So DJT lost his Birthright Citizenship case at the Supremes.
I for one am neither surprised nor even that upset about it. Here’s why.
I agree that the whole idea is fatally flawed: that the principle of just being born on U.S. soil makes one an automatic citizen is without equal in just about every other country in the world, where the nationality of one or both parents (if one, usually that of the mother) is the sole determinant of the baby’s citizenship.
And yes, I also know that the 14th Amendment had an entirely different purpose when it was originally passed, and has no proper justification today. But it’s still a Constitutional Amendment, and said document gives very explicit terms under which an Amendment can be altered or abolished; and that process has nothing to do with the sitting President. It remains, quite rightly, the proper preserve of the Congress and of the states, with those pesky two-thirds majorities required at every step of the way.
As such, I’m not comfortable with any POTUS trying to abolish parts of the Constitution by fiat or executive order, for obvious reasons, and that’s why I’m not upset about the Supremes’ decision. We have enough trouble with tinpot politicians deciding that the Constitution — or the part(s) they don’t agree with, anyway (hello, Second Amendment) — can be bypassed with some local law or regulation, and I’m of the firm belief that these people and/or governments need to have their pee-pees whacked, and hard, every time they try to do that.
If we want to end birthright citizenship, we need to do it the difficult way, the way the Founders intended it. That may make it impossible — I hope not — but sometimes the principle is just more important than the action.
It’s not that he’s trying to abolish it, he’s trying to revert back to the original meaning. I think that’s within the authority and doesn’t require an act of Congress, although the Supreme Court apparently differs in that opinion. Fuck them, they’re wrong.
For the record, Ted Cruz was born in Canada, he’s fucking Canadian and ineligible for president. Ha-ha. Right? Right? Fuck him too.
But hey, I’m all in on trying to repeal some amendments. 14th, 16th, 19th, and 23rd come to mind. And modify the 2nd to include the phrase “SHALL NOT FUCKING BE INFRINGED, YOU DUMB-ASS BASTARDS”. And then add a new amendment for term limits for every fucking federal elected office, bureaucratic position, appointment, up to and including the janitorial services.
X2
The major rub in all this ‘lawyers parsing words and slicing and dicing 14A’s plain language’, all designed to undermine The Writers charter and meaning in adopting 14A, is THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO FOREIGNERS. Only a moron…or activist lawyer…could come up with that illogic.
14A is very simple…but when lawyers, cheats, Socialists, et al, get involved trying to undo what has been done, this is how they operate. Shakespeare was more right than he could ever know – especially if we use the same argument 2A Underminers have done for fifty years – when he wrote “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”, a satirical remark. He didn’t have the rabid lawyers we now have today…but the sentiment is even more profound now more than ever.
SCOTUS is beyond misguided to think ANY pregnant woman in the world who steps on our soil (often on purpose which proves BRC is a grift and bogus) in order to have her baby somehow with a magic Obama wand automatically makes that child a US citizen. Only those with an agenda, using tortured logic while tap dancing around the true meaning of 14A, could conjure up such a twisted meaning…but that’s the world in which we live.
So, a pregnant hor from Spain comes to the US on vacation and spits out a bambino it automatically becomes a US citizen?
Doesn’t the mother have any say in this?
What about when she and the kid go back to Spain, is the kid NOT a Spain citizen?
I want to read the transcript from that SC meeting.
Read this at BabBee: So, if a pregnant woman goes into Olive Garden and has a baby, is that baby automatically an Italian citizen?
Showcases the stupidity behind anyone arguing 14A means what it doesn’t. Swear we are living amongst a declining intellect in this country…might have something to do with gubmint edumacation, or maybe moreso, Rec-Med shops popping up all over in states that go against Federal law…people must be stoned on the 10x more potent than 70’s weed in order to justify the massive illogic only a toker could justify.
The answer here is simple.
Don’t let them in. Totally within his power.
There, I fixed it.
That’s for illegals. Add on no visas to pregnant women and this shit stops.
That works
Justice Affordable Care Act Roberts wrote the 5-4 opinion that allows anchor baby citizenship to anyone born in the USA, citing as precedent for his ruling an 1898 SCOTUS decision:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
The United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, decided on March 28, 1898, is a landmark Supreme Court decision that established the principle of birthright citizenship in the United States. The case arose when Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was denied re-entry into the U.S. after a trip to China. The government argued that he was not a citizen due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens.
Key Findings of the Court:
The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-2 decision that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen at birth. The Court’s opinion highlighted this point:
1. Birthright Citizenship: The Court affirmed that a child born in the U.S. to parents who are legally residing in the country is a citizen, regardless of the parents’ nationality.
Roberts also cited English Common Law and Thomas Payne dredging up shadings and nuances to shore up his shaky argument, totally ignoring the writings and words of the men who actually wrote the text of the 14th.
Sen. Jacob Howard, the author of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, said that it would not apply to the children of “foreigners.”
a. So you arrive on a three day tourist visa from China, drop a kid in San Francisco, and the kid becomes a US citizen with a Social Security number. WTF?
b. Given that “residing” implies a residence, I have to ask, what’s the house or apartment address in the USA where the parents live, pay rent, pay taxes and get mail so we can mail the social security card to the kid?
c. You don’t “reside” on a tourist visa. If they are foreign born, where’s their residency permit?
d. And how the hell do children of a person here illegally like the Dreamers qualify under that precedent?
Alan Dershowitz, lifelong Democrat, Harvard Law professor, and Constitutional scholar just commented on a news interview that President Trump knows more about the law in this legal issue than Justice Roberts.
Not going to comment on the other commenters, who on balance are right.
I’ve read Roberts’ majority decision. I largely skipped Jackson’s concurrence, because Jackson; she’s an idiot – need I say more. I’ve read Thomas’ dissent, and Alito’s. Alito is much more succinct, because he can be; Thomas destroys the majority opinion (in a mere 91 pages). Thomas has the better argument, and it’s not close.
However, it largely maintains the status quo, so it’s not a massive deal. And the President does have enormous powers to bar immigration from persons he deems not in the interests of the US; now, I suppose he’ll use them. In a perfect world, we’d pass a constitutional amendment to more clearly specify the language of the 14th amendment, but there is no chance of that happening.
And so it goes.
Thankfully, within a few generations the vast majority of the recent immigrants will have assimilated, forgotten their fathers’ tongues, and become Americans. That is what has happened with all previous waves of immigration, and ultimately will happen here. The few who don’t? They’ll leave, or be thrown in prison, or become irrelevant. Life will go on.
The overturning of Humphries Executor is largely more important in the long run. Look it up, folks. It’s big.
Your last was a biggie. There was nothing in the Constitution that says a government agency can exist independently of one of the three branches, but they have proliferated unelected and unchecked under Big Guv.
Levin had the expected reaction: https://x.com/marklevinshow/status/2072379843941982463
I think he’s made some good points, but now we are where we are and we’re stuck.