amendment was created is absolutely clear, it only applies to those who are here legally and viewed as citizens. It's why Indians and diplomats were exempted. You don't have to like it, but it's clear as day. You have to have an agenda to mis interpret it as including illegals.

---

And you want to exempt every illegal immigrant as if they were diplomats...that's what's funny.

---

TDS gets you sometime. The idea of foreign soldiers having kids on US soil was also excluded in their context. Indians were subject to US law while off the reservation, yet they were excluded. Pretty clear that they did not intend for the crap going on today.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear 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.

---

What's funny is your ability to grasp that you've been misled. It's OK, we get it, as a resident TDSer, your brain reacts poorly to information that goes against your programming.
The constitution and the reason this amendment was created is absolutely clear, it only applies to those who are here legally and viewed as citizens. It's why Indians and diplomats were exempted. You don't have to like it, but it's clear as day. You have to have an agenda to mis interpret it as including illegals.

---

And you want to exempt every illegal immigrant as if they were diplomats...that's what's funny.

---

TDS gets you sometime. The idea of foreign soldiers having kids on US soil was also excluded in their context. Indians were subject to US law while off the reservation, yet they were excluded. Pretty clear that they did not intend for the crap going on today.

---

American Indians have been included since the Wong Kim Ark decision.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear 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.

---

What's funny is your ability to grasp that you've been misled. It's OK, we get it, as a resident TDSer, your brain reacts poorly to information that goes against your programming.
The constitution and the reason this amendment was created is absolutely clear, it only applies to those who are here legally and viewed as citizens. It's why Indians and diplomats were exempted. You don't have to like it, but it's clear as day. You have to have an agenda to mis interpret it as including illegals.

---

And you want to exempt every illegal immigrant as if they were diplomats...that's what's funny.

---

TDS gets you sometime. The idea of foreign soldiers having kids on US soil was also excluded in their context. Indians were subject to US law while off the reservation, yet they were excluded. Pretty clear that they did not intend for the crap going on today.

---

American Indians have been included since the Wong Kim Ark decision.

---

Not originally, which shows the intent was not just the free for all you want to claim it to be.

---

Native Americans have always been treated differently for one reason or another. Europeans, including Spanish, were getting birthright citizenship before the 14th Amendment.

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear 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.

---

What's funny is your ability to grasp that you've been misled. It's OK, we get it, as a resident TDSer, your brain reacts poorly to information that goes against your programming.
The constitution and the reason this amendment was created is absolutely clear, it only applies to those who are here legally and viewed as citizens. It's why Indians and diplomats were exempted. You don't have to like it, but it's clear as day. You have to have an agenda to mis interpret it as including illegals.

---

And you want to exempt every illegal immigrant as if they were diplomats...that's what's funny.

---

TDS gets you sometime. The idea of foreign soldiers having kids on US soil was also excluded in their context. Indians were subject to US law while off the reservation, yet they were excluded. Pretty clear that they did not intend for the crap going on today.

---

American Indians have been included since the Wong Kim Ark decision.

---

Not originally, which shows the intent was not just the free for all you want to claim it to be.

---

Native Americans have always been treated differently for one reason or another. Europeans, including Spanish, were getting birthright citizenship before the 14th Amendment.

---

Here are two cases since 2015 in which our federal judiciary decided that birthright citizenship doesn’t even apply to certain US territories like American Samoa. SCOTUS views this as uncontroversial, & its 2022 8-1 decision in US v Vaello Madero points in a similar direction. 🫡 pic.twitter.com/uWNJdnJy8n

— CEBK CEBK (@CEBKCEBKCEBK) January 25, 2025

Even the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which is basically what created the modern conception of birthright citizenship, did not automatically grant citizenship to anyone born w/in US territory. pic.twitter.com/cbWD4EBror

— MyFitnessFeelings (@fitnessfeelingz) January 21, 2025

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear 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.

---

What's funny is your ability to grasp that you've been misled. It's OK, we get it, as a resident TDSer, your brain reacts poorly to information that goes against your programming.
The constitution and the reason this amendment was created is absolutely clear, it only applies to those who are here legally and viewed as citizens. It's why Indians and diplomats were exempted. You don't have to like it, but it's clear as day. You have to have an agenda to mis interpret it as including illegals.

---

And you want to exempt every illegal immigrant as if they were diplomats...that's what's funny.

---

TDS gets you sometime. The idea of foreign soldiers having kids on US soil was also excluded in their context. Indians were subject to US law while off the reservation, yet they were excluded. Pretty clear that they did not intend for the crap going on today.

---

American Indians have been included since the Wong Kim Ark decision.

---

Not originally, which shows the intent was not just the free for all you want to claim it to be.

---

Native Americans have always been treated differently for one reason or another. Europeans, including Spanish, were getting birthright citizenship before the 14th Amendment.

---

Here are two cases since 2015 in which our federal judiciary decided that birthright citizenship doesn’t even apply to certain US territories like American Samoa. SCOTUS views this as uncontroversial, & its 2022 8-1 decision in US v Vaello Madero points in a similar direction. 🫡 pic.twitter.com/uWNJdnJy8n

— CEBK CEBK (@CEBKCEBKCEBK) January 25, 2025

Even the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which is basically what created the modern conception of birthright citizenship, did not automatically grant citizenship to anyone born w/in US territory. pic.twitter.com/cbWD4EBror

— MyFitnessFeelings (@fitnessfeelingz) January 21, 2025

---

Everyone's just been brainwashed to accept it at face value.

