(06-30-2026 11:36 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I could be wrong, but I doubt that the legislative intent was to incentivize anchor babies.

It is disappointing, but unlike Mamdani and his merry band of SocComs, I do not support nullification. We will have focus on legal ways to mitigate the damage.

I agree with above 1000%.

But Im not disappointed that the Justices decided the plain meaning of the words in the bedrock of our society are the plain meanings, and Im not disappointed that they didnt try to impose a political ruling.

(06-30-2026 11:24 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 11:20 AM)Claw Wrote:  I don't know why anyone expected different.

oh, I didn't (as acknowledged in this and other threads) ... it's just now that it's been ruled upon, it's my turn to vent!!!

tanq and b0j0 - I expected nothing less from youse twos ... enjoy ewer perceived win...

How dare I support having the plain meaning of the words be the plain meaning of the words. The sheer horror.

(06-30-2026 11:35 AM)Claw Wrote:  Now you attack from a different angle.

If you are a citizen and not in this country, you are going to have to meet some requirements to vote. We'll have to iron those out, but that has to happen.

You can't have an army of anchor babies living their whole lives in China that are voting remotely.

If they're born here and live here, they're in. That's done.

We need to look at whether people with dual citizenship should be allowed to vote. The same for people not living in the country.

Those are addressable by law. It is the next step.

gfl in the states that mail out to everyone...

you really think they'll know (or care) if military or not...

yeah, buggy ... that's what we need ... "to look at" more laws...

@hyperSigh

(06-30-2026 11:35 AM)Claw Wrote:  Now you attack from a different angle.

If you are a citizen and not in this country, you are going to have to meet some requirements to vote. We'll have to iron those out, but that has to happen.

You can't have an army of anchor babies living their whole lives in China that are voting remotely.

If they're born here and live here, they're in. That's done.

We need to look at whether people with dual citizenship should be allowed to vote. The same for people not living in the country.

Those are addressable by law. It is the next step.

It already is. To register to vote, you need to show some proof of residence somewhere in the United States. In fact, states control that. And to register in a state, you have to show some documentary proof of that.

A child of illegals or tourists with US citizenship who is moved back to {china, or pick your foreign country} simply cannot show any form of proof to vote in any US jurisdiction. Kind of end of story even presently.

Other than the USA, very few prominent countries allow birthright citizenship. The silver lining in the damaging ruling is Dem Soc/Com’s are forced to admit the reality of America exceptionalism.

So let's see: comments and questions

- someone comes here to give birth who is not a US citizen
- Child is born here, child is a citizen of the US by birthright
- can parent stay indefinitely now because of child without doing any of the actual requirements to become a US Citizen
- lets say the parent goes back to whatever country they came from within a very short time after giving birth (with the child), that American citizen will be raised in the country of their birth parent(s) technically as a citizen of that county including the language of that country. The child is basically a non-American, American? Right?


What does that parent actually get out of this besides an "American Child"?

(06-30-2026 11:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 11:35 AM)Claw Wrote:  Now you attack from a different angle.

If you are a citizen and not in this country, you are going to have to meet some requirements to vote. We'll have to iron those out, but that has to happen.

You can't have an army of anchor babies living their whole lives in China that are voting remotely.

If they're born here and live here, they're in. That's done.

We need to look at whether people with dual citizenship should be allowed to vote. The same for people not living in the country.

Those are addressable by law. It is the next step.

It already is. To register to vote, you need to show some proof of residence somewhere in the United States. In fact, states control that. And to register in a state, you have to show some documentary proof of that.

A child of illegals or tourists with US citizenship who is moved back to {china, or pick your foreign country} simply cannot show any form of proof to vote in any US jurisdiction. Kind of end of story even presently.

b/c setting up a residence is soooooooooooo difficult to fakey fakey where intent to subvert lives matter...

for the legally shite-stained ewes, the more loopholes, the mo' butter...

Kavanaugh leaves backdoor for Congress to pass law saying babies born to foreigners temporarily in US are NOT citizens

Quote:Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in part with the Supreme Court ruling opposing President Trump's ending of birthright citizenship and in part dissented, leaving an open door to Congress to make the necessary adjustments to refuse citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who have no permanent status in the United States. He said that the Executive Order from Trump "establishes new exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country."

