Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Born overseas; graduated from Berkeley, apponted to the bench by Obama.

Anyone surprised by her efforts ?

---

Surprised by another overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction after the door slamming of the last Supreme Court decision. At some point it either has to stop or their might be a judicial uprising of some sort

---

What overstepping? The Supreme Court didn't say there could be no injunctions.

---

Sam,

How can you continue to defend the indefensible? The Supreme Court has indicated that they are issuing injunctions in areas reserved to the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government. This is not their function as judges. They are to make these rulings in cases where either Executive actions or Legislative actions take away freedoms granted by our Constitution. But these radical judges are issuing injunctions on basic policy decisions that the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch are entitled to make. The voters then decide whether these decisions are correct or not at the ballot box.

So these judges are completely off base in issuing these injunctions and the Supreme Court has told them so, but in my opinion not strongly enough. They should come down harder on these judges that are placing the respect for the entire judiciary at risk. If not, the legislature should come in and eliminate these abusers to set the system straight.

---

All I can tell you is that none of that happened. I assume it's a narrative that's going around social media. The Court simply rejected so-called universal injunctions.

---

Which is what most, if not all, of the ones issued since the SC ruling clearly are. They are thus null and void anywhere outside the district in which they were issued.

---

Nope.

---

Thanks. Seriously. Original post corrected.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The president is most definitely following the law, especially the constitution. It's the rogue judges who are violating the law and the constitution in a coup attempt. According to the constitution, the "Supreme Law of the land", one could reasonably argue that what they are doing is treason.

---

He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship.

---

I don't think he has deported anyone under Birthright Citizenship according to Reuters. So he hasn't violated the Constitution if this is accurate. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-lawyer-says-no-immediate-deportations-under-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-06-30/

---

That's beside the point. Denying citizenship violates the Constitution whether or not the person is deported.

---

That's just silly Sam. If no one has been deported, he hasn't violated the Constitution. Your words, not mine
"He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship."

---

So if the president signs an order taking away your citizenship, that is constitutional as far as you're concerned?

---

He knows it will go before the Supreme Court. They will interpret the Constitution, not you. Your record is not good on it.

---

If you're talking about birthright citizenship, the Court decided that issue a long time ago. But that's not what I asked you. Are you saying the president could take away your citizenship and it would be constitutional as long as you weren't deported?

---

I'm replying that until it actually happens, it's moot. He hasn't deported anyone under that rule. Your fanatical liberal buddy judges have seen to that, which I'm pretty sure he expected. Trump wanted this to go to SCOTUS. They've already ruled that the Federal Judges cant touch this. The rule was put in place for slaves after the Civil War, not for use for Anchor Babies. Your boys have misused it for too long

---

What about losing your right to vote? Still no problem?

---

The 14th Amendment was passed to give citizenship to emancipated slaves after the Civil War. It certainly was not for pregnant women at the end of their term to plan trips to the U.S. so they could have their baby in our country and thus become a citizen. Or for illegals breaking into the country to do the same. This amendment was not meant for the purpose it is used for now.

Is The Founders Intent For Birthright Citizenship Misunderstood? U.S. Constitution.net

---

Tell it to SCOTUS. They've disagreed for over a century, but maybe with the Trump Court things will change.

---

Wrong. SCOTUS has never ruled on the status of US-born children of ILLEGAL aliens.

---

They have ruled on it repeatedly and consistently. This is why Trump and his lawyers never disputed the issue.

---

nope. Closest is Wong Kim Ark case, and it involved the US-born children of aliens here legally.

The concept is that one who did not enter the country legally is technically still under the jurisdiction of their home country.....that until a immigration official stamps your passport with a visitors visa or give you a green card, you have not been legally admitted to the country and are still under the jurisdiction of your home country.

We see that structure in the rendition process. A person (PX) from country X (CX) lands at a US port of entry and presents his documents to the immigration officer. Something is wrong with the documents and PX is denied entry. PX will be placed on the next plane back to CX. Sometimes, that process can be pre-arranged in different ways.....PX is a citizen of CX but has an outstanding arrest warrant from Country Y (CY), who made a request for us to render PX to CY rather than CX. Such has always happened (first hand experience). It escalated a lot during the War on Terror. The foundation of the whole process is that while PX was indeed standing at a US POE built on US soil, he was not been legally admitted into the country, ergo was never under the jurisdiction of US courts.

My comments on this are not informed by political ideology. They are formed by the U.S. Department of State, who issued a Consular Commission to me, signed by President Ronald Reagan. The issue Trump is pressing has NOT been litigated. Neither has the specific scenario in question been addressed in statute - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It has been handled solely by an increasingly expansive process of bureaucratic tradition. And I suspect that is perhaps the strongest argument the open borders can make - you can't undo so many decades of precedence.

What does the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? (not exactly what your argument presumes).

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The president is most definitely following the law, especially the constitution. It's the rogue judges who are violating the law and the constitution in a coup attempt. According to the constitution, the "Supreme Law of the land", one could reasonably argue that what they are doing is treason.

---

He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship.

