Caine Mutiny Posted March 31 Posted March 31 https://www.npr.org/2026/03/31/nx-s1-5768123/donald-trump-the-supreme-court-and-birthright-citizenship Ok this seems fairly straightforward to me. The Constitution protects birthright citizenship. You may not like the fact that undocumented immigrants, or tourists, can come to this country and have babies that automatically become citizens with full rights. I get that. But if you want to change it, you need to change the Constitution. Don’t try to argue crackpot theories to bypass it. Quote
Caine Mutiny Posted March 31 Author Posted March 31 3 minutes ago, HellToupee said: You onboard with birth tourism ? Not really no. I met a couple in Dubai who did it. They arranged to have both of their kids born in the USA. I don’t approve of that. But it’s the law, per the Constitution. You want to change it, change the Constitution. 1 Quote
dogcows Posted March 31 Posted March 31 11 minutes ago, HellToupee said: You onboard with birth tourism ? Anchor baby Barron Trump is onboard with it. Quote
Mike Honcho Posted March 31 Posted March 31 Quote "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." If they get rid of it, it will come down to the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof" interpretation/argument. 1 Quote
Fnord Posted March 31 Posted March 31 21 minutes ago, HellToupee said: You onboard with birth tourism ? Is anybody? Maybe those that have benefitted from it, but probably not the general populace. I'm not, but I also wouldn't consider it a problem. Quote
HellToupee Posted March 31 Posted March 31 3 minutes ago, Fnord said: Is anybody? Maybe those that have benefitted from it, but probably not the general populace. I'm not, but I also wouldn't consider it a problem. An island roughly 100 miles from Guam running birth tourism to wealthy Chinese seems like an issue Quote Pregnant Chinese women have turned a tropical paradise into a maternity ward — pumping out babies who automatically become US citizens daily. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a US territory northeast of Guam in the Pacific Ocean, has been flooded with so-called “birth tourists” since 2009 when then-president Barack Obama introduced a visa-waiver program for Chinese nationals. China-watchers estimate about 1,000 companies offer birth tourism to the Northern Mariana Islands, other US overseas territories and even the US mainland. They claim a gob-smacking 1.5 million American babies are being raised in China by Chinese parents who’ve participated in birth tourism. https://nypost.com/2026/03/19/us-news/us-territory-where-thousands-of-chinese-moms-give-birth-to-american-babies/ Quote
Fnord Posted March 31 Posted March 31 2 minutes ago, HellToupee said: An island roughly 100 miles from Guam running birth tourism to wealthy Chinese seems like an issue https://nypost.com/2026/03/19/us-news/us-territory-where-thousands-of-chinese-moms-give-birth-to-american-babies/ Jesus Christ. I am not liking that. Quote
dogcows Posted March 31 Posted March 31 28 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said: If they get rid of it, it will come down to the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof" interpretation/argument. If they say immigrants aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, does that mean we can’t arrest them, like they all have full diplomatic immunity? The thousands of immigrants locked up in ICE detention could not legally be there unless they are under the jurisdiction of the USA. 1 Quote
Mike Honcho Posted March 31 Posted March 31 9 minutes ago, dogcows said: If they say immigrants aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, does that mean we can’t arrest them, like they all have full diplomatic immunity? The thousands of immigrants locked up in ICE detention could not legally be there unless they are under the jurisdiction of the USA. Based on the creative reasoning of some of other recent rulings, I wouldn't count on them being that consistent. 1 Quote
seafoam1 Posted March 31 Posted March 31 1 hour ago, Caine Mutiny said: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/31/nx-s1-5768123/donald-trump-the-supreme-court-and-birthright-citizenship Ok this seems fairly straightforward to me. The Constitution protects birthright citizenship. You may not like the fact that undocumented immigrants, or tourists, can come to this country and have babies that automatically become citizens with full rights. I get that. But if you want to change it, you need to change the Constitution. Don’t try to argue crackpot theories to bypass it. One day if you ever figure out how the constitution, it's amendments and this country's legal system work, you are going to feel like a total idiot because of all these stupid comments you leave on this site. 1 Quote
