Birthright citizenship- Supreme Court Hearing

[Mark Davis]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

99% of people in impoverished nations don't have a choice to come to America though. And of those who do have the resources, many don't want to.

The idea that everybody in the world wants to come to America and that a flood of people would come if we had "open borders" is a fallacy. Most people in this world live and die within a fairly short distance from where they are born.

We have seen the biggest driver of refugees to the US is when there is war or other similar factors in nearby nations. If we want to limit refugees coming to the USA, working to help our neighboring countries keep the peace is by far the best policy.

Only it’s not a fallacy. Look at what happened at our border with Mexico when supposedly our policy was a closed border. If we just told everyone to come that could get here, we wouldn’t be able to absorb it. It doesn’t have to be a majority, look at global population compared to the United States.  From a statistical sense it wouldn’t take much  

I can’t argue peace and prosperity in other countries reduces the “demand” for immigration here. So yes we should try to promote that 

[Mark Davis]

38 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

When private businesses control and makes  decisions based on need that’s capitalism. When the government does it that’s socialism. 

I’ll give you this. You’re committed. You just changed a definition of a word to mean two different things depending on the lens you want to view it through. 

[Mark Davis]

3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

IBuddy 1890s, 1930s, 50s on & on - the same arguments over & over again.They were all made before our great great great grandpappies flopped on the docks like wet seals. Meanwhile I’m sure you know declining population is the deathknell of any society.

And open borders isn’t the solution. A merit based system would be. And that’s not to say we don’t need dishwashers, farm workers, roofers. I’m fine with all that. But we should have a number in mind and vet those people the best we can. 

[Hardcore troubadour]

42 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

We’re not close to being a lifeboat. I’m not worried about it. Immigration, far from taking away resources, create resources. 

But of course this is all theoretical. I know we’ll never have open immigration of the sort I want. It’s fun to discuss but it will never happen. 

Entitled, soft and privileged. Born on third base. 

[dogcows]

1 minute ago, Mark Davis said:

Only it’s not a fallacy. Look at what happened at our border with Mexico when supposedly our policy was a closed border. If we just told everyone to come that could get here, we wouldn’t be able to absorb it. It doesn’t have to be a majority, look at global population compared to the United States.  From a statistical sense it wouldn’t take much  

I can’t argue peace and prosperity in other countries reduces the “demand” for immigration here. So yes we should try to promote that 

I think we agree more here than we disagree. How about you and I go to Congress, one liberal and one conservative, and they sign off on a new law with whatever compromise we can achieve?

[SaintsInDome2006]

5 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

And open borders isn’t the solution. A merit based system would be. And that’s not to say we don’t need dishwashers, farm workers, roofers. I’m fine with all that. But we should have a number in mind and vet those people the best we can. 

We have a law - it’s 750K-900K. Sen Lankford (R) wrote a law with a kill switch at something like 5K on the southern border in a day or something. Just follow the law, pass Lankford’s & follow.it. Progressives will be pissed & maga will be pissed, that’s how you know it’s a good law.

[Hardcore troubadour]

16 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

IBuddy 1890s, 1930s, 50s on & on - the same arguments over & over again.They were all made before our great great great grandpappies flopped on the docks like wet seals. Meanwhile I’m sure you know declining population is the deathknell of any society.

Yeah because history is static. You know,  history, where for most of it living to 40 was rare. And a war was always around the corner to wipe out half the men. You people are unbelievable. 

[SaintsInDome2006]

5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah because history is static. You know,  history, where for most of it living to 40 was rare. And a war was always around the corner to wipe out half the men. You people are unbelievable. 

That’s an argument to bring more young people in, not keep them out.

[Mark Davis]

9 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

We have a law - it’s 750K-900K. Sen Lankford (R) wrote a law with a kill switch at something like 5K on the southern border in a day or something. Just follow the law, pass Lankford’s & follow.it. Progressives will be pissed & maga will be pissed, that’s how you know it’s a good law.

I’m good with setting a number and following it. My main issue today other than saying we should truly enforce the law is how we forego a merit system for a lottery and familial system. That’s always baffled me, the argument for randomness over selective. 
 

My other comments are more to why we can’t have totally open borders and immigration without limits. I totally get that we do need it given birth rates and our economy.
 

Going back to the old days though forget just the entitlements, those days were where kids had to pay for their own schoolbooks and to a large extent public education didn’t even really exist. You had to be wealthy enough to send your kids to a boarding school if you lived in a rural area and wanted them to go to school.  Comparing those days to today is hard because the government bears a significant cost today for every person here in services. 

