Birthright citizenship- Supreme Court Hearing

[dogcows]

Here’s a clip from a larger documentary on the Chinese Exclusion Act.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/chinese-exclusion-act-united-states-v-wong-kim-ark/

The law at the time specifically excluded Chinese people from becoming naturalized citizens. And yet the court declared that the 14th Amendment superseded that for those born here.

It’s nuts to try and twist some phrases in that ruling to justify overriding birthright citizenship in 2026. I’m glad the court eviscerated Mr. Sauer’s attempt to do so.

[TBayXXXVII]

On 3/31/2026 at 3:49 PM, 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. 
 

But it’s the law, per the Constitution. You want to change it, change the Constitution. 

You understand that the Communist branch of our political system, will never do that, right?

[Caine Mutiny]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

You understand that the Communist branch of our political system, will never do that, right?

Then too bad. We’re stuck with it. 

[TBayXXXVII]

Just now, Caine Mutiny said:

Then too bad. We’re stuck with it. 

I find it interesting that you don't think that's a problem.

[Caine Mutiny]

7 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I find it interesting that you don't think that's a problem.

Not a big enough one to get rid of birthright citizenship. 
Trump is wrong; we’re not the only nation to have birthright citizenship. But it’s pretty uncommon and overall it’s a great thing and part of the idealism of this country. I would never get rid of it. 

[dogcows]

25 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

You understand that the Communist branch of our political system, will never do that, right?

Ah yes, all those communists who ratified the 14th Amendment way back in the 19th century…  

[TBayXXXVII]

8 hours ago, dogcows said:

Ah yes, all those communists who ratified the 14th Amendment way back in the 19th century…  

The intent was to give black folks an equal footing, not illegal immigrants.

[TBayXXXVII]

8 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

Not a big enough one to get rid of birthright citizenship. 
Trump is wrong; we’re not the only nation to have birthright citizenship. But it’s pretty uncommon and overall it’s a great thing and part of the idealism of this country. I would never get rid of it. 

Then you're contributing to the ruining of the country.  That's fine if you're ok with it, just don't call yourself an American. 

[dogcows]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

The intent was to give black folks an equal footing, not illegal immigrants.

The Wong Kim Ark case was only 30 years after the amendment was ratified. And Chinese people at the time were banned by the Chinese Exclusion Act from becoming citizens. And yet, the court, all of whom were alive at the time of the 14th amendment, some of whom personally knew drafters of the amendment… said it DID apply to illegal immigrants.

Sorry somebody fed you some bad info about the Amendment.

[TimHauck]

7 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The intent was to give black folks an equal footing, not illegal immigrants.

Oh you know what people “intended” in the 1860’s? Why didn’t they put that in the actual amendment?  Would’ve been pretty easy to do

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Oh you know what people “intended” in the 1860’s? Why didn’t they put that in the actual amendment?  Would’ve been pretty easy to do

there was no such thing as anchor babies and birth tourism then so how would they know?

the journals on original law clearly state intention

[TimHauck]

11 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

there was no such thing as anchor babies and birth tourism then so how would they know?

the journals on original law clearly state intention

Well considering our founders came here on a boat seems they should have expected others also would in the future.

link to these “journals”?  What I’ve seen is that they stated the “primary purpose” was for slaves, but that doesn’t mean it was only for slaves.

[Hardcore troubadour]

6 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Well considering our founders came here on a boat seems they should have expected others also would in the future.

link to these “journals”?  What I’ve seen is that they stated the “primary purpose” was for slaves, but that doesn’t mean it was only for slaves.

48 of the 56 founding fathers were born in America. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

14 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Well considering our founders came here on a boat seems they should have expected others also would in the future.

link to these “journals”?  What I’ve seen is that they stated the “primary purpose” was for slaves, but that doesn’t mean it was only for slaves.

most people who voted on this and ratified it did not come on boats, nor were they founders, the fact that they excluded Indians at the time, tells you it was never meant to be all inclusive of anchor babies

I am trying to find the journal that I read, just cant remember who wrote it but it was one of the senators at the time

regardless of the situation, I can't see how anyone could be ok with 1 million chinamen born here raised in china and being citizens of the US and able to come back freely at 18

I find that absolutely ridiculous and needs to be fixed.

 

[TBayXXXVII]

12 hours ago, dogcows said:

The Wong Kim Ark case was only 30 years after the amendment was ratified. And Chinese people at the time were banned by the Chinese Exclusion Act from becoming citizens. And yet, the court, all of whom were alive at the time of the 14th amendment, some of whom personally knew drafters of the amendment… said it DID apply to illegal immigrants.

Sorry somebody fed you some bad info about the Amendment.

Wong Kim Ark isn't relevant, only used by the far leftists who want to destroy the country.  Wong Kim Ark's parents were not allowed to be legal citizens.  That does not apply to people coming here illegally today.  NO ONE is barred from gaining citizenship based on race, like the Chinese were back then.  So, the reason that Wong Kim Ark was granted citizenship, was the same reason that blacks were.  Again, that has not been the case in 20th century America and beyond. 