TimHauck Posted April 1 Posted April 1 5 hours ago, HellToupee said: An island roughly 100 miles from Guam running birth tourism to wealthy Chinese seems like an issue https://nypost.com/2026/03/19/us-news/us-territory-where-thousands-of-chinese-moms-give-birth-to-american-babies/ Seems like this could be corrected by removing the visa waiver Quote
dogcows Posted April 1 Posted April 1 34 minutes ago, TimHauck said: Seems like this could be corrected by removing the visa waiver Nope, the only solution is to burn the constitution. Conservative “logic.” Quote
jerryskids Posted April 1 Posted April 1 6 hours ago, Mike Honcho said: If they get rid of it, it will come down to the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof" interpretation/argument. Yep. As I play amateur legal scholar, the opinion in the link below for the primary precedent (Wong Kim Ark) clearly states that the exceptions are for diplomats or occupying enemies, but it DOESN'T seem to ever specifically address being here illegally, one way or the other. So that could provide an opening for re-interpretation. It also specifies on numerous occasions "permanent residence," which now at least refers to legal authorization to work here. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898 1 Quote
Gepetto Posted April 1 Posted April 1 The Supreme Court isn't going to just interpret the Constitution to come to their decision. They are going to think about the consequences of their decision and decide that way, in my opinion. Meaning nothing will change regarding birthright citizenship. Quote
Thornton Melon Posted April 1 Posted April 1 13 hours ago, dogcows said: If they say immigrants aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, does that mean we can’t arrest them, like they all have full diplomatic immunity? The thousands of immigrants locked up in ICE detention could not legally be there unless they are under the jurisdiction of the USA. Since the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause applies to invaders, and I consider those here illegally to be invaders, then Yes, they can be in ICE detention centers. Just like any captured soldiers from an invading army can be placed into detention in the US even though they're not "subject to the jurisdiction". Quote
Mike Honcho Posted April 1 Posted April 1 8 hours ago, Gepetto said: The Supreme Court isn't going to just interpret the Constitution to come to their decision. They are going to think about the consequences of their decision and decide that way, in my opinion. Meaning nothing will change regarding birthright citizenship. Quote
TimHauck Posted April 1 Posted April 1 9 hours ago, jerryskids said: Yep. As I play amateur legal scholar, the opinion in the link below for the primary precedent (Wong Kim Ark) clearly states that the exceptions are for diplomats or occupying enemies, but it DOESN'T seem to ever specifically address being here illegally, one way or the other. So that could provide an opening for re-interpretation. It also specifies on numerous occasions "permanent residence," which now at least refers to legal authorization to work here. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898 You seem to be backtracking a bit from some of your prior posts on the subject, when you claimed the 14th amendment was not intended to include people who are in the country illegally. There is an argument that its “primary” purpose was for freed slaves, but if that was the only purpose it would have said that. As you note above, the exceptions have been clearly stated, so I think the conclusion needs to be that if you are not one of those exceptions, then it applies. I don’t see how they can argue illegals are not “subject to the jurisdiction.” My guess is they try to classify illegals as an occupying enemy. On 8/8/2025 at 12:07 PM, jerryskids said: The 14th Amendment was intended to protect the freed slaves. "Whole person" was not intended to include people who are in the country illegally. It would be exactly the job of SCOTUS to clarify this. Quote
TimHauck Posted April 1 Posted April 1 But apparently in Wong Kim Ark although his parents were not citizens, they were considered to be “permanently domiciled.” So the admin may push that aspect as well - although I suppose that would at least have to mean that any children of “legal permanent residents” would need to be citizens too. Quote
dogcows Posted April 1 Posted April 1 3 hours ago, Thornton Melon said: Since the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause applies to invaders, and I consider those here illegally to be invaders, then Yes, they can be in ICE detention centers. Just like any captured soldiers from an invading army can be placed into detention in the US even though they're not "subject to the jurisdiction". However you feel about immigrants, you seem to agree they are definitely subject to our jurisdiction. So the constitution should overrule any xenophobic feelings. Quote