---

I don't think he has deported anyone under Birthright Citizenship according to Reuters. So he hasn't violated the Constitution if this is accurate. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-lawyer-says-no-immediate-deportations-under-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-06-30/

---

That's beside the point. Denying citizenship violates the Constitution whether or not the person is deported.

---

That's just silly Sam. If no one has been deported, he hasn't violated the Constitution. Your words, not mine
"He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship."

---

So if the president signs an order taking away your citizenship, that is constitutional as far as you're concerned?

---

He knows it will go before the Supreme Court. They will interpret the Constitution, not you. Your record is not good on it.

---

If you're talking about birthright citizenship, the Court decided that issue a long time ago. But that's not what I asked you. Are you saying the president could take away your citizenship and it would be constitutional as long as you weren't deported?

---

I'm replying that until it actually happens, it's moot. He hasn't deported anyone under that rule. Your fanatical liberal buddy judges have seen to that, which I'm pretty sure he expected. Trump wanted this to go to SCOTUS. They've already ruled that the Federal Judges cant touch this. The rule was put in place for slaves after the Civil War, not for use for Anchor Babies. Your boys have misused it for too long

---

What about losing your right to vote? Still no problem?

---

The 14th Amendment was passed to give citizenship to emancipated slaves after the Civil War. It certainly was not for pregnant women at the end of their term to plan trips to the U.S. so they could have their baby in our country and thus become a citizen. Or for illegals breaking into the country to do the same. This amendment was not meant for the purpose it is used for now.

Is The Founders Intent For Birthright Citizenship Misunderstood? U.S. Constitution.net

---

Tell it to SCOTUS. They've disagreed for over a century, but maybe with the Trump Court things will change.

---

Wrong. SCOTUS has never ruled on the status of US-born children of ILLEGAL aliens.

---

They have ruled on it repeatedly and consistently. This is why Trump and his lawyers never disputed the issue.

---

nope. Closest is Wong Kim Ark case, and it involved the US-born children of aliens here legally.

The concept is that one who did not enter the country legally is technically still under the jurisdiction of their home country.....that until a immigration official stamps your passport with a visitors visa or give you a green card, you have not been legally admitted to the country and are still under the jurisdiction of your home country.

We see that structure in the rendition process. A person (PX) from country X (CX) lands at a US port of entry and presents his documents to the immigration officer. Something is wrong with the documents and PX is denied entry. PX will be placed on the next plane back to CX. Sometimes, that process can be pre-arranged in different ways.....PX is a citizen of CX but has an outstanding arrest warrant from Country Y (CY), who made a request for us to render PX to CY rather than CX. Such has always happened (first hand experience). It escalated a lot during the War on Terror. The foundation of the whole process is that while PX was indeed standing at a US POE built on US soil, he was not been legally admitted into the country, ergo was never under the jurisdiction of US courts.

My comments on this are not informed by political ideology. They are formed by the U.S. Department of State, who issued a Consular Commission to me, signed by President Ronald Reagan. The issue Trump is pressing has NOT been litigated. Neither has the specific scenario in question been addressed in statute - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It has been handled solely by an increasingly expansive process of bureaucratic tradition. And I suspect that is perhaps the strongest argument the open borders can make - you can't undo so many decades of precedence.

What does the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? (not exactly what your argument presumes).

---

Game Set and Match



Well done

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The president is most definitely following the law, especially the constitution. It's the rogue judges who are violating the law and the constitution in a coup attempt. According to the constitution, the "Supreme Law of the land", one could reasonably argue that what they are doing is treason.

---

He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship.

---

I don't think he has deported anyone under Birthright Citizenship according to Reuters. So he hasn't violated the Constitution if this is accurate. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-lawyer-says-no-immediate-deportations-under-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-06-30/

---

That's beside the point. Denying citizenship violates the Constitution whether or not the person is deported.

---

That's just silly Sam. If no one has been deported, he hasn't violated the Constitution. Your words, not mine
"He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship."

---

So if the president signs an order taking away your citizenship, that is constitutional as far as you're concerned?

---

He knows it will go before the Supreme Court. They will interpret the Constitution, not you. Your record is not good on it.

---

If you're talking about birthright citizenship, the Court decided that issue a long time ago. But that's not what I asked you. Are you saying the president could take away your citizenship and it would be constitutional as long as you weren't deported?

---

I'm replying that until it actually happens, it's moot. He hasn't deported anyone under that rule. Your fanatical liberal buddy judges have seen to that, which I'm pretty sure he expected. Trump wanted this to go to SCOTUS. They've already ruled that the Federal Judges cant touch this. The rule was put in place for slaves after the Civil War, not for use for Anchor Babies. Your boys have misused it for too long

---

What about losing your right to vote? Still no problem?

---

The 14th Amendment was passed to give citizenship to emancipated slaves after the Civil War. It certainly was not for pregnant women at the end of their term to plan trips to the U.S. so they could have their baby in our country and thus become a citizen. Or for illegals breaking into the country to do the same. This amendment was not meant for the purpose it is used for now.

Is The Founders Intent For Birthright Citizenship Misunderstood? U.S. Constitution.net

---

Tell it to SCOTUS. They've disagreed for over a century, but maybe with the Trump Court things will change.

---

Wrong. SCOTUS has never ruled on the status of US-born children of ILLEGAL aliens.