Those exceptions created by Trump were "for children born to foreign citizens who are either illegally or temporarily in the United States." Kavanaugh does not believe that it violates the 14th Amendment, but that it violates a rule made by Congress based on a Supreme Court ruling in Wong Kim Ark. As such, Kavanaugh writes, Congress could amend their statute "or otherwise enact new legislation to encompass those two new exceptions."


In other words, Congress could put an end to birth tourism and to those children of parents who have no permanent status in the US from becoming citizens. "As of now, Congress has not done so. Over the last 30 years, Congress has considered numerous proposed bills to alter birthright citizenship, but Congress has never actually passed such legislation."

(06-30-2026 11:49 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Other than the USA, very few prominent countries allow birthright citizenship. The silver lining in the damaging ruling is Dem Soc/Com’s are forced to admit the reality of America exceptionalism.

yep ... that's another in the long list of oxymorons within this ruling...

No more HB-1 visas ever again.

(06-30-2026 11:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 11:35 AM)Claw Wrote:  Now you attack from a different angle.

If you are a citizen and not in this country, you are going to have to meet some requirements to vote. We'll have to iron those out, but that has to happen.

You can't have an army of anchor babies living their whole lives in China that are voting remotely.

If they're born here and live here, they're in. That's done.

We need to look at whether people with dual citizenship should be allowed to vote. The same for people not living in the country.

Those are addressable by law. It is the next step.

It already is. To register to vote, you need to show some proof of residence somewhere in the United States. In fact, states control that. And to register in a state, you have to show some documentary proof of that.

A child of illegals or tourists with US citizenship who is moved back to {china, or pick your foreign country} simply cannot show any form of proof to vote in any US jurisdiction. Kind of end of story even presently.

Make it simple, ban pregnant foreign women from entering the country.

(06-30-2026 11:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 11:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 11:01 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 10:49 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 10:46 AM)b2b Wrote:  Disaster.

Well, it's in the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution, so it being upheld was more or less a foregone conclusion. Only way to change it is to amend the Constitution.

which is utter horseshite as it was due to slavery and only b/c of slavery ... THEIR FK'N JOB IS TO INTERPRET!!! ... ALL THEY'VE DONE IS PASS THE BUCK!!!

AND THE ROE V. WADE COMPARITIVE IS BS, TOO!!! ... IT'S RIGHT WHERE IT BELONGS IN THE STATES ... THERE'S A DIFFERENCE WHEN ONE IMPACTS A NATION VS. ONLY THE STATES ... THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUH FEELS AND THE IMPACT OF REALITY TO THE WHOLE ... ONE CAN LEAVE A STATE IF ROE V. MATTERS THAT MUCH ... BIRTH VACATIONS IMPACTS THE ENTIRE NATION ... JUST LIKE MAIL-IT-INNS IN FED ELECTIONS...

just fk me...

If it was only meant to apply to slaves they would have written it that way, which would have been exceptionally easy to do. It sounds like you want a more "living constitution" view of things vs strict textualism, or in reality you just have ideas of how you want things to be and then want the judges to work backwards from the results you want with their rationale.

Yeah, the MAGA right today is wholly 'living Constitutionalists'. Kind if massive reversal from not even 6 years ago.

Kind if amazing in nature.

It's only "amazing" if you were dumb enough to believe anyone on the right after the of Scalia actually cared about that. It's just a good excuse to stop things the right didn't like, but the second it needs to be tossed to do something that clearly goes against the very plain language of the constitution they'll drop it immediately. Hell Kavanaugh in his dissent literally said this.

To spell that out: The Constitution is an enduring
document, and its principles were designed to, and do,
apply to modern conditions and developments. The original
constitutional principles do not change absent a
constitutional amendment, but the relevant principles—
both the rules and exceptions alike—must be faithfully
applied not only to circumstances as they existed in 1787,
1791, and 1868, for example, but also to modern situations
that were unknown or unanticipated by the Constitution’s
Framers. Stated otherwise, the “meaning of rules is
constant. Only their application to new situations presents
a novelty.”