[SaintsInDome2006]

24 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

I’m good with setting a number and following it. My main issue today other than saying we should truly enforce the law is how we forego a merit system for a lottery and familial system. That’s always baffled me, the argument for randomness over selective. 
 

My other comments are more to why we can’t have totally open borders and immigration without limits. I totally get that we do need it given birth rates and our economy.
 

Going back to the old days though forget just the entitlements, those days were where kids had to pay for their own schoolbooks and to a large extent public education didn’t even really exist. You had to be wealthy enough to send your kids to a boarding school if you lived in a rural area and wanted them to go to school.  Comparing those days to today is hard because the government bears a significant cost today for every person here in services. 

Thanks for the thoughtful response. How about a Mexican who wants to work in a poultry picking plant on the Arizona border, would he meet the merit system?

[SaintsInDome2006]

Justice Barrett, Slavery, and Birthright Citizenship Justice Barrett raised a crucial issue in today's birthright citizenship oral argument. Trump's Solicitor General gave an inaccurate response.

<<>

Barrett: General, you -- you said in your reply brief that the children of slaves who were brought here unlawfully, you know, in -- in -- in defiance of laws forbidding the slave trade, would, in fact, be citizens….

And you can imagine that their parents were not only brought here in violation of United States law but were here against their will and so maybe felt allegiance to the countries where they were from. And you say that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to put all slaves on equal footing, newly freed slaves on equal footing, and so they would be citizens. But that's not textual. So how do you -- how do you get there?

Sauer: Sure. If you look at the nine -- I think, if you look at the 19th century sources, what you see is that even though their entry may have been unlawful, 19th century antebellum law never treated their presence as unlawful. In fact, quite the opposite. One of the amici, in fact, points to, like, a Mississippi statute, which probably is replicated throughout the South before the Civil War, that says slaves in Mississippi have an indefeasible domicile in Mississippi.

Justice Barrett is getting at the point that if - as the administration argues - children of people who entered the US illegally are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States (which they have to be to qualify for birthright citizenship), then the same is true of the many thousands of slaves brought in illegally after the US banned the slave trade in 1808, and their children. Similarly, as she suggests, if - as the administration claims - children of people who lack exclusive "allegiance" to the United States don't qualify for birthright citizenship, then that must be true of the children of slaves brought in illegally. After all, these slaves likely felt little if any allegiance to the US authorities complicit in their enslavement, and under the administration's logic, they and their children also were not entitled to birthright citizenship. I would add this point applies even to slaves imported legally. They, too, might well have felt or "owed" allegiance to the rulers of their homelands, and certainly had no allegiance to the United States, the nation that held them in bondage. …

SG Sauer's answer is just factually wrong. Under federal law, the presence of illegally imported slaves in the United States was not legal. As legal scholars Paul Finkelman and Gabriel Chin showed in their pathbreaking 2021 article on this subject, illegally imported slaves were subject to detention and deportation, much like illegal migrants today.

Later in the same exchange, Sauer tries to get out of this hole by claiming that illegally imported slaves were "domiciled" in the United States. Justice Barrett seemed skeptical, and that skepticism is well-justified. As explained in my article, there is no meaningful sense in which illegally imported slaves were domiciled in the US that would not also apply to illegal migrants and their children.

In sum, Justice Barrett hit on an important issue. And it should lead her and the other justices to rule against Trump for this reason alone, even aside from all the many other reasons why his position is wrong.>>>

[Meglamaniac]

2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Justice Barrett, Slavery, and Birthright Citizenship Justice Barrett raised a crucial issue in today's birthright citizenship oral argument. Trump's Solicitor General gave an inaccurate response.

<<>

Barrett: General, you -- you said in your reply brief that the children of slaves who were brought here unlawfully, you know, in -- in -- in defiance of laws forbidding the slave trade, would, in fact, be citizens….

And you can imagine that their parents were not only brought here in violation of United States law but were here against their will and so maybe felt allegiance to the countries where they were from. And you say that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to put all slaves on equal footing, newly freed slaves on equal footing, and so they would be citizens. But that's not textual. So how do you -- how do you get there?

Sauer: Sure. If you look at the nine -- I think, if you look at the 19th century sources, what you see is that even though their entry may have been unlawful, 19th century antebellum law never treated their presence as unlawful. In fact, quite the opposite. One of the amici, in fact, points to, like, a Mississippi statute, which probably is replicated throughout the South before the Civil War, that says slaves in Mississippi have an indefeasible domicile in Mississippi.

