On 3/29/2026 at 3:33 PM, lynched1 said:

Opponents, including the ACLU, Asian Law Caucus, and groups representing immigrants’ rights, argue that the order would create a massive number of stateless children born on U.S. soil and could retroactively cast doubt on the citizenship status of millions of people who were born to illegal aliens.

Not my Fing problem.

I'm jumping in here for this topic. Alito was right today. Liberals cry Russia Russia Russia, well, what's to stop Putin or China from sending hundreds of thousands of people here on birth vacations and then to swing states in 18 years to control our elections? This on top of other reasons are why Europe doesn't do it. It's insane.

31 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

F Roberts. He had no problem bending and twisting to make Obamacare law.

22 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

I'm jumping in here for this topic. Alito was right today. Liberals cry Russia Russia Russia, well, what's to stop Putin or China from sending hundreds of thousands of people here on birth vacations and then to swing states in 18 years to control our elections? This on top of other reasons are why Europe doesn't do it. It's insane.

So amend the Constitution. That's the process required to make the change.

This case should be 9-0, but I'm guessing Alito and Thomas will obey Daddy Trump's orders. The text of the 14th Amendment couldn't be any clearer, and I loathe when people try to (mis)interpret the Constitution or assign their own views of intent to override the plain meaning of the words. I am against it when Democrats stretch things like the general welfare clause, and it's equally reprehensible when Republican's do it. Intent only matters legally when the text is ambiguous - this is not. Furthermore, the arguments Trump's people were making in court, that the world has changed, could easily be weaponized by liberals to attack the 2nd Amendment. So be careful what you wish for.

I'd consider an amendment that limited citizenship to the children of citizens or legal residents. But do the hard work and amend the Constitution. If you can change the Constitution via Executive Order, then we no longer have a Constitution and live in a dictatorship.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

I'd consider an amendment that limited citizenship to the children of citizens or legal residents. But do the hard work and amend the Constitution. If you can change the Constitution via Executive Order, then we no longer have a Constitution and live in a dictatorship.

Which is exactly what Trump is trying to do with this one and others. Congress is neutered so it is up to SCOTUS.

What’s to stop Putin from sending millions of Russians here? Nothing…. just visit lower bucks county.

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

I'm jumping in here for this topic. Alito was right today. Liberals cry Russia Russia Russia, well, what's to stop Putin or China from sending hundreds of thousands of people here on birth vacations and then to swing states in 18 years to control our elections? This on top of other reasons are why Europe doesn't do it. It's insane.

Liehard over here once again proving he's an American hating traitor that wants to tear up the Constitution.

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

I'm jumping in here for this topic. Alito was right today. Liberals cry Russia Russia Russia, well, what's to stop Putin or China from sending hundreds of thousands of people here on birth vacations and then to swing states in 18 years to control our elections? This on top of other reasons are why Europe doesn't do it. It's insane.

Why the F would Putin need to send hundreds of thousands of people here when he already has undying loyalty from 30% of the country?

Absolutely wild how in the span of a few years these guys went from their entire identity centering around how strictly they held to the letter of the Constitution into commies that hate our founding document with a burning passion.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

So amend the Constitution. That's the process required to make the change.

Don't need to but Roberts won't interpret it correctly to save face in country clubs.

20 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Don't need to but Roberts won't interpret it correctly to save face in country clubs.

Honestly there is no debate on this one. Going to be 6-3 or 7-2.

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Honestly there is no debate on this one. Going to be 6-3 or 7-2.

We agree Roberts and Amy will never vote for it. He will not do the right thing and have that scar his reputation as CJ. We will disagree on the interpretation. There is no way Howard intended for people breaking into the US or citizens of other countries to be making a mockery the way it's happening. He said it excludes "persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens" along with children of diplomats. I don't think the SG did a good job today, but it is what it is. If it was intended as come one come all he wouldn't have added exclusions. He didn't want diplomats having babies here that became citizens, but anyone else please by all means. Sure. But either way congrats your side will "win".

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

We agree Roberts and Amy will never vote for it. He will not do the right thing and have that scar his reputation as CJ. We will disagree on the interpretation. There is no way Howard intended for people breaking into the US or citizens of other countries to be making a mockery the way it's happening. He said it excludes "persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens" along with children of diplomats. I don't think the SG did a good job today, but it is what it is. If it was intended as come one come all he wouldn't have added exclusions. He didn't want diplomats having babies here that became citizens, but anyone else please by all means. Sure. But either way congrats your side will "win".

You sound exactly like a gun grabber arguing against 2A. The Constitution doesn’t care about your feelings and it doesn’t care that the world is different than it was in 1787. If the Reps want to change the Constitution they can always propose a new amendment.

Sr

13 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

You sound exactly like a gun grabber arguing against 2A. The Constitution doesn’t care about your feelings and it doesn’t care that the world is different than it was in 1787. If the Reps want to change the Constitution they can always propose a new amendment.

No it doesn't but his words in the speech make it clear. It wasn't a come one come all thing. The SG did a horrible job. We agree on that.