(06-30-2026 11:49 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  So let's see: comments and questions

- someone comes here to give birth who is not a US citizen
- Child is born here, child is a citizen of the US by birthright
- can parent stay indefinitely now because of child without doing any of the actual requirements to become a US Citizen
I don't believe so... The parents would still be subject to immigration law and could be told to return to their country of origin or risk deportation.
- lets say the parent goes back to whatever country they came from within a very short time after giving birth (with the child), that American citizen will be raised in the country of their birth parent(s) technically as a citizen of that county including the language of that country. The child is basically a non-American, American? Right?
I guess... In theory they'd be allowed to move to the US at some point once they reach adulthood. Or, if they have other family members who do have legal status in the US, they could potentially live with them


What does that parent actually get out of this besides an "American Child"?
They could petition to have their parents move to the US once they turn 21 and receive a green card. That would definitely be playing the long game, though.

(06-30-2026 10:46 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 09:45 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship.

Disaster.

bullet Wrote:As for "under the jurisdiction," its been discussed on here what some of the authors intended with that phrase. But the majority is going with how it has been applied the last 150 years.

Here you go Bullet from the mans' mouth himself...

They can even READ the words of the man who WROTE The amendment and they still get this wrong.

This is national suicide by the Supreme Court.

So as of today I hereby propose:

1) Alll Female guests must take a pregnancy test at customs. If you are found to be with child, you are to return to your point of origin forthwith.
If you are not pregnant, you may apply for 1 1 month visa on a yearly basis, however, 1a applies upon revisiting the Untied States.

2) If you are a male guest to the United States, upon arriving at Customs. you must submit yourself for a vasectomy., or show to have had a vasectomy Failure to do so and you are to be returned to your point of origin forthwith until such a medical procedure can and is performed.

Quote:What does that parent actually get out of this besides an "American Child"?
They could petition to have their parents move to the US once they turn 21 and receive a green card. That would definitely be playing the long game, though.

You do realize China's BEEN playing this long game for a VERY Long while now? I think the number is 250,000 Anchor Babies from China?

(06-30-2026 11:49 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Other than the USA, very few prominent countries allow birthright citizenship. The silver lining in the damaging ruling is Dem Soc/Com’s are forced to admit the reality of America exceptionalism.

NO OTHER COUNTRY in the world provides birthright citizenship. Not one.

You do realize anyone go give birth on Guam and the kid is now an American citizen????


F'U "Lying *****" ACB and John Kevorkian Roberts.

(06-30-2026 11:58 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 11:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 11:35 AM)Claw Wrote:  Now you attack from a different angle.

If you are a citizen and not in this country, you are going to have to meet some requirements to vote. We'll have to iron those out, but that has to happen.

You can't have an army of anchor babies living their whole lives in China that are voting remotely.

If they're born here and live here, they're in. That's done.

We need to look at whether people with dual citizenship should be allowed to vote. The same for people not living in the country.

Those are addressable by law. It is the next step.

It already is. To register to vote, you need to show some proof of residence somewhere in the United States. In fact, states control that. And to register in a state, you have to show some documentary proof of that.

A child of illegals or tourists with US citizenship who is moved back to {china, or pick your foreign country} simply cannot show any form of proof to vote in any US jurisdiction. Kind of end of story even presently.

b/c setting up a residence is soooooooooooo difficult to fakey fakey where intent to subvert lives matter...

for the legally shite-stained ewes, the more loopholes, the mo' butter...

Sure it is, John boy. I guess the more you yelp about it the more it is true for some.

How much first hand knowledge do you have of current state voter registration verification procedures, Chico? Lolz.

It’s actually fairly difficult to get through the individual state processes when supplying false documentation, as the case would have to be to fall under your broad empty rhetoric above.

The levels of assumptions the cultists have to travel through is astounding. Lolz.

(06-30-2026 11:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 11:01 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 10:49 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 10:46 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 09:45 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship.

Disaster.

Well, it's in the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution, so it being upheld was more or less a foregone conclusion. Only way to change it is to amend the Constitution.

which is utter horseshite as it was due to slavery and only b/c of slavery ... THEIR FK'N JOB IS TO INTERPRET!!! ... ALL THEY'VE DONE IS PASS THE BUCK!!!