Justice Barrett is getting at the point that if - as the administration argues - children of people who entered the US illegally are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States (which they have to be to qualify for birthright citizenship), then the same is true of the many thousands of slaves brought in illegally after the US banned the slave trade in 1808, and their children. Similarly, as she suggests, if - as the administration claims - children of people who lack exclusive "allegiance" to the United States don't qualify for birthright citizenship, then that must be true of the children of slaves brought in illegally. After all, these slaves likely felt little if any allegiance to the US authorities complicit in their enslavement, and under the administration's logic, they and their children also were not entitled to birthright citizenship. I would add this point applies even to slaves imported legally. They, too, might well have felt or "owed" allegiance to the rulers of their homelands, and certainly had no allegiance to the United States, the nation that held them in bondage. …

 

SG Sauer's answer is just factually wrong. Under federal law, the presence of illegally imported slaves in the United States was not legal. As legal scholars Paul Finkelman and Gabriel Chin showed in their pathbreaking 2021 article on this subject, illegally imported slaves were subject to detention and deportation, much like illegal migrants today.

Later in the same exchange, Sauer tries to get out of this hole by claiming that illegally imported slaves were "domiciled" in the United States. Justice Barrett seemed skeptical, and that skepticism is well-justified. As explained in my article, there is no meaningful sense in which illegally imported slaves were domiciled in the US that would not also apply to illegal migrants and their children.

In sum, Justice Barrett hit on an important issue. And it should lead her and the other justices to rule against Trump for this reason alone, even aside from all the many other reasons why his position is wrong.>>>

I guess all those other things going on weren't as important as sticking around and cutting and pasting 

[SaintsInDome2006]

10 minutes ago, Meglamaniac said:

I guess all those other things going on weren't as important as sticking around and cutting and pasting 

What you want an update? I stayed later at work. That cool with you?

[Meglamaniac]

3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

What you want an update? I stayed later at work. That cool with you?

Not really, like I said you need a break from this place amigo

[SaintsInDome2006]

1 minute ago, Meglamaniac said:

Not really, like I said you need a break from this place amigo

Yaknow Megla, I appreciate that. I’ll head into the Quarter now & catch some baseball, like I planned. Have a good one.

[Meglamaniac]

Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Yaknow Megla, I appreciate that. I’ll head into the Quarter now & catch some baseball, like I planned. Have a good one.

Who we watching?

Mil/KC or gonna a few a few and stay later for a 945 game

[Meglamaniac]

2 minutes ago, Meglamaniac said:

Who we watching?

Mil/KC or gonna a few a few and stay later for a 945 game

Or seeing as how you are in LA you could catch the last 4 innings of LSU/TENN

[Mark Davis]

6 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Thanks for the thoughtful response. How about a Mexican who wants to work in a poultry picking plant on the Arizona border, would he meet the merit system?

Sure.  We need those folks, in certain quantities.  Often I think those workers would prefer a work visa, but would be open either way.  We need farm workers, poultry plant workers, construction workers, but we need people who want to work.  A lot of those folks do, but we have some who come and live on government assistance as well.  To me, merit means placing value on those jobs just as any others we need.

[Hardcore troubadour]

8 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So you cucks want it so that someone can come here on an HB-1 visa, a temporary work visa, have a kid and then be able to bring the rest of their family here , including grandparents? Do I have that right? 

Crickets 

[Maximum Overkill]

17 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Thanks for the thoughtful response. How about a Mexican who wants to work in a poultry picking plant on the Arizona border, would he meet the merit system?

 

 

[Reality]

22 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

 

 

Yeah, the law doesn't need amended at all. 

 

[Frozenbeernuts]

10% of US children are anchor babies?

The left will cease to exist soon. We cannot coexist with them. They will continue to attempt societal suicide. They will never stop.

[Maximum Overkill]

A Venezuelan migrant stabbed a Queens man and tried to slit his throat

 

https://www.aol.com/articles/venezuelan-migrant-tried-slit-queens-221951734.html

Suffolk District Attorney Raymond Tierney said in a statement Tuesday that evidence recovered against Ramirez “raises serious questions about what he intended ...

[Frozenbeernuts]

Wait, hold up. Asylum seekers are actually just normal people waiting for a democrat to be elected because they know it will be MUCH easier to sneak into the country? No way! I did not see this coming. Who could have?

 

[dogcows]

You go to sleep, wake up on a Saturday, and see that a somewhat decent discussion thread about the constitution turned into yet another Willie Horton-inspired spam fest.

[squistion]

2 hours ago, dogcows said:

You go to sleep, wake up on a Saturday, and see that a somewhat decent discussion thread about the constitution turned into yet another Willie Horton-inspired spam fest.