---

They have ruled on it repeatedly and consistently. This is why Trump and his lawyers never disputed the issue.

---

nope. Closest is Wong Kim Ark case, and it involved the US-born children of aliens here legally.

The concept is that one who did not enter the country legally is technically still under the jurisdiction of their home country.....that until a immigration official stamps your passport with a visitors visa or give you a green card, you have not been legally admitted to the country and are still under the jurisdiction of your home country.

We see that structure in the rendition process. A person (PX) from country X (CX) lands at a US port of entry and presents his documents to the immigration officer. Something is wrong with the documents and PX is denied entry. PX will be placed on the next plane back to CX. Sometimes, that process can be pre-arranged in different ways.....PX is a citizen of CX but has an outstanding arrest warrant from Country Y (CY), who made a request for us to render PX to CY rather than CX. Such has always happened (first hand experience). It escalated a lot during the War on Terror. The foundation of the whole process is that while PX was indeed standing at a US POE built on US soil, he was not been legally admitted into the country, ergo was never under the jurisdiction of US courts.

My comments on this are not informed by political ideology. They are formed by the U.S. Department of State, who issued a Consular Commission to me, signed by President Ronald Reagan. The issue Trump is pressing has NOT been litigated. Neither has the specific scenario in question been addressed in statute - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It has been handled solely by an increasingly expansive process of bureaucratic tradition. And I suspect that is perhaps the strongest argument the open borders can make - you can't undo so many decades of precedence.

What does the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? (not exactly what your argument presumes).

---

Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy (1957): "In July, 1951, the wife lawfully entered the United States as a crew member of a ship in a United States port. Being pregnant, she sought medical advice; subsequently, she decided in the interest of her health to stay ashore. A month later, on the next occasion his ship arrived in the United States, her husband joined her; he also failed to leave on the expiration of his limited lawful stay. In November, 1951, their child was born; the child is, of course, an American citizen by birth."

INS v. Errico (1966): "Respondent Errico in No. 54, a native of Italy, falsely represented to the immigration authorities that he was a skilled mechanic with specialized experience in repairing foreign automobiles. On the basis of that misrepresentation, he was granted first preference quota status under the statutory preference scheme then in effect, and entered the United States in 1959 with his wife. A child was born to the couple in 1960 and acquired United States citizenship at birth."

INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985): "Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen."

Repeatedly.

And.

Consistently.

I especially recommend reading the Errico case for its discussion of the balance between enforcing the law and preserving family ties. It reflects a wisdom and empathy that's often sadly absent from the discourse today, at least on the political right.

People seeking admission at ports of entry are not under US jurisdiction, but you misunderstand the reasons. The short version is that they're not considered to be on US soil, whereas undocumented aliens are.

Fake Justice Samistan back on the bench, I see.

Trump is not doing anything that any president prior to him did or had the power to do.

I am sick and tired of people losing themselves in their own hatred of other human beings.

Just because you have idea or policy differences doesn't mean you have to hate one another or that the person you are unhappy with is evil or corrupt.

One of my best friends is a huge Democrat, and I think the whole party is a freaking joke right now. Doesn't matter. He has my back, and I have his. I respect him, and, yes, we do have common ground. I know that because I actually talk to him instead of just flippantly calling him names like a communist or a Nazi.

For this American experiment to work, we don't have to agree on everything, but we do need to be part of the same team at the end of the day. That means not hating but respecting your political opponents and allowing the political process to help resolve any differences you may have.

I'll step off the soapbox now. Just wanted to point out that there are no Democrats or other political opponents of mine whom I hate or whom I wish ill upon. Everybody is entitled to their ideals, and we can all learn from one another.

Yogi, I disagree a bit with your first statement. On the one hand, yes Trump is taking some unprecedented steps viz a viz our illegal aliens, but every President before him had the power, most just lacked the spine and the others were on the side of the criminals.

Trump is crude and rude, but he is facing a greater threat than any of his predecessors, precisely because they either ignored the crisis or were part of the cause. And there is no doubt Trump was elected to do just what he is doing, in terms of the illegals.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The president is most definitely following the law, especially the constitution. It's the rogue judges who are violating the law and the constitution in a coup attempt. According to the constitution, the "Supreme Law of the land", one could reasonably argue that what they are doing is treason.

---

He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship.

---

I don't think he has deported anyone under Birthright Citizenship according to Reuters. So he hasn't violated the Constitution if this is accurate. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-lawyer-says-no-immediate-deportations-under-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-06-30/

---

That's beside the point. Denying citizenship violates the Constitution whether or not the person is deported.

---

That's just silly Sam. If no one has been deported, he hasn't violated the Constitution. Your words, not mine
"He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship."

---

So if the president signs an order taking away your citizenship, that is constitutional as far as you're concerned?

---

He knows it will go before the Supreme Court. They will interpret the Constitution, not you. Your record is not good on it.

---

If you're talking about birthright citizenship, the Court decided that issue a long time ago. But that's not what I asked you. Are you saying the president could take away your citizenship and it would be constitutional as long as you weren't deported?

