T1B

Look at that, a page 4 King post...

The judge randomly assigned to hear the case was appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan and is about 800 years old. I would not be surprised if he passes the case (senior judges do that from time to time). Interesting question. I do not believe dropping a child in the U.S. while on vacation results in citizenship to the child. That makes no sense at all. And it makes even less sense to grant citizenship to children who are born to people who enter the country illegally. Time will tell.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:41 pm Look at that, a page 4 King post...

The judge randomly assigned to hear the case was appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan and is about 800 years old. I would not be surprised if he passes the case (senior judges do that from time to time). Interesting question. I do not believe dropping a child in the U.S. while on vacation results in citizenship to the child. That makes no sense at all. And it makes even less sense to grant citizenship to children who are born to people who enter the country illegally. Time will tell.

Gosh! Whoa! Geez! Roux has assured us that this is a slam dunk case of a bad orange man attempting threaten our democracy! I'm frightened. I don't have any hot cocoa left and my non-binary partner finished zhir last coloring book last night and I don't know what to do!! His insane tariffs are going to raise the price of imported artisan crayons and maple syrup!

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:41 pmI do not believe dropping a child in the U.S. while on vacation results in citizenship to the child.

That may be how you think it should be, but I trust that you understand that such a child is a citizen, under jurisprudence since at least 1898.

Roux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:37 am

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:41 pmI do not believe dropping a child in the U.S. while on vacation results in citizenship to the child.

That may be how you think it should be, but I trust that you understand that such a child is a citizen, under jurisprudence since at least 1898.

Funny how when you like the way things are, you'll take the "conservative" position. When you don't like it, you invent shit like a "living document".

Roux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:37 am

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:41 pmI do not believe dropping a child in the U.S. while on vacation results in citizenship to the child.

That may be how you think it should be, but I trust that you understand that such a child is a citizen, under jurisprudence since at least 1898.

Wong's parents weren't illegal aliens. Try again.

Wrong. The judge has already ruled on my side.

It is the orange cancer who must try again. No doubt he will.

And no doubt he will fail. Again.

Roux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 4:35 am Wrong. The judge has already ruled on my side.

It is the orange cancer who must try again. No doubt he will.

And no doubt he will fail. Again.

And so if a judge(s) says so they must be right,

sin
Plessy v Ferguson
Dred Scott v Sandford

I think we agree that these are instances that judge(s) got it wrong. Clearly, the language of the 14th Amendment was intended to insure that states in particular did not deny citizenship rights to the now freed slaves. But, hell,' living document' right? It's going to be interesting to see it reach a conservative leaning Supreme Court.

HighHard1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:27 pm Clearly, the language of the 14th Amendment was intended to insure that states in particular did not deny citizenship rights to the now freed slaves.

There is no language in the 14th A that limits it to just those persons.

"All persons"

All means all.

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.

I really do not care how the Constitution has been misinterpreted over the years. A citizen of a foreign nation who is on vacation here and drops a puppy does not reside here. No citizenship.

Trump's correction of the misinterpretation of the Constitution is prospective. It only applies going forward.

Did you read the brief submitted by the DOJ? Or are you just riffing?

I haven't read anything except my hospital discharge papers.

Of all the bullshit that the orange cancer is doing, this is just one of them. Sure, it would be fun to beat him like a piñata in this case, but I'm not really concerned about the outcome, even with the current SCOTUS.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 3:45 pm A citizen of a foreign nation who is on vacation here and drops a puppy does not reside here. No citizenship.

We’re just not accustomed to a president getting things done. This past couple of weeks has been amazing.

Now Mexico’s president is capitulating and the imposition of Trump’s tariff hike has been postponed.

USAID’s corruption and massive waste has been exposed.

This new prez has accomplished more in 2 weeks than thought possible.

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:46 pm We’re just not accustomed to a president getting things done. This past couple of weeks has been amazing.

This new prez has accomplished more in 2 weeks than thought possible.

Like what?

FiatLux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:32 pm

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:46 pm We’re just not accustomed to a president getting things done. This past couple of weeks has been amazing.

This new prez has accomplished more in 2 weeks than thought possible.

Like what?

Like making you buy American anal lubricant instead of that cheap Mexican shit.

Carson wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:37 pm

FiatLux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:32 pm

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:46 pm We’re just not accustomed to a president getting things done. This past couple of weeks has been amazing.

This new prez has accomplished more in 2 weeks than thought possible.

Like what?

Like making you buy American anal lubricant instead of that cheap Mexican shit.

You live in Greece and you posted this...

Carson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:33 pm I started using Viagra this year.

Too funny.

Carson wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:37 pm

FiatLux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:32 pm

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:46 pm We’re just not accustomed to a president getting things done. This past couple of weeks has been amazing.

This new prez has accomplished more in 2 weeks than thought possible.

Like what?

Like making you buy American anal lubricant instead of that cheap Mexican shit.

No need for me to add to this.

FiatLux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:32 pm

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:46 pm We’re just not accustomed to a president getting things done. This past couple of weeks has been amazing.

This new prez has accomplished more in 2 weeks than thought possible.

