Birthright citizenship- Supreme Court Hearing

[dogcows]

If the court rules in Trump's favor, will they strip Barron's citizenship? His mom was a non-citizen when he was born. Oh I guess this applies to his first 3 kids too. Ivana wasn't a citizen either.

[squistion]

 

[TimHauck]

5 minutes ago, dogcows said:

If the court rules in Trump's favor, will they strip Barron's citizenship? His mom was a non-citizen when he was born. Oh I guess this applies to his first 3 kids too. Ivana wasn't a citizen either.

I read that only one of the parents would need to be a citizen.  And of course it wouldn’t be applied retroactively

[Hardcore troubadour]

Even Kagan and Sotomayor think KBJ is a complete moron. 

[cyclone24]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Even Kagan and Sotomayor think KBJ is a complete moron. 

“If I steal a wallet in Japan, I am subject to Japanese laws….. in a sense, it's allegiance."

Her case for birthright citizenship:

 

 

When DEI goes wrong. Thank God, the country has moved past that nonsense.

[squistion]

3 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

“If I steal a wallet in Japan, I am subject to Japanese laws….. in a sense, it's allegiance."

Her case for birthright citizenship:

I doubt that, I would like to see the quote in context. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

13 minutes ago, dogcows said:

If the court rules in Trump's favor, will they strip Barron's citizenship? His mom was a non-citizen when he was born. Oh I guess this applies to his first 3 kids too. Ivana wasn't a citizen either.

way to show you have zero clue about anything, last I checked it only takes one parent BEING A CITIZEN

[cyclone24]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

I doubt that, I would like to see the quote in context. 

Now Trump is going to lose this case or its getting kicked to congress. I don’t he should because I don’t think just because you’ve snuck in, crapped out a bunch of kids that makes you a citizen and it incentivizes such behavior but man she’s terrible and out of her depth

[cyclone24]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

way to show you have zero clue about anything, last I checked it only takes one parent BEING A CITIZEN

Holy crap doggy actually said that? I just had to scroll up and look. Yikes

[dogcows]

11 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I read that only one of the parents would need to be a citizen.  And of course it wouldn’t be applied retroactively

So basically they would ignore the words of the constitution and make up their own totally arbitrary rules. I am amazed at the hubris of this administration.

[dogcows]

4 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

way to show you have zero clue about anything, last I checked it only takes one parent BEING A CITIZEN

All it takes is to be born here. Like it says in the 14th amendment. Doesn't matter where your parents are from.

[lickin_starfish]

 

 

[dogcows]

3 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

Now Trump is going to lose this case or its getting kicked to congress. I don’t he should because I don’t think just because you’ve snuck in, crapped out a bunch of kids that makes you a citizen and it incentivizes such behavior but man she’s terrible and out of her depth

Are you really too stupid to realize that this is an argument about the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause in the 14th amendment?

Good lord, the education system in Iowa is worse than I thought.

[TimHauck]

13 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

“If I steal a wallet in Japan, I am subject to Japanese laws….. in a sense, it's allegiance."

Her case for birthright citizenship:

 

 

Well that and basically every precedent in the history of the country

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

12 minutes ago, dogcows said:

All it takes is to be born here. Like it says in the 14th amendment. Doesn't matter where your parents are from.

it doesn't say that

it says jurisdiction of if you are visiting somewhere you aren't entitled to be a citizen

 

[dogcows]

Amy Coney Barrett asked what about cases where you don't know who the parents are. An excellent point, with no good answer given.

Neil Gorsuch couldn't even get a straight answer from Sauer on whether Native Americans are birthright citizens.

The legal case is absolutely absurd and Sauer sounds completely lost.

Birthright citizenship is foundational and it's crazy that the case even made it this far. It seems certain the court will rule against this insane attempt to subvert the constitution. I hope John Roberts presses his conservative colleagues to make it unanimous so that future presidents don't try the same game.

[dogcows]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

it doesn't say that

it says jurisdiction of if you are visiting somewhere you aren't entitled to be a citizen

 

Yes, it does say that. But I already know you can't read; you've proven it numerous times.

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. 