Also, it's impossible for the writers of the 14th amendment to have intended for illegal immigrants to be eligible at the time it was written, because there was no such thing as illegal immigration at the time.

[TBayXXXVII]

12 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Oh you know what people “intended” in the 1860’s? Why didn’t they put that in the actual amendment?  Would’ve been pretty easy to do

Sounds like you don't know what caused the 14th Amendment to be written in the first place.  You might want to go learn about that.  Some key terms you'll learn are three-fifth's and Dredd Scott.

[seafoam1]

12 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Well considering our founders came here on a boat seems they should have expected others also would in the future.

link to these “journals”?  What I’ve seen is that they stated the “primary purpose” was for slaves, but that doesn’t mean it was only for slaves.

No one cares hackboy. Times change. New needs arise. Old needs go away. 

You seem lost on this front. Go to school and learn things. 

[Red White and Blue]

Gotta love how the strict constructionist/ originalism party starts interpreting what the founding fathers “meant” now that Daddy doesn’t like the Constitution as written.  

[TheNewGirl]

13 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Then you're contributing to the ruining of the country.  That's fine if you're ok with it, just don't call yourself an American. 

Also hires illegal immigrants, states that "they pay taxes" however claimed that he doesn't check to see if they have SSN/TINs and if they do, doesn't verify that they aren't stolen. 

As long as those dishes and sheets are washed and the hotel rooms are cleaned TOOT SWEET! 

[TimHauck]

25 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Sounds like you don't know what caused the 14th Amendment to be written in the first place.  You might want to go learn about that.  Some key terms you'll learn are three-fifth's and Dredd Scott.

 

12 hours ago, TimHauck said:

 

 What I’ve seen is that they stated the “primary purpose” was for slaves, but that doesn’t mean it was only for slaves.

 

[Caine Mutiny]

10 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Also hires illegal immigrants, states that "they pay taxes" however claimed that he doesn't check to see if they have SSN/TINs and if they do, doesn't verify that they aren't stolen. 

As long as those dishes and sheets are washed and the hotel rooms are cleaned TOOT SWEET! 

This is such a poor argument, because you benefit from those same undocumented immigrants as much or more than their employer. You, me and everyone reading this. Our whole way of living, our spending power, our entire economy rests on the backs of these people. So hypocritical of you to pretend otherwise. 

[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? 

[Caine Mutiny]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why not? 

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

46 minutes ago, Red White and Blue said:

Gotta love how the strict constructionist/ originalism party starts interpreting what the founding fathers “meant” now that Daddy doesn’t like the Constitution as written.  

gotta love when retards think the founding fathers wrote the 14th amendment

 

[TimHauck]

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? 

Who here said that?  And speaking of crickets, did they get the guy who burned the trailer full of bibles yet?

[Caine Mutiny]

13 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

gotta love when retards think the founding fathers wrote the 14th amendment

 

No the people who wrote it were wiser and morally superior to the Founding Fathers because they did not condone slavery. 

[seafoam1]

1 minute ago, Caine Mutiny said:

No the people who wrote it were wiser and morally superior to the Founding Fathers because they did not condone slavery. 

And yet they still had slaves. 

[seafoam1]

2 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

And yet they still had slaves. 

And now the liberals want to replace the black slaves with illegals. 

[Tree of Knowledge]

17 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

And now the liberals want to replace the black slaves with illegals. 

Tim’s weeds aren’t picking themselves.  

[HellToupee]

1 hour ago, Caine Mutiny said:

This is such a poor argument, because you benefit from those same undocumented immigrants as much or more than their employer. You, me and everyone reading this. Our whole way of living, our spending power, our entire economy rests on the backs of these people. So hypocritical of you to pretend otherwise. 

And Somalis helped build Boston

[seafoam1]

1 hour ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Tim’s weeds aren’t picking themselves.  

He needs cheap, illegal labor so he has enough money left over to afford his kraft mac and cheese dinners and to get his scooter fixed. 

[SaintsInDome2006]

8 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

He needs cheap, illegal labor so he has enough money left over to afford his kraft mac and cheese dinners and to get his scooter fixed. 

I saw on Fox this morning a guest named Mike Rowe who was basically saying the US needs cheap labor & people willing to do trade work because of all of the Yuge infrastructure plans Trump is planning & I just laughed & laughed. Yes if only there was some way to increase our construction & trade labor supply… if only there was some way…

[TBayXXXVII]

2 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

This is such a poor argument, because you benefit from those same undocumented immigrants as much or more than their employer. You, me and everyone reading this. Our whole way of living, our spending power, our entire economy rests on the backs of these people. So hypocritical of you to pretend otherwise. 

Very odd stance.  You're the party of "Tax the Rich", yet people like you are paying illegals under the table so that you don't have to pay taxes.  You're also doing that so that you don't have to pay market price.

Bernie hated millionaire's, until he became one... now the goal posts is moved to billionaire's.  Weird how that happened, eh?