Like what?

MAGA Sam just blabbers shit he reads on X.

Don't look for an answer.

He doesn't have one.

FiatLux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:02 pm

FiatLux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:32 pm

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:46 pm We’re just not accustomed to a president getting things done. This past couple of weeks has been amazing.

This new prez has accomplished more in 2 weeks than thought possible.

Like what?

MAGA Sam just blabbers shit he reads on X.

Don't look for an answer.

He doesn't have one.

Obviously you struggle with reading.

Just these two matters will do more for taxpayers ( that likely excludes you, which explains why you don’t care) than anything done over the last several decades:

1-Now Mexico’s president is capitulating and the imposition of Trump’s tariff hike has been postponed.

2-USAID’s corruption and massive waste has been exposed.

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 8:57 pm 2-USAID’s corruption and massive waste has been exposed.

And the evidence of the corruption/massive waste is where?

When it comes to corruption/massive waste should we eliminate the military since there's far more corruption/massive waste there ($600 ashtray, anyone?)?

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 9:01 pm

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 8:57 pm 2-USAID’s corruption and massive waste has been exposed.

And the evidence of the corruption/massive waste is where?

When it comes to corruption/massive waste should we eliminate the military since there's far more corruption/massive waste there ($600 ashtray, anyone?)?

Billions to ‘undisclosed recipients’.

The military will be audited, I’m sure. You think the military should be eliminated? Mmmkay. .

FiatLux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:02 pm

FiatLux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:32 pm

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:46 pm We’re just not accustomed to a president getting things done. This past couple of weeks has been amazing.

This new prez has accomplished more in 2 weeks than thought possible.

Like what?

MAGA Sam just blabbers shit he reads on X.

Don't look for an answer.

He doesn't have one.

Trump indirectly gave us this.
We needed to see this.
We needed to see the other side of the coup which has taken place in this country.
Trump didn't order the stand down.
Homan would never.
Who did?

Are they negotiating with Trump right now?

Where are Pelosi, Newsom, Bass? even Harris's ass, since she wants to be given the California governorship as a consolation prize for not being given the Presidency.

Where are they, Fiat?

Roux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:00 pm

HighHard1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:27 pm Clearly, the language of the 14th Amendment was intended to insure that states in particular did not deny citizenship rights to the now freed slaves.

There is no language in the 14th A that limits it to just those persons.

"All persons"

All means all.

Well done counsellor-as I expected you to. My 'all persons' is different than your "all persons." I believe "all persons" in the case of the 14th Amendment refers to a specific class of person to ensure their right to American citizenship-I believe that context matters here and the language was not intended to provide birthright citizenship...period. You clearly believe differently because you buy into the living document idea and that's fine. It will be interesting to see this play out.

Can we just put our constitutional law hats to the side for a second and look at this as a rational person.

You fukking dems are always worried about doing what's "fair" or "right".

What sounds right to you?

I would think that a system that says if you give birth to a child in America while you have legal residence, that child is granted citizenship, makes sense. And that anyone that either sneaks in or is here on vacation or some other type of short term visit, does not get this privilege.

Nothing else makes sense....unless you want to flood the country with new voterrrrrrrr...uhhhh I mean citizens.

HighHard1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 1:40 am I believe "all persons" in the case of the 14th Amendment refers to a specific class of person to ensure their right to American citizenship-I believe that context matters here and the language was not intended to provide birthright citizenship...period.

Again, all means all. It does not mean all, except those people.

Please note that the authors of the Constitution understood how to "refer to a specific class of persons." From Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, better known as the 3/5th compromise:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

But we'll find out soon enough whether trump can amend the meaning of the 14th Amendment thru an executive order. As it stands now, no:

"I’ve been on the bench for over four decades," Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said. "I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order."

smackaholic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 3:23 am

Roux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:37 am

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:41 pmI do not believe dropping a child in the U.S. while on vacation results in citizenship to the child.

That may be how you think it should be, but I trust that you understand that such a child is a citizen, under jurisprudence since at least 1898.

Funny how when you like the way things are, you'll take the "conservative" position. When you don't like it, you invent shit like a "living document".

Patiently waited...

RACK that.

Should be an interesting hearing, if you have time:

https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/judges/co ... r-chambers

For perspective, only ONE other developed country on allows birthright citizenship - Canada, who by the way shares a border ONLY with the U.S....No one in the left's hero circle (Europe) or anywhere else.

By any reasonable measure, unrestricted birthright citizenship, the practice of giving citizenship to almost anyone born in America, is an irrational policy. It abdicates the composition of the nation’s citizenry to chance, instead of bringing it within our control. It communicates a deep unseriousness about our sovereignty and national security to the rest of the world. Without it, we can continue to open our country to foreign talent and victims of genocide or state violence. Together, the president and Congress can choose to narrow or widen the pipeline of legal immigrants.