Everybody in the US is under our jurisdiction. Foreigners have to obey US law while they are here or they get tried in a US court. Duh.

[Caine Mutiny]

Just now, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

it doesn't say that

it says jurisdiction of if you are visiting somewhere you aren't entitled to be a citizen

 

Your viewpoint is going to be outvoted. 
 

I predict it will be a 6-3 decision, with Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas taking your position against Birthright Citizenship 

[thegeneral]

Is little Marco ok under these new potential changes? 

[TimHauck]

18 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Yes, it does say that. But I already know you can't read; you've proven it numerous times.

Everybody in the US is under our jurisdiction. Foreigners have to obey US law while they are here or they get tried in a US court. Duh.

Well not diplomats 

[TimHauck]

20 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Amy Coney Barrett asked what about cases where you don't know who the parents are. An excellent point, with no good answer given.

Neil Gorsuch couldn't even get a straight answer from Sauer on whether Native Americans are birthright citizens.

The legal case is absolutely absurd and Sauer sounds completely lost.

Birthright citizenship is foundational and it's crazy that the case even made it this far. It seems certain the court will rule against this insane attempt to subvert the constitution. I hope John Roberts presses his conservative colleagues to make it unanimous so that future presidents don't try the same game.

Lol they couldn’t answer whether native Americans are birthright citizens?

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

21 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Yes, it does say that. But I already know you can't read; you've proven it numerous times.

Everybody in the US is under our jurisdiction. Foreigners have to obey US law while they are here or they get tried in a US court. Duh.

so if you dont obey the law coming here you think you should be allowed to drop a baby here

regardless of the outcome that is the most idiotic thought I have ever heard, the founding fathers didnt know planes would exist

but I am sure some idiot like you would vote for a commie chinaman born here raised in china and comes back as an adult to run for office

good job morons

 

[TimHauck]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

so if you dont obey the law coming here you think you should be allowed to drop a baby here

regardless of the outcome that is the most idiotic thought I have ever heard, the founding fathers didnt know planes would exist

but I am sure some idiot like you would vote for a commie chinaman born here raised in china and comes back as an adult to run for office

good job morons

 

Boats existed, is there much difference in terms of the possibility for new people to come here?   Besides, most illegals don’t enter the US via plane anyway 

[Hardcore troubadour]

38 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Amy Coney Barrett asked what about cases where you don't know who the parents are. An excellent point, with no good answer given.

Neil Gorsuch couldn't even get a straight answer from Sauer on whether Native Americans are birthright citizens.

The legal case is absolutely absurd and Sauer sounds completely lost.

Birthright citizenship is foundational and it's crazy that the case even made it this far. It seems certain the court will rule against this insane attempt to subvert the constitution. I hope John Roberts presses his conservative colleagues to make it unanimous so that future presidents don't try the same game.

And you don’t think it’s morphed into something else.  Because Trump rules your every breath.  You’re also the same guy that says the 2a should be adapted for modern times. You must post from a looney bin. 

[GobbleDog]

One of the few subjects I agree with Trump.

The vast majority of countries don't have a birthright law. Perhaps they realize you shouldn't reward people for illegally entering the country and having kids. That shouldn't magically entitle them to anything. Nevermind that many are going to live on welfare, commit crime, and exponentially multiply creating more welfare suckn criminals.  

The US has been the world's doormat for far too long.

[WhiteWonder]

22 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

You want to change it, change the Constitution. 

im sure that would go over reallllly well with libs 

[WhiteWonder]

22 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

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. 

fortunately your opinion doesn't matter as you're not an expert on the topic.

[Mike Honcho]

3 hours 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.

You're probably wasting your time.    

[dogcows]

Outstanding op-ed by Jamelle Bouie on the birthright case. Includes a lot of history as well as legal precedent explanations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/opinion/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-14th-amendment.html?unlocked_article_code=1.XlA.D8jX.ERtOAjmnMpu6&smid=nytcore-ios-share

The court that ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case was NOT liberal, as they are the same court who ruled Plessy v Ferguson. Pretending this is a “liberal” ruling is silly historic revisionism.