Throughout US history Supreme Court decisions have been influenced by personal biases of the judges as well as cultural attitudes prevalent at the time.

2025 is no different.

Expect Trumps EO to be overturned unanimously or close to it.

KaiBear said:

---

Throughout US history Supreme Court decisions have been influenced by personal biases of the judges as well as cultural attitudes prevalent at the time.

2025 is no different.

Expect Trumps EO to be overturned unanimously or close to it.

---

I agree, but you never know. Sanity may prevail. Afterall I didn't expect the abortion decision to get pushed to the states either.

KaiBear said:

---

Throughout US history Supreme Court decisions have been influenced by personal biases of the judges as well as cultural attitudes prevalent at the time.

2025 is no different.

Expect Trumps EO to be overturned unanimously or close to it.

---

We need a national debate on the issue and we need clarification on the matter from SCOTUS

Its not at all clear that the 14th Amendment gives illegals the right to claim birthright citizenship

"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

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Throughout US history Supreme Court decisions have been influenced by personal biases of the judges as well as cultural attitudes prevalent at the time.

2025 is no different.

Expect Trumps EO to be overturned unanimously or close to it.

---

We need a national debate on the issue and we need clarification on the matter from SCOTUS

Its not at all clear that the 14th Amendment gives illegals the right to claim birthright citizenship

"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

---

The rest of the country is not overwhelmingly made up of MAGA fans.

A public debate on this topic would only reflect this.

The SC will rule on this EO soon enough.


Focus on the winnable battles.

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Throughout US history Supreme Court decisions have been influenced by personal biases of the judges as well as cultural attitudes prevalent at the time.

2025 is no different.

Expect Trumps EO to be overturned unanimously or close to it.

---

We need a national debate on the issue and we need clarification on the matter from SCOTUS

Its not at all clear that the 14th Amendment gives illegals the right to claim birthright citizenship

"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

---

The rest of the country is not overwhelmingly made up of MAGA fans.

A public debate on this topic would only reflect this.

The SC will rule on this EO soon enough.


Focus on the winnable battles.

---

Trump just won the popular and electoral vote by promising mass deportations…."I will unleash the biggest deportation effort in American history"

I think it's more winnable than you think

And far more popular than you think

Senator @LindseyGrahamSC: There are about 250,000 people in this county born to illegal immigrants and got the benefit of birthright citizenship. That’s 7% of all babies born… if you want to turn off the spicket, change this policy! pic.twitter.com/wusmdM6B6W

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) January 26, 2025

Of course it's constitutional. Libs here so desperate to ensure millions of illegals can vote that they'll drink whatever kool-aid the ivy league globalists feed them.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-order-ending-birthright-citizenship-illegal-immigrants-constitutional-claims-expert

"The deal, as he saw it, is that one of the rewards for moving around the world to take in demand jobs that US companies couldn't otherwise full was that any kids born in the country would be citizens."

This is what I've been saying - there's no such thing as a temporary work… pic.twitter.com/Vkzq2Tlfvp

— captive dreamer (@captivedreamer7) January 28, 2025

Native Americans are treated differently in the US Constitution.

Redbrickbear said:

---

"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

---

Europe has the EU which largely erased borders. People can freely move across borders into member countries and retain the same rights. The eventual goal of those who created the EU, going back to the earliest versions (Coal & Steel Community, Common Market, etc), was for it to become a "United States of Europe". It has not worked out like that leading to Brexit and other disagreements.

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

---

America was also a very different place in many ways compared to post-WWII.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Courts won't get into the history when the language is plain. In this case there's no ambiguity.

---

Let's have SCOTUS have oral arguments on it and let's hear out the sides.

The language is far from clear that it intended millions of illegals and their children to be given citizenship.

Indeed if the 14th amendment really means that then it makes all immigration laws essentially meaningless….must enter the county and have a kid. It's that simple

---

This illustrated the importance of Originalism. In short, context matters. The express purpose of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship and equal rights to former slaves. One only needs to read the whole thing with a clear understanding of the historical context (Reconstruction after the Civil War) to see this. It was never intended to enable millions of foreigners to ignore our immigration laws to come here. The constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to make immigration laws and provide for a naturalization process. The problem is that they totally screwed this up in 1965 & we are still living with the consequences. Major reforms are needed.

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Throughout US history Supreme Court decisions have been influenced by personal biases of the judges as well as cultural attitudes prevalent at the time.

2025 is no different.

Expect Trumps EO to be overturned unanimously or close to it.

---

We need a national debate on the issue and we need clarification on the matter from SCOTUS

Its not at all clear that the 14th Amendment gives illegals the right to claim birthright citizenship

"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

---

The rest of the country is not overwhelmingly made up of MAGA fans.

A public debate on this topic would only reflect this.

The SC will rule on this EO soon enough.


Focus on the winnable battles.

---

Trump just won the popular and electoral vote by promising mass deportations…."I will unleash the biggest deportation effort in American history"

I think it's more winnable than you think

And far more popular than you think

---

Including a majority of Democrat voters.

A man of common sense, with no legal education, figures out the obvious - what many lawyers make complicated (on purpose in many cases). https://t.co/CzrASFxRXP

— FischerKing (@FischerKing64) January 31, 2025