AND THE ROE V. WADE COMPARITIVE IS BS, TOO!!! ... IT'S RIGHT WHERE IT BELONGS IN THE STATES ... THERE'S A DIFFERENCE WHEN ONE IMPACTS A NATION VS. ONLY THE STATES ... THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUH FEELS AND THE IMPACT OF REALITY TO THE WHOLE ... ONE CAN LEAVE A STATE IF ROE V. MATTERS THAT MUCH ... BIRTH VACATIONS IMPACTS THE ENTIRE NATION ... JUST LIKE MAIL-IT-INNS IN FED ELECTIONS...

just fk me...

If it was only meant to apply to slaves they would have written it that way, which would have been exceptionally easy to do. It sounds like you want a more "living constitution" view of things vs strict textualism, or in reality you just have ideas of how you want things to be and then want the judges to work backwards from the results you want with their rationale.

IDIOT. it was _MEANT_ TO apply to slaves
Oh my god, please learn your history, B0JO.

Otherwise we would have to have shipped back millions of slaves who were now free men, send them back to whatever country they were enslaved in, just so they could be come slaves again!

READ the statement by Senator Howard, and he will tell you EXACTLY what that amendment was for, because he WROTE THE ******* THING.

This is a complete and total F--- up by Kevorkian Roberts and Amy "Lyin'" Barrett. (and no , i do not apologize for any of my language the filter catches, because this is the "death of America" and it was done in by 2 people.

(06-30-2026 11:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-30-2026 11:23 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The author of the 14th amendment plainly stated it did not apply to illegal aliens.

Nope. Cite please. You are misinformed.

Look at Senator Jacob Howards speech about the amendment. The intent was to mirror the 1866 Civil Rights Act which specifically stated "That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"
It's only logical to conclude that is what the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means

Quote:

Quote:The Court should have limited itself to an EO being the improper vehicle for this change

That wasnt the issue brought before the court. It was structured to address this issue directly and head on. And they addressed it head on. Bummer.

The proper judicial restraint would have been to allow the people to legislate this idea via their representatives - which is what Kavanaugh did

Quote:

Quote:Instead, they took at major political topic and stated you cannot change what they just said barring a new amendment.

They stated that the reasoning and legal basis the last time they ruled was the exact same reasoning and legal basis for this one -- and came down with the exact same result.

And yes, the issue actually is embedded in the Constitution. In the words of the Constitution. If folks wish to change that, then they should work to change it.

It all comes down to what one thinks of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

If we wanted birthright citizenship the amendment should have specifically said that. It did not which means there was always meant to be limits and thus Congress should be able to define what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" since there is confusion - not 5 people in black robes

Quote:

Quote:They have and would never prohibited congress from regulating firearms like they just did with citizenship

I guess you never read Heller. Or any of the other 2nd amendment cases that followed. They have said that the plain words in the 2nd control. Just like they did here. And they have very continuously backed the Heller and McDonald rulings to a massive degree.

So no -- your statement above is simply false.

So i'm allowed to own a machine gun? Or is Congress allowed to pass sensible restrictions that do not clash with the intent of the amendment?

Quote:

Quote:So I stand my statement, in Roe V Wade the SC stated that abortion could not be regulated by Congress and we all paid a political price for that

And ungermane to this issue. Yes there was a political price, when a previous Court created a right with no basis, and no plain language to support it.

In this case, the right exists, and the plain language is the plain language. I guess how dare they actually stick to the plain language in the birthright case? Really?

Again - it really does not - the plain language of the amendment carves out a vague exception that the judicial branch should allow the people via its representatives to clarify

Quote:

Quote:We are now going to pay a political price for this decision as well because the people and their representatives have no avenue for change

Sure there is. Its a hard one. Its the same one that 2nd Amendment opponents face.

The anti 2nd amendment folks are allowed to regulate firearms - which is why we have 50+ different laws and regulations

The citizenship protection folks have no recourse other than the insurmountable bar of "pass an amendment"

They are being treated the same way pro life advocates were and again all this will do is drive a hard wedge where there is no room for legislative compromise because 5 black robes have spoken