(no message)

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/25

Suppose that China sends hundreds, or given their size, thousands of families to the US over the coming years. Each woman sent has a baby here. They return to China, and raise the children to work within the China intelligence community / PRC security organizations. Then, as adults, immediately prior to conflict between the US & China, their kids all return, as is their right, because they are US citizens (while their families are held hostage in China, to ensure that the US citizens / PRC spies whom they send here follow the instructions of the PRC when they get here). Maybe some of them returned earlier, and ran for office in California, or work in police departments there, etc. Others return and buy firearms and prepare for disruption of the US war effort.

Do you think this is a bad outcome of this SCOTUS decision?

Do you think this was what the proponents of the 14th Amendment intended?

Actually, I see both arguments, so I had assumed it would be a 5-4 split. But Chris would say that cultists don't see nuance.

The intent was clear: birthright citizenship for slaves, but not illegals.

The language did not anticipate the cottage birth industry developing to get US citizenship.

The chances of an Article 5 Amendment to fix the language to match it to the original intent is virtually non-existent. Therefore, we will have to live in a world where some presidents defend the border, and others encourage the trafficking of children.

Excerpts:

The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to preserve birthright citizenship comes as a relief. President Trump’s unilateral effort to prevent the children of undocumented immigrants from automatically becoming citizens was plainly unconstitutional. His executive order violated the 14th Amendment, which declares in its opening sentence, “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.”

Mr. Trump’s case rested on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” with his lawyers claiming that the children of parents who came to this country illegally were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. But as the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts shows, the history of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, makes clear that “subject to the jurisdiction” refers to the power of the United States to govern people within its territory. Federal and state laws do, of course, apply to the children of migrants. They are not diplomats with immunity.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every freeborn person in this land,’” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “We keep that promise today.”

The Supreme Court rightly stood up for the Constitution by rejecting Mr. Trump’s spurious argument. His order was bad for the country in other ways, too. It treated immigrants as a threat rather than a benefit. Birthright citizenship has helped the United States integrate immigrants more successfully than countries that lack it. It is one reason immigrants in the United States work at higher rates and commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens, neither of which is true in much of Europe. All people who are born in this