In 2025, America is an outlier among developed nations in offering unrestricted birthright citizenship. Corporate media outlets will remind you that we aren’t alone, that around 30 other countries do the same. But what they usually don’t report is that those countries are the likes of Grenada, Nicaragua, Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados. Not a single European country follows our lead. Nor do Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and the list goes on. Only one country in the world with a per-capita GDP anywhere near the United States’ matches our policy — Canada. And Canada historically hasn’t had much to worry about on the illegal immigration front, because their only land border is shared with us.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/03/us ... or-babies/

The Seer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 2:06 pmBy any reasonable measure, unrestricted birthright citizenship, the practice of giving citizenship to almost anyone born in America, is an irrational policy.

As if the opinion of right wingers matter when it comes to what the Constitution says.

Previously, they tried to exclude gays from "all persons"; actually they still are. Now, they're trying to exclude immigrants.

They were wrong before, and they are wrong now.

All means all.

Roux wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 2:31 pm Now, they're try to exclude immigrants.

You misspelled criminals.

Legal migrants are not in question. The criminal aliens are. The mental gymnastics required must make you very tired. Or maybe the drugs help.

Roux wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 2:31 pm As if the opinion of right wingers matter when it comes to what the Constitution says.

Please keep shouting this at every opportunity. You and your fellow leftist are the best campaign for Conservatives. You guys even managed to convince a county to turn Red for the first time in over a century.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 2:39 pm You misspelled criminals.

Really? A newborn is a criminal?




What crime did he commit?

Roux wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:00 pm

HighHard1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:27 pm Clearly, the language of the 14th Amendment was intended to insure that states in particular did not deny citizenship rights to the now freed slaves.

There is no language in the 14th A that limits it to just those persons.

"All persons"

All means all.

No.

Natives weren't included. The links were already posted about the question about them.

Not until Coolidge and 1924.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on- ... s-citizens

Why aren't the Reconquistas abusing the Indian Citizenship Act, instead of the 14th?

Or even creatively arguing the Cuban wetfoot/dryfoot nonsense?

This is the shit that causes people to support retroactively removing improperly bestowed citizenship. The 14th was intended for Freedmen only.

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 2:00 am Can we just put our constitutional law hats to the side for a second and look at this as a rational person.

You fukking dems are always worried about doing what's "fair" or "right".

What sounds right to you?

I would think that a system that says if you give birth to a child in America while you have legal residence, that child is granted citizenship, makes sense. And that anyone that either sneaks in or is here on vacation or some other type of short term visit, does not get this privilege.

Nothing else makes sense....unless you want to flood the country with new voterrrrrrrr...uhhhh I mean citizens.

It's worse than that. Think of how pajeets have been allowed to abuse H1Bs so long, they think their abuses are legal, and don't understand when someone points out 'well, actually, it's illegal to fill an h1b position without searching for a qualified citizen first'. They think it's legal to skip the qualified citizen part, and think nothing of practicing both racial and national origin discrimination (h1bs from other countries won't be considered by Indian HR).

And they've been allowed to get away with it so long, the abuse is no longer abuse but codified.

In the same way, anchor babies are allowed to abuse the system, and get into positions of power such that they have the power to codify the abuse of the 14th.

So you're right. Democrats aren't worried about fair. They're worried about keeping a voter base, keeping gerrymandered districts, keeping some form of power.

The Seer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 2:06 pm For perspective, only ONE other developed country on allows birthright citizenship - Canada, who by the way shares a border ONLY with the U.S....No one in the left's hero circle (Europe) or anywhere else.

And Canada is getting bent over by immigrants who don't want to be Canadian, but only see Canada as a place to make money and send the rest to their real home, too.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 4:47 pm

The Seer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 2:06 pm For perspective, only ONE other developed country on allows birthright citizenship - Canada, who by the way shares a border ONLY with the U.S....No one in the left's hero circle (Europe) or anywhere else.

And Canada is getting bent over by immigrants who don't want to be Canadian, but only see Canada as a place to make money and send the rest to their real home, too.

But they like getting bent over. That much was clear over 200 years ago.

Uh, new directive from Crazy Town. “Pajeets” is now “street shitters” — please make a note of that.

Roux wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 4:17 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 2:39 pm You misspelled criminals.

Really? A newborn is a criminal?

Roux used the term migrant instead of illegal alien. Those are in fact criminals by definition. He just wants to ignore that.

Roux wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 4:17 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 2:39 pm You misspelled criminals.

Really? A newborn is a criminal?




What crime did he commit?

You are being tedious. No one accused the newborn of a crime. Are you asserting that a completely immobile newborn is an immigrant? How did that happen? Where did the newborn immigrate from, and how did he do it?

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 5:16 am

Roux wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 4:17 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 2:39 pm You misspelled criminals.

Really? A newborn is a criminal?




What crime did he commit?

You are being tedious. No one accused the newborn of a crime. Are you asserting that a completely immobile newborn is an immigrant? How did that happen? Where did the newborn immigrate from, and how did he do it?

In Rouxville the kid is just relieved he wasn't aborted an hour earlier...but I digress....

We are talking about citizenship for that child.

Merely because the parents may have committed a crime should not affect the citizenship for that child.

All this concern for the citizenship of infants born in the US is hilarious coming from the left. Their support for the murder of kids in the womb outweighs the citizenship concerns.