I would say at least illegals are trying to be subject to the jurisdiction vs foreigners exploiting the visa systems and returning home from a trip. I don't believe either should be covered by the original text but one is an absolute abuse.

Again, he included the exclusions for a reason. They didn't want foreigners returning home with citizen children. People with a visa should be treated with that same original intent.

2 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

We agree Roberts and Amy will never vote for it. He will not do the right thing and have that scar his reputation as CJ. We will disagree on the interpretation. There is no way Howard intended for people breaking into the US or citizens of other countries to be making a mockery the way it's happening. He said it excludes "persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens" along with children of diplomats. I don't think the SG did a good job today, but it is what it is. If it was intended as come one come all he wouldn't have added exclusions. He didn't want diplomats having babies here that became citizens, but anyone else please by all means. Sure. But either way congrats your side will "win".

The court has 6 conservative justices and cryhard is still sobbing uncontrollably like a little girl. Hate to see it.

27 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Sr

No it doesn't but his words in the speech make it clear. It wasn't a come one come all thing. The SG did a horrible job. We agree on that.

I would say at least illegals are trying to be subject to the jurisdiction vs foreigners exploiting the visa systems and returning home from a trip. I don't believe either should be covered by the original text but one is an absolute abuse.

Again, he included the exclusions for a reason. They didn't want foreigners returning home with citizen children. People with a visa should be treated with that same original intent.

Again, the Constitution doesn’t care what you think anymore than it cares what an anti-2A liberal thinks. If the right wants to change it they need to build consensus and pass a new amendment, but we both know they can’t do that.

15 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Again, the Constitution doesn’t care what you think anymore than it cares what an anti-2A liberal thinks. If the right wants to change it they need to build consensus and pass a new amendment, but we both know they can’t do that because only a small group of radicals believe any of the nonsense you’re spewing.

Nonsense. The two originalists on the court do, and a few are worried about their reputation and legacy, one of which is the same who bent backwards making Obamacare a tax so it wouldn't damage that legacy. You will win, and you can revel in it to the destruction of our country. The language is clear just not the way you want it to be. It was meant for slaves not a free for all and not including one and all which is why they had to make legislation to include Native Americans.

5 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Nonsense. The two originalists on the court do, and a few are worried about their reputation and legacy, one of which is the same who bent backwards making Obamacare a tax so it wouldn't damage that legacy. You will win, and you can revel in it to the destruction of our country. The language is clear just not the way you want it to be. It was meant for slaves not a free for all and not including one and all which is why they had to make legislation to include Native Americans.

The text is clear. The only reason it’s not gonna be 9-0 is because there are 2 corrupt anti-American scumbags on the court that are bought and paid for.

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

The text is clear. The only reason it’s not gonna be 9-0 is because there are 2 corrupt anti-American scumbags on the court that are bought and paid for.

🤣 Sure

7 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

🤣 Sure

Troll better. This is 3rd grade level reading.

There are some exceptions in the amendment itself and those are VERY clear. You can’t just add your own.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Troll better. This is 3rd grade level reading.

There are some exceptions in the amendment itself and those are VERY clear. You can’t just add your own.

It is amazing how clear it is that it was written for slaves yet you all get it wrong. It's clear Native Americans weren't included so they had to pass legislation to include them. His speech before passage is clear. They didn't want anyone and everyone having US citizenship.

14 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

It is amazing how clear it is that it was written for slaves yet you all get it wrong. It's clear Native Americans weren't included so they had to pass legislation to include them. His speech before passage is clear. They didn't want anyone and everyone and anyone having US citizenship. Left is right up is down and evil is good to some of you. No shocker where you and others stand.

Read the exceptions Ace. It was OBVIOUSLY more than just slaves. If it was solely about slaves then it would have said so.

In any case, it simply doesn’t matter. It says what it says and there is a clear process for changes , additions, etc. just like the addition for Native Americans who were specifically not included in the original version. The country has a long history of new citizens from people being born to immigrants. An amendment is necessary to change that. Not just what you or anyone else "thinks” is right. This is VERY VERY easy to understand.

14 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

Don't need to but Roberts won't interpret it correctly to save face in country clubs.

yes, you do need to. You can't overrule the constitution via executive order. This case should be 9-0. It's possible it goes 8-1. But this is a no brainer.

And by the way, this is the way that citizenship has worked since the passage of the 14th amendment. My great grandparents came to this country from Italy in the early 1900s. Shortly after they came, my grandmother was born. About a year later they all went back to Italy. They stayed in Italy for several years, and while they were there they had another baby. About 2 years later they came back to the US. When they came back, my grandmother was considered a US citizen since she was born here while her younger brother was considered an immigrant.

10 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

And by the way, this is the way that citizenship has worked since the passage of the 14th amendment. My great grandparents came to this country from Italy in the early 1900s. Shortly after they came, my grandmother was born. About a year later they all went back to Italy. They stayed in Italy for several years, and while they were there they had another baby. About 2 years later they came back to the US. When they came back, my grandmother was considered a US citizen since she was born here while her younger brother was considered an immigrant.

Deport yourself immediately. Do not pass Go and do not collect $200.