Exactly, they can't intelligently discuss the issues before SCOTUS, so they just spam the thread instead.

[cyclone24]

49 minutes ago, squistion said:

Exactly, they can't intelligently discuss the issues before SCOTUS, so they just spam the thread instead.

Could I just summarize it by saying that the side I’d probably pick is the one that says it’s crazy to think you can hop on a boat from China land in Hawaii crap out a kid and suddenly they’re all Americans is completely absurd
And you guys will say at the end great but its in the constitution… change it.

 

that pretty much it?

[Red White and Blue]

Whatever you think of birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment is clear. Trump knows this and floats these cases as a racist dog whistle. We the American taxpayer foot the legal bill for his stunts.

[dogcows]

1 hour ago, cyclone24 said:

Could I just summarize it by saying that the side I’d probably pick is the one that says it’s crazy to think you can hop on a boat from China land in Hawaii crap out a kid and suddenly all Americans is completely absurd
And you guys will say at the end great yachts in the constitution change it.

 

that pretty much it?

Tell me more about these fictional people riding non-existent passenger boat routes from China to Hawaii.

[cyclone24]

24 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Tell me more about these fictional people riding non-existent passenger boat routes from China to Hawaii.

https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/maternity-tourism-in-hawaii/
 

I mean, I was using it as a general example, but it does happen. So imagine typing what you typed as this sort of gotcha on a specific argument I wasn’t making only to get proven wrong from the random example I made. 
 

Again, you seem miserable all the time but then you’re not even really smart enough to put up valid arguments 

were you unaware of this happens? Kind of like you were unaware Iran is a threat?

[dogcows]

5 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/maternity-tourism-in-hawaii/
 

I mean, I was using it as a general example, but it does happen. So imagine typing what you typed as this sort of gotcha on a specific argument I wasn’t making only to get proven wrong from the random example I made. 
 

Again, you seem miserable all the time but then you’re not even really smart enough to put up valid arguments 

were you unaware of this happens? Kind of like you were unaware Iran is a threat?

Moms taking boats from China to Hawaii to give birth doesn’t happen. You posted a link about people flying to Hawaii.

[cyclone24]

1 minute ago, dogcows said:

Moms taking boats from China to Hawaii to give birth doesn’t happen. You posted a link about people flying to Hawaii.

Oh Jesus, fockin Christ go touch grass nerd. Yeah the big problem with it is they flew instead of took a boat. That’s the part you hung up on. Go away. 

[seafoam1]

3 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

Oh Jesus, fockin Christ go touch grass nerd. Yeah the big problem with it is they flew instead of took a boat. That’s the part you hung up on. Go away. 

Mexicans just walked over the border and popped them out.

But oh no, it's not happening...

Liberals are so stupid. 

[dogcows]

2 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

Oh Jesus, fockin Christ go touch grass nerd. Yeah the big problem with it is they flew instead of took a boat. That’s the part you hung up on. Go away. 

Holy overreaction Batman.  

[cyclone24]

8 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Mexicans just walked over the border and popped them out.

But oh no, it's not happening...

Liberals are so stupid. 

“ but uhhh….that’s not how they arrived there by the way. That wasn’t the mode of transportation.” Jfc

[jerryskids]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

Moms taking boats from China to Hawaii to give birth doesn’t happen. You posted a link about people flying to Hawaii.

I see you've entered the Squissy silly semantic portion of your "intelligent discussion."   

[Hardcore troubadour]

On 4/3/2026 at 12:39 PM, Hardcore troubadour said:

So you cucks want it so that someone can come here on an HB-1 visa, a temporary work visa, have a kid and then be able to bring the rest of their family here , including grandparents? Do I have that right? 

Why won’t the liberals answer this simple question?

[dogcows]

28 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I see you've entered the Squissy silly semantic portion of your "intelligent discussion."   

A claim that people are taking boats from China to Hawaii to give birth is profoundly stupid. Which I thought needed to be pointed out. This is not just a minor semantic point.

[seafoam1]

21 minutes ago, dogcows said:

A claim that people are taking boats from China to Hawaii to give birth is profoundly stupid. Which I thought needed to be pointed out. This is not just a minor semantic point.

They are coming up through our southern border illegally and popping out kids and nauseum.

And you are all in. 

Liberals are so stupid. 

[TimHauck]

On 4/3/2026 at 5:23 AM, Frozenbeernuts said:

What pattern the left doesn't see, among many, is the targeting of whites. I wonder why whites, especially white men, are targeted so much these days. Any guesses?

So racism isn’t a problem anymore, well except against white men.  Too funny.  Never change GC.