---

I'm replying that until it actually happens, it's moot. He hasn't deported anyone under that rule. Your fanatical liberal buddy judges have seen to that, which I'm pretty sure he expected. Trump wanted this to go to SCOTUS. They've already ruled that the Federal Judges cant touch this. The rule was put in place for slaves after the Civil War, not for use for Anchor Babies. Your boys have misused it for too long

---

What about losing your right to vote? Still no problem?

---

The 14th Amendment was passed to give citizenship to emancipated slaves after the Civil War. It certainly was not for pregnant women at the end of their term to plan trips to the U.S. so they could have their baby in our country and thus become a citizen. Or for illegals breaking into the country to do the same. This amendment was not meant for the purpose it is used for now.

Is The Founders Intent For Birthright Citizenship Misunderstood? U.S. Constitution.net

---

Tell it to SCOTUS. They've disagreed for over a century, but maybe with the Trump Court things will change.

---

Wrong. SCOTUS has never ruled on the status of US-born children of ILLEGAL aliens.

---

They have ruled on it repeatedly and consistently. This is why Trump and his lawyers never disputed the issue.

---

nope. Closest is Wong Kim Ark case, and it involved the US-born children of aliens here legally.

The concept is that one who did not enter the country legally is technically still under the jurisdiction of their home country.....that until a immigration official stamps your passport with a visitors visa or give you a green card, you have not been legally admitted to the country and are still under the jurisdiction of your home country.

We see that structure in the rendition process. A person (PX) from country X (CX) lands at a US port of entry and presents his documents to the immigration officer. Something is wrong with the documents and PX is denied entry. PX will be placed on the next plane back to CX. Sometimes, that process can be pre-arranged in different ways.....PX is a citizen of CX but has an outstanding arrest warrant from Country Y (CY), who made a request for us to render PX to CY rather than CX. Such has always happened (first hand experience). It escalated a lot during the War on Terror. The foundation of the whole process is that while PX was indeed standing at a US POE built on US soil, he was not been legally admitted into the country, ergo was never under the jurisdiction of US courts.

My comments on this are not informed by political ideology. They are formed by the U.S. Department of State, who issued a Consular Commission to me, signed by President Ronald Reagan. The issue Trump is pressing has NOT been litigated. Neither has the specific scenario in question been addressed in statute - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It has been handled solely by an increasingly expansive process of bureaucratic tradition. And I suspect that is perhaps the strongest argument the open borders can make - you can't undo so many decades of precedence.

What does the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? (not exactly what your argument presumes).

---

Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy (1957): "In July, 1951, the wife lawfully entered the United States as a crew member of a ship in a United States port. Being pregnant, she sought medical advice; subsequently, she decided in the interest of her health to stay ashore. A month later, on the next occasion his ship arrived in the United States, her husband joined her; he also failed to leave on the expiration of his limited lawful stay. In November, 1951, their child was born; the child is, of course, an American citizen by birth."

INS v. Errico (1966): "Respondent Errico in No. 54, a native of Italy, falsely represented to the immigration authorities that he was a skilled mechanic with specialized experience in repairing foreign automobiles. On the basis of that misrepresentation, he was granted first preference quota status under the statutory preference scheme then in effect, and entered the United States in 1959 with his wife. A child was born to the couple in 1960 and acquired United States citizenship at birth."

INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985): "Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen."

Repeatedly.

And.

Consistently.

I especially recommend reading the Errico case for its discussion of the balance between enforcing the law and preserving family ties. It reflects a wisdom and empathy that's often sadly absent from the discourse today, at least on the political right.

People seeking admission at ports of entry are not under US jurisdiction, but you misunderstand the reasons. The short version is that they're not considered to be on US soil, whereas undocumented aliens are.
No, I understood it perfectly well. They are not on US soil (under jurisdiction of US courts) until the immigration offer admits them (with a stamp in the passport). The fact that undocumented aliens have been treated differently (by executive enforcement action) is not well rooted in statute OR court rulings.

---

LOL. thanks for making my point. None of the rulings you cited addressed citizenship status of the child. Further, accepting the citizenship of the children in question as a material fact does not at all ratify the status quo on that question at all (see next para in bold).

Loss of US citizenship is incredibly difficult. Even voluntary renunciation is hard, and in many instances has been later reversed with the arguments "I didn't really mean to" or "I was in a bad state of mind" etc.... Contested removal of US citizenship is profoundly rare, one of the hardest cases the government can attempt. To say that Courts are loathe to do it is quite the understatement. Taking nationality from someone is an extraordinary thing. For that reason, we are not going to see a ruling that calls into question the citizenship status of millions of people with US passports who were born here to illegal aliens. And such does not have be be at odds with the Trump argument on the question. Indeed, the underlying concept of the Trump case is that the presumption that children of illegal aliens were extended US citizenship under bureaucratic discretion (which can be changed). The court is going to have to wade into new questions on this case - what is the definition of "under the jurisdiction thereof...."

Smart money bet: I would not be surprised to see a Roberts court rule against Trump but in ways that would still allow Congress to address the question via statute....the INA, the rule book for citizenship acquisition. Frankly, I would have preferred that Trump worked that pathway. Let the people decide, rather than the judges.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yogi, I disagree a bit with your first statement. On the one hand, yes Trump is taking some unprecedented steps viz a viz our illegal aliens, but every President before him had the power, most just lacked the spine and the others were on the side of the criminals.