Quote

The Supreme Court would have its swing at the citizenship clause in 1898, after a string of cases whose results gutted much of the substance of the 14th Amendment, including Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that flipped the equal protection clause on its head to allow Jim Crow segregation.

It should not escape our attention that it was this court — the Plessy court — that then issued the majority opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the case that validated the citizenship of a San Francisco-born Chinese American who had been denied re-entry to the United States on account of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and affirmed the broad language of the citizenship clause.

The 14th Amendment, wrote Justice Horace Gray for the court, was “declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect.” Its “opening words, ‘All persons born,’ are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race.” Everyone born on American soil — other than members of native tribes and “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state” notwithstanding — was entitled to American citizenship.

Here was a court that wasn’t opposed to racial subordination. But even it could not stretch the meaning of the birthright clause to make the children of Chinese laborers stateless. The words meant, unambiguously, what they said.

 

[TimHauck]

9 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Outstanding op-ed by Jamelle Bouie on the birthright case. Includes a lot of history as well as legal precedent explanations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/opinion/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-14th-amendment.html?unlocked_article_code=1.XlA.D8jX.ERtOAjmnMpu6&smid=nytcore-ios-share

The court that ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case was NOT liberal, as they are the same court who ruled Plessy v Ferguson. Pretending this is a “liberal” ruling is silly historic revisionism.

 

This guy also did a YouTube vid for those who can’t read good 

 

 

[Caine Mutiny]

23 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

fortunately your opinion doesn't matter as you're not an expert on the topic.

My opinion, just like yours, is relevant on all issues that don’t involve science or fact. 

[Caine Mutiny]

1 hour ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

 

but I am sure some idiot like you would vote for a commie chinaman born here raised in china and comes back as an adult to run for office

good job morons

 

Putting your racism aside, why not? 

[squistion]

2 hours ago, cyclone24 said:

Now Trump is going to lose this case or its getting kicked to congress. I don’t he should because I don’t think just because you’ve snuck in, crapped out a bunch of kids that makes you a citizen and it incentivizes such behavior but man she’s terrible and out of her depth

As I figured Jackson's comment were taken out of context and/or misrepresented, she was talking about the meaning of "under the jurisdiction" 

[TimHauck]

Has anyone told Don that we aren’t the only country with birthright citizenship?

[GobbleDog]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Has anyone told Don that we aren’t the only country with birthright citizenship?

About 30 countries (including the US) have an unconditional birthright citizenship law (most in South America). 

165 countries in the world do not. 

[squistion]

9 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Has anyone told Don that we aren’t the only country with birthright citizenship?

No and probably no one has told him either that we aren't the only country in the world with mail-in voting, which he also keeps falsely claiming.

[Gepetto]

This was handled differently in the past. 

The Decree: A new Pharaoh in Egypt, fearing the growing number of Israelites, ordered that all newborn Hebrew boys be thrown into the Nile, 

[TimHauck]

11 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

About 30 countries (including the US) have an unconditional birthright citizenship law (most in South America). 

165 countries in the world do not. 

30 is a lot more than zero.

interesting that MAGA is simultaneously hating on Europe because they won’t help with the Strait of Hormuz but also saying we should follow their lead on birthright citizenship.

[Caine Mutiny]

7 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

 

interesting that MAGA is simultaneously hating on Europe because they won’t help with the Strait of Hormuz but also saying we should follow their lead on birthright citizenship.

It’s not that interesting. 
 

MAGA begins with an emotional response to most important questions: “This is what we want”. In the case of immigration, what they want is a more white America- less brown and black people here. 

Next they come up with whatever arguments they can, no matter how contradictory, to best give them what they want. Well meaning thoughtful conservatives are sometimes impressed by these arguments and adopt them. But to the real MAGA dude the arguments are irrelevant: they’re a means to an end. So long as they work they’re fine but if they don’t work they get ignored. Consistency, integrity of ideas, mean nothing.  

[WhiteWonder]

33 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

interesting that MAGA is simultaneously hating on Europe because they won’t help with the Strait of Hormuz but also saying we should follow their lead on birthright citizenship.

Why?