dogcows Posted April 1 Posted April 1 36 minutes ago, TimHauck said: But apparently in Wong Kim Ark although his parents were not citizens, they were considered to be “permanently domiciled.” So the admin may push that aspect as well - although I suppose that would at least have to mean that any children of “legal permanent residents” would need to be citizens too. The language in the 14th amendment isn’t vague. If the court overrules this, then they can literally overrule anything in the constitution for any reason. 1 Quote
HellToupee Posted April 1 Posted April 1 3 hours ago, Maximum Overkill said: The judiciary is a major problem. No hearings, just impeachment. Go down the list and clear out every traitor. Just get rid of them Quote
Fnord Posted April 1 Posted April 1 2 minutes ago, HellToupee said: No hearings, just impeachment. Go down the list and clear out every traitor. Just get rid of them How very American! 1 Quote
jerryskids Posted April 1 Posted April 1 2 hours ago, TimHauck said: You seem to be backtracking a bit from some of your prior posts on the subject, when you claimed the 14th amendment was not intended to include people who are in the country illegally. There is an argument that its “primary” purpose was for freed slaves, but if that was the only purpose it would have said that. As you note above, the exceptions have been clearly stated, so I think the conclusion needs to be that if you are not one of those exceptions, then it applies. I don’t see how they can argue illegals are not “subject to the jurisdiction.” My guess is they try to classify illegals as an occupying enemy. I'm not backtracking anything, idiot. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion with @Mike Honchoon what the different arguments might be. 1 hour ago, TimHauck said: But apparently in Wong Kim Ark although his parents were not citizens, they were considered to be “permanently domiciled.” So the admin may push that aspect as well - although I suppose that would at least have to mean that any children of “legal permanent residents” would need to be citizens too. I literally discussed the topic of "permanent residence" in my post that you didn't read. Do me a favor and just stop engaging with me. I'm still tired from the radiation and I don't have the energy to point out the stupidity of every failed gotcha attempt of yours followed by your autistic yip yip unwillingness to just shut the fock up. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 1 Quote
Thornton Melon Posted April 1 Posted April 1 1 hour ago, dogcows said: However you feel about immigrants, you seem to agree they are definitely subject to our jurisdiction. So the constitution should overrule any xenophobic feelings. Again, illegal immigrants should be considered invaders, like an invading army would be. Invaders are subject to detention and prosecution, even though they are excluded under the "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." clause of the 14th Amendment. 1 Quote
Hardcore troubadour Posted April 1 Posted April 1 The left wing cultists think Katani Brown Jackson is a great legal mind and was the best person for the job. Quote
TimHauck Posted April 1 Posted April 1 7 minutes ago, jerryskids said: I'm not backtracking anything, idiot. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion with @Mike Honchoon what the different arguments might be. I literally discussed the topic of "permanent residence" in my post that you didn't read. Do me a favor and just stop engaging with me. I'm still tired from the radiation and I don't have the energy to point out the stupidity of every failed gotcha attempt of yours followed by your autistic yip yip unwillingness to just shut the fock up. Thank you for your attention to this matter. But as @dogcows points out, that language is only in Wong Kim Ark, not the original amendment. In the post form last year I quoted, you said that in the 14th amendment “Whole person" was not intended to include people who are in the country illegally.” Is that still your opinion? Quote
dogcows Posted April 1 Posted April 1 1 minute ago, TimHauck said: But as @dogcows points out, that language is only in Wong Kim Ark, not the original amendment. In the post form last year I quoted, you said that in the 14th amendment “Whole person" was not intended to include people who are in the country illegally.” Is that still your opinion? The twisting by conservatives on this is wild. There is NO argument to be made for removing birthright citizenship. NONE. Unless they want to repeal the 14th amendment, any change would be a blatant disregard for the constitution. And then what are we left with? What is our government even based on if the constitution is considered to be irrelevant? Quote