So, let's see if I got this right about you and your party...

• You want the government to pay for the bill for a lot of things
• Then, when those thing come with a high price tag, that translates to higher salaries to the work force.
• You don't want to pay those rates because that's less money in your pocket.
  • So, instead of doing so, you hire slave labor (even though you're against slavery... weird).
  • You then pay them under the table so that you don't have to pay taxes and put more money in your pocket.
• When these things cost you more money in property tax, sales tax, etc (things you can't escape), you want to "Tax the Rich".

Sounds like typical Bernie/Mamadani socialist/communist speak to me.  You always want to set a standard for others to adhere, and make sure that you're not in that stratosphere.  It's always, good me not for you.  Then, to top it off, you come at it from a standpoint of moral superioirty.

The funny thing is, what's going to happen eventually, is that people like you are going to get priced out of your lifestyle... and you'll move to another state.  Most likely a red state, then continue to vote for people who policies in place that priced you out of your previous lifestyle.

[Engorgeous George]

On 4/4/2026 at 2:12 PM, 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.

That would be stupid, boats are slow and Hawaii is far.  They should fly to something much closer. On the other hand perhaps physicians are still recommending against flying in the last trimester.  I don't really keep up on such things.

[seafoam1]

58 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I saw on Fox this morning a guest named Mike Rowe who was basically saying the US needs cheap labor & people willing to do trade work because of all of the Yuge infrastructure plans Trump is planning & I just laughed & laughed. Yes if only there was some way to increase our construction & trade labor supply… if only there was some way…

Dirty Jobs reality actor says what? 

And here all along I thought liberals were the ones championing living wages. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

2 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

No the people who wrote it were wiser and morally superior to the Founding Fathers because they did not condone slavery. 

yes Republicans are good people, thanks for noticing

you still support the party of slavery, kkk, redlining, jim crow

[Engorgeous George]

3 hours ago, Red White and Blue said:

Gotta love how the strict constructionist/ originalism party starts interpreting what the founding fathers “meant” now that Daddy doesn’t like the Constitution as written.  

If you have ever written legislation or purposefully deconstructed legislation you would realize how difficult it is to be painstakingly precise so as to avoid purposeful misinterpretation by those with an agenda.  (Here I use the word "you" as a rhetorical device,.  I do not mean to impugn you, Red White and Blue, in any personal way, at least not by employing this rhetorical device).  We are certainly living in an era of abuse of unintended and unconsidered consequences.  The solution, of course, is to amend the Constitution again.  Sadly I believe we are so paralyzed by political polarization that we will never again be able to come together to do so.  Too bad, too, as perhaps the greatest gift our founders gave us was the ability to amend the Constitution.  They knew that an ongoing, mature discussion of our issues was essential to our continued existence and prosperity.  They tried to force us to face that fact.  We have rejected that gift lately and I believe to our detriment.  We are more interested in scoring some pyrrhic  rhetorical victory against folks than looking out for our common interest.  We are a ship of fools. 

[Reality]

3 hours ago, Red White and Blue said:

Gotta love how the strict constructionist/ originalism party starts interpreting what the founding fathers “meant” now that Daddy doesn’t like the Constitution as written.  

What a focking idiot.

[TheNewGirl]

31 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Very odd stance.  You're the party of "Tax the Rich", yet people like you are paying illegals under the table so that you don't have to pay taxes.  You're also doing that so that you don't have to pay market price.

Bernie hated millionaire's, until he became one... now the goal posts is moved to billionaire's.  Weird how that happened, eh?

So, let's see if I got this right about you and your party...

• You want the government to pay for the bill for a lot of things
• Then, when those thing come with a high price tag, that translates to higher salaries to the work force.
• You don't want to pay those rates because that's less money in your pocket.
  • So, instead of doing so, you hire slave labor (even though you're against slavery... weird).
  • You then pay them under the table so that you don't have to pay taxes and put more money in your pocket.
• When these things cost you more money in property tax, sales tax, etc (things you can't escape), you want to "Tax the Rich".

Sounds like typical Bernie/Mamadani socialist/communist speak to me.  You always want to set a standard for others to adhere, and make sure that you're not in that stratosphere.  It's always, good me not for you.  Then, to top it off, you come at it from a standpoint of moral superioirty.

The funny thing is, what's going to happen eventually, is that people like you are going to get priced out of your lifestyle... and you'll move to another state.  Most likely a red state, then continue to vote for people who policies in place that priced you out of your previous lifestyle.

[SaintsInDome2006]

3 hours ago, Red White and Blue said:

Gotta love how the strict constructionist/ originalism party starts interpreting what the founding fathers “meant” now that Daddy doesn’t like the Constitution as written. 

It’s not real, at least not for maga. Just one example, right now part of the dispute over the DHS/ICE shutdown is the Dem demand for the administration’s acknowledgment that a warrant is needed for entry to private property. They just need to say they’ll acknowledge it & live by it. Nope!