Trump is crude and rude, but he is facing a greater threat than any of his predecessors, precisely because they either ignored the crisis or were part of the cause. And there is no doubt Trump was elected to do just what he is doing, in terms of the illegals.

---

Trump was also elected to put the brakes to the bizarrely woke BS the Biden administration inflicted on the country.

To rebuild our standing in the world ; to protect freedom of Religion, to lower fuel prices, create jobs and prosecute criminals.

And up to this point in time Trump has succeeded admirably.

Recently read the best description of how voters perceive Trump and his actions: as chemotherapy.

Some folks love him.
Some folks hate him.
The middle that elected him view him as chemotherapy.


He is a necessary if sometimes unpleasant cure to a far worse cancer.
As long as he is killing woke, stripping down the size of government, taking control of the border and removing illegals, getting men out of women's sports, etc. the middle will tolerate any aspect of his Presidency that is uncomfortable because they see the bigger picture.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The president is most definitely following the law, especially the constitution. It's the rogue judges who are violating the law and the constitution in a coup attempt. According to the constitution, the "Supreme Law of the land", one could reasonably argue that what they are doing is treason.

---

He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship.

---

I don't think he has deported anyone under Birthright Citizenship according to Reuters. So he hasn't violated the Constitution if this is accurate. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-lawyer-says-no-immediate-deportations-under-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-06-30/

---

That's beside the point. Denying citizenship violates the Constitution whether or not the person is deported.

---

That's just silly Sam. If no one has been deported, he hasn't violated the Constitution. Your words, not mine
"He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship."

---

So if the president signs an order taking away your citizenship, that is constitutional as far as you're concerned?

---

He knows it will go before the Supreme Court. They will interpret the Constitution, not you. Your record is not good on it.

---

If you're talking about birthright citizenship, the Court decided that issue a long time ago. But that's not what I asked you. Are you saying the president could take away your citizenship and it would be constitutional as long as you weren't deported?

---

I'm replying that until it actually happens, it's moot. He hasn't deported anyone under that rule. Your fanatical liberal buddy judges have seen to that, which I'm pretty sure he expected. Trump wanted this to go to SCOTUS. They've already ruled that the Federal Judges cant touch this. The rule was put in place for slaves after the Civil War, not for use for Anchor Babies. Your boys have misused it for too long

---

What about losing your right to vote? Still no problem?

---

The 14th Amendment was passed to give citizenship to emancipated slaves after the Civil War. It certainly was not for pregnant women at the end of their term to plan trips to the U.S. so they could have their baby in our country and thus become a citizen. Or for illegals breaking into the country to do the same. This amendment was not meant for the purpose it is used for now.

Is The Founders Intent For Birthright Citizenship Misunderstood? U.S. Constitution.net

---

Tell it to SCOTUS. They've disagreed for over a century, but maybe with the Trump Court things will change.

---

Wrong. SCOTUS has never ruled on the status of US-born children of ILLEGAL aliens.

---

They have ruled on it repeatedly and consistently. This is why Trump and his lawyers never disputed the issue.

---

nope. Closest is Wong Kim Ark case, and it involved the US-born children of aliens here legally.

The concept is that one who did not enter the country legally is technically still under the jurisdiction of their home country.....that until a immigration official stamps your passport with a visitors visa or give you a green card, you have not been legally admitted to the country and are still under the jurisdiction of your home country.

We see that structure in the rendition process. A person (PX) from country X (CX) lands at a US port of entry and presents his documents to the immigration officer. Something is wrong with the documents and PX is denied entry. PX will be placed on the next plane back to CX. Sometimes, that process can be pre-arranged in different ways.....PX is a citizen of CX but has an outstanding arrest warrant from Country Y (CY), who made a request for us to render PX to CY rather than CX. Such has always happened (first hand experience). It escalated a lot during the War on Terror. The foundation of the whole process is that while PX was indeed standing at a US POE built on US soil, he was not been legally admitted into the country, ergo was never under the jurisdiction of US courts.

My comments on this are not informed by political ideology. They are formed by the U.S. Department of State, who issued a Consular Commission to me, signed by President Ronald Reagan. The issue Trump is pressing has NOT been litigated. Neither has the specific scenario in question been addressed in statute - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It has been handled solely by an increasingly expansive process of bureaucratic tradition. And I suspect that is perhaps the strongest argument the open borders can make - you can't undo so many decades of precedence.

What does the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? (not exactly what your argument presumes).

---

Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy (1957): "In July, 1951, the wife lawfully entered the United States as a crew member of a ship in a United States port. Being pregnant, she sought medical advice; subsequently, she decided in the interest of her health to stay ashore. A month later, on the next occasion his ship arrived in the United States, her husband joined her; he also failed to leave on the expiration of his limited lawful stay. In November, 1951, their child was born; the child is, of course, an American citizen by birth."

INS v. Errico (1966): "Respondent Errico in No. 54, a native of Italy, falsely represented to the immigration authorities that he was a skilled mechanic with specialized experience in repairing foreign automobiles. On the basis of that misrepresentation, he was granted first preference quota status under the statutory preference scheme then in effect, and entered the United States in 1959 with his wife. A child was born to the couple in 1960 and acquired United States citizenship at birth."

INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985): "Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen."

Repeatedly.

And.

Consistently.

I especially recommend reading the Errico case for its discussion of the balance between enforcing the law and preserving family ties. It reflects a wisdom and empathy that's often sadly absent from the discourse today, at least on the political right.

People seeking admission at ports of entry are not under US jurisdiction, but you misunderstand the reasons. The short version is that they're not considered to be on US soil, whereas undocumented aliens are.
No, I understood it perfectly well. They are not on US soil (under jurisdiction of US courts) until the immigration offer admits them (with a stamp in the passport). The fact that undocumented aliens have been treated differently (by executive enforcement action) is not well rooted in statute OR court rulings.

---

LOL. thanks for making my point. None of the rulings you cited addressed citizenship status of the child. Further, accepting the citizenship of the children in question as a material fact does not at all ratify the status quo on that question at all (see next para in bold).

Loss of US citizenship is incredibly difficult. Even voluntary renunciation is hard, and in many instances has been later reversed with the arguments "I didn't really mean to" or "I was in a bad state of mind" etc.... Contested removal of US citizenship is profoundly rare, one of the hardest cases the government can attempt. To say that Courts are loathe to do it is quite the understatement. Taking nationality from someone is an extraordinary thing. For that reason, we are not going to see a ruling that calls into question the citizenship status of millions of people with US passports who were born here to illegal aliens. And such does not have be be at odds with the Trump argument on the question. Indeed, the underlying concept of the Trump case is that the presumption that children of illegal aliens were extended US citizenship under bureaucratic discretion (which can be changed). The court is going to have to wade into new questions on this case - what is the definition of "under the jurisdiction thereof...."

Smart money bet: I would not be surprised to see a Roberts court rule against Trump but in ways that would still allow Congress to address the question via statute....the INA, the rule book for citizenship acquisition. Frankly, I would have preferred that Trump worked that pathway. Let the people decide, rather than the judges.

---

Excellent comments. My congratulations. Well stated.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Recently read the best description of how voters perceive Trump and his actions: as chemotherapy.

Some folks love him.
Some folks hate him.
The middle that elected him view him as chemotherapy.


He is a necessary if sometimes unpleasant cure to a far worse cancer.
As long as he is killing woke, stripping down the size of government, taking control of the border and removing illegals, getting men out of women's sports, etc. the middle will tolerate any aspect of his Presidency that is uncomfortable because they see the bigger picture.

---

It seems the people understand that a nice guy is not likely to have the temperament to do well what needs to be done.

The last "nice guy" who successfully did what needed to be done was Ronald Reagan. Of course, the Left will dispute that label. Sour grapes.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The president is most definitely following the law, especially the constitution. It's the rogue judges who are violating the law and the constitution in a coup attempt. According to the constitution, the "Supreme Law of the land", one could reasonably argue that what they are doing is treason.

---

He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship.

---

I don't think he has deported anyone under Birthright Citizenship according to Reuters. So he hasn't violated the Constitution if this is accurate. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-lawyer-says-no-immediate-deportations-under-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-06-30/

---

That's beside the point. Denying citizenship violates the Constitution whether or not the person is deported.

---

That's just silly Sam. If no one has been deported, he hasn't violated the Constitution. Your words, not mine
"He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship."

---

So if the president signs an order taking away your citizenship, that is constitutional as far as you're concerned?

---

He knows it will go before the Supreme Court. They will interpret the Constitution, not you. Your record is not good on it.

---

If you're talking about birthright citizenship, the Court decided that issue a long time ago. But that's not what I asked you. Are you saying the president could take away your citizenship and it would be constitutional as long as you weren't deported?

---

I'm replying that until it actually happens, it's moot. He hasn't deported anyone under that rule. Your fanatical liberal buddy judges have seen to that, which I'm pretty sure he expected. Trump wanted this to go to SCOTUS. They've already ruled that the Federal Judges cant touch this. The rule was put in place for slaves after the Civil War, not for use for Anchor Babies. Your boys have misused it for too long

---

What about losing your right to vote? Still no problem?

---

The 14th Amendment was passed to give citizenship to emancipated slaves after the Civil War. It certainly was not for pregnant women at the end of their term to plan trips to the U.S. so they could have their baby in our country and thus become a citizen. Or for illegals breaking into the country to do the same. This amendment was not meant for the purpose it is used for now.

Is The Founders Intent For Birthright Citizenship Misunderstood? U.S. Constitution.net

---

Tell it to SCOTUS. They've disagreed for over a century, but maybe with the Trump Court things will change.

---

Wrong. SCOTUS has never ruled on the status of US-born children of ILLEGAL aliens.

---

They have ruled on it repeatedly and consistently. This is why Trump and his lawyers never disputed the issue.

---

nope. Closest is Wong Kim Ark case, and it involved the US-born children of aliens here legally.

The concept is that one who did not enter the country legally is technically still under the jurisdiction of their home country.....that until a immigration official stamps your passport with a visitors visa or give you a green card, you have not been legally admitted to the country and are still under the jurisdiction of your home country.

We see that structure in the rendition process. A person (PX) from country X (CX) lands at a US port of entry and presents his documents to the immigration officer. Something is wrong with the documents and PX is denied entry. PX will be placed on the next plane back to CX. Sometimes, that process can be pre-arranged in different ways.....PX is a citizen of CX but has an outstanding arrest warrant from Country Y (CY), who made a request for us to render PX to CY rather than CX. Such has always happened (first hand experience). It escalated a lot during the War on Terror. The foundation of the whole process is that while PX was indeed standing at a US POE built on US soil, he was not been legally admitted into the country, ergo was never under the jurisdiction of US courts.

My comments on this are not informed by political ideology. They are formed by the U.S. Department of State, who issued a Consular Commission to me, signed by President Ronald Reagan. The issue Trump is pressing has NOT been litigated. Neither has the specific scenario in question been addressed in statute - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It has been handled solely by an increasingly expansive process of bureaucratic tradition. And I suspect that is perhaps the strongest argument the open borders can make - you can't undo so many decades of precedence.

What does the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? (not exactly what your argument presumes).

---

Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy (1957): "In July, 1951, the wife lawfully entered the United States as a crew member of a ship in a United States port. Being pregnant, she sought medical advice; subsequently, she decided in the interest of her health to stay ashore. A month later, on the next occasion his ship arrived in the United States, her husband joined her; he also failed to leave on the expiration of his limited lawful stay. In November, 1951, their child was born; the child is, of course, an American citizen by birth."

INS v. Errico (1966): "Respondent Errico in No. 54, a native of Italy, falsely represented to the immigration authorities that he was a skilled mechanic with specialized experience in repairing foreign automobiles. On the basis of that misrepresentation, he was granted first preference quota status under the statutory preference scheme then in effect, and entered the United States in 1959 with his wife. A child was born to the couple in 1960 and acquired United States citizenship at birth."

INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985): "Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen."

Repeatedly.

And.

Consistently.

I especially recommend reading the Errico case for its discussion of the balance between enforcing the law and preserving family ties. It reflects a wisdom and empathy that's often sadly absent from the discourse today, at least on the political right.

People seeking admission at ports of entry are not under US jurisdiction, but you misunderstand the reasons. The short version is that they're not considered to be on US soil, whereas undocumented aliens are.
No, I understood it perfectly well. They are not on US soil (under jurisdiction of US courts) until the immigration offer admits them (with a stamp in the passport). The fact that undocumented aliens have been treated differently (by executive enforcement action) is not well rooted in statute OR court rulings.

---

LOL. thanks for making my point. None of the rulings you cited addressed citizenship status of the child. Further, accepting the citizenship of the children in question as a material fact does not at all ratify the status quo on that question at all (see next para in bold).

Loss of US citizenship is incredibly difficult. Even voluntary renunciation is hard, and in many instances has been later reversed with the arguments "I didn't really mean to" or "I was in a bad state of mind" etc.... Contested removal of US citizenship is profoundly rare, one of the hardest cases the government can attempt. To say that Courts are loathe to do it is quite the understatement. Taking nationality from someone is an extraordinary thing. For that reason, we are not going to see a ruling that calls into question the citizenship status of millions of people with US passports who were born here to illegal aliens. And such does not have be be at odds with the Trump argument on the question. Indeed, the underlying concept of the Trump case is that the presumption that children of illegal aliens were extended US citizenship under bureaucratic discretion (which can be changed). The court is going to have to wade into new questions on this case - what is the definition of "under the jurisdiction thereof...."

Smart money bet: I would not be surprised to see a Roberts court rule against Trump but in ways that would still allow Congress to address the question via statute....the INA, the rule book for citizenship acquisition. Frankly, I would have preferred that Trump worked that pathway. Let the people decide, rather than the judges.

---

Congress has already addressed it via the INA. Even if the universal interpretation of the executive and judicial branches since the passage of the 14th Amendment was wrong, it is the interpretation that Congress ratified in the statute. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment itself only restored the common law rule that existed from the nation's founding and before. The fact that SCOTUS took it for granted is all the ratification that was possible until someone was foolish enough to challenge it.

This is why Trump didn't, and couldn't, argue any likelihood of success on the merits. The judicial activists of the Roberts Court struck down universal injunctions anyway, for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with immigration. I doubt they would go so far as to overturn the centuries-long tradition of jus soli, but make no mistake--if that's what you're asking for, it is a radical departure from settled law.

your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.

Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).

PSA: In this context, 'settled law' means Sam is claiming his interpretation should be considered the law ahead of instead of letting the actual court rule

And remember folks, there still is no cure for TDS, and some of the worst cases are prevalent on the Internet.

Federal judge orders stop to indiscriminate immigration raids in Los Angeles : NPR

ScottS said:

---

Federal judge orders stop to indiscriminate immigration raids in Los Angeles : NPR

---

Indiscriminate?

Yogi said:

---

Trump is not doing anything that any president prior to him did or had the power to do.

I am sick and tired of people losing themselves in their own hatred of other human beings.

Just because you have idea or policy differences doesn't mean you have to hate one another or that the person you are unhappy with is evil or corrupt.