squistion Posted April 1 Posted April 1 Quote The left wing cultists think Katani Brown Jackson is a great legal mind and was the best person for the job. There is no doubt she was well qualified to become a member of SCOTUS: Ketanji Brown Jackson’s qualifications for the Supreme Court included a distinguished legal career with experience as a federal judge, public defender, and Sentencing Commission member. She earned a J.D. laude from Harvard Law School, clerked for three federal judges including Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, and served on both the U.S. District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Quote
HellToupee Posted April 1 Posted April 1 6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: The left wing cultists think Katani Brown Jackson is a great legal mind and was the best person for the job. 3 letters DEI . Quote
TimHauck Posted April 1 Posted April 1 Just now, dogcows said: The twisting by conservatives on this is wild. There is NO argument to be made for removing birthright citizenship. NONE. Unless they want to repeal the 14th amendment, any change would be a blatant disregard for the constitution. And then what are we left with? What is our government even based on if the constitution is considered to be irrelevant? I saw this article which was interesting - https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/the-key-arguments-in-the-birthright-citizenship-case/ Basically, it seems the argument could be what @jerryskids has said in the past - that the 14th amendment was meant for freed slaves. This is based on 2 cases: 1) Slaughter-House in 1873, which said that the “pervading purpose” was for slaves. But that doesn’t mean it was the only purpose, if it was there’s no reason they wouldn’t have specified it. 2) Elk v. Wilkins in 1884, which said similarly, and ultimately ruled that someone born on a Native American reservation was not a citizen - but a later law did change that and say that those born on Native American reservations were citizens. Quote
dogcows Posted April 1 Posted April 1 Just now, TimHauck said: I saw this article which was interesting - https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/the-key-arguments-in-the-birthright-citizenship-case/ Basically, it seems the argument could be what @jerryskids has said in the past - that the 14th amendment was meant for freed slaves. This is based on 2 cases: 1) Slaughter-House in 1873, which said that the “pervading purpose” was for slaves. But that doesn’t mean it was the only purpose, if it was there’s no reason they wouldn’t have specified it. 2) Elk v. Wilkins in 1884, which said similarly, and ultimately ruled that someone born on a Native American reservation was not a citizen - but a later law did change that and say that those born on Native American reservations were citizens. It doesn’t matter what some historians try to say it was “meant” for. The words matter. And they are not vague at all. If it was truly meant only for slaves it would have said slaves specifically. They made the choice to make it everybody by the language they chose. If you want to study the history, I applaud that. Let’s learn what our ancestors were thinking when they created our laws and constitution. But when it comes to interpreting the law… we can’t disregard the plain language. Especially since each person who voted for that amendment might have had a different idea in their head as they voted for it. Maybe some people saw it as only for slaves. Maybe others thought of immigrants. We cannot read the minds of dead people, but we can rely on the actual ratified text of the constitution. For a counter example: The second amendment was meant for muskets. But we advanced to more powerful weapons and they are also protected. Quote
jerryskids Posted April 1 Posted April 1 22 minutes ago, TimHauck said: But as @dogcows points out, that language is only in Wong Kim Ark, not the original amendment. In the post form last year I quoted, you said that in the 14th amendment “Whole person" was not intended to include people who are in the country illegally.” Is that still your opinion? I pointed that out, not dogcows. You can't read and you are just flailing on this, as usual. This is my last post to you on it. Good day. 1 Quote
TimHauck Posted April 1 Posted April 1 12 minutes ago, jerryskids said: I pointed that out, not dogcows. You can't read and you are just flailing on this, as usual. This is my last post to you on it. Good day. You commented on Wong Kim Ark, you didn’t address the amendment itself. Quote
Tree of Knowledge Posted April 1 Posted April 1 This is a Hail Mary by King Trump but a win would be YUGE for real Americans. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.