One of my best friends is a huge Democrat, and I think the whole party is a freaking joke right now. Doesn't matter. He has my back, and I have his. I respect him, and, yes, we do have common ground. I know that because I actually talk to him instead of just flippantly calling him names like a communist or a Nazi.

For this American experiment to work, we don't have to agree on everything, but we do need to be part of the same team at the end of the day. That means not hating but respecting your political opponents and allowing the political process to help resolve any differences you may have.

I'll step off the soapbox now. Just wanted to point out that there are no Democrats or other political opponents of mine whom I hate or whom I wish ill upon. Everybody is entitled to their ideals, and we can all learn from one another.

---

Whoa there, you're just a step away from being called a baby killer. This forum doesn't tolerate... tolerance. Compromise.

whiterock said:

---

your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.

Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).

---

Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.

Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.

As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."

Squad's Ilhan Omar Claims U.S. Sending Migrants to 'Dungeons'

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.

Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).

---

Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.

Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.

As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."

---

..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.

Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.

Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).

---

Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.

Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.

As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."

---

..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.

Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).

---

Majority rules when it comes to adjusting a statute in Congress or is it 2/3?

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.

Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).

---

Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.

Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.

As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."

---

..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.

Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).

---

Because they were here, period. That is the essence of jurisdiction.

Congress cannot take away what the Constitution provides. See again Wong Kim Ark: The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. "A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall,

"becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue."

Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.

Assassin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.

Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).

---

Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.

Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.

As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."

---

..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.

Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).

---

Majority rules when it comes to adjusting a statute in Congress or is it 2/3?

---

Majority.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Assassin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.

Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).

---

Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.

Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.

As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."

---

..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.

Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).

---

Majority rules when it comes to adjusting a statute in Congress or is it 2/3?

---

Majority.

---

Thanks

Assassin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.

Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).

---

Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.

Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.

As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."

---

..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.

Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).

---

Majority rules when it comes to adjusting a statute in Congress or is it 2/3?

---

If Congress chooses to modify existing law then they generally do so by passing a new law and a simple majority is sufficient. This happens all the time. However, the senate rules require 60 votes for cloture to end debate and allow for a vote. If they don't have 60 then any one of them can keep the vote going by talking about anything. The classic filibuster. It has happened quite a few times in history although in recent years they have allowed a filibuster without requiring a marathon speech. That still happens on occasion and it's always dramatic. Also, there are exceptions and changes to the rules under certain circumstances such as budget bills and confirming judges. The BBB passed without any input from the fascists (they call themselves "democrats" although they are the least democratic political institution in the country) because it was a budget bill. The majority of SCOTUS were appointed by GOP presidents and without filibusters because of rule changes in the past by Dem Harry Reid.

Which Sanctuary Jurisdictions Have Released the Most Criminals?

Newly obtained ICE records reveal the sanctuary jurisdictions that have most frequently failed to allow ICE to take custody of deportable aliens who were jailed in those locations.https://t.co/lFRHQjzJVo

— Center for Immigration Studies (@CIS_org) April 18, 2025

I'm surprised Texas had 39 of them!

Assassin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.

Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).

---

Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.

Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.

As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."

---

..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.

Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).

---

Majority rules when it comes to adjusting a statute in Congress or is it 2/3?

---

100% won't matter if it's not constitutional.

historian said:

---

Assassin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.

Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).

---

Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.

Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.

As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."

---

..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.

Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).

---

Majority rules when it comes to adjusting a statute in Congress or is it 2/3?

---

If Congress chooses to modify existing law then they generally do so by passing a new law and a simple majority is sufficient. This happens all the time. However, the senate rules require 60 votes for cloture to end debate and allow for a vote. If they don't have 60 then any one of them can keep the vote going by talking about anything. The classic filibuster. It has happened quite a few times in history although in recent years they have allowed a filibuster without requiring a marathon speech. That still happens on occasion and it's always dramatic. Also, there are exceptions and changes to the rules under certain circumstances such as budget bills and confirming judges. The BBB passed without any input from the fascists (they call themselves "democrats" although they are the least democratic political institution in the country) because it was a budget bill. The majority of SCOTUS were appointed by GOP presidents and without filibusters because of rule changes in the past by Dem Harry Reid.

---

You know the senate rules well.

You are waaaaaay behind, Sam, in proving you understand the Constitution.

Thanks. I've studied these things somewhat and even taught some of it. Also, much of this was in the news quite a bit during the BBB debates, at least the news sites I used.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.

Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).

---

Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.

Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.

As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "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."

---

..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.

Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).

---

Because they were here, period. That is the essence of jurisdiction.

Congress cannot take away what the Constitution provides. See again Wong Kim Ark: The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. "A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall,

"becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue."

Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.

---

If that were the true, it would not be legal for ICE to deny entry to an arriving visitor and put them on the next plane home. We would have to admit them, incarcerate them, then deport them...."because they are here." We don't do that because they are not under the jurisdiction of the USA until an official of the USG puts and arrival stamp in their passport.

And the word "naturalized" does not mean what your argument imputes. A person who acquires citizenship at birth is a "natural born" US citizen (born in the jurisdiction of USA). The term "naturalized" applies to a citizen of another country who satisfied statutory requirements to become a US citizen. (again, a simple concept straight from USG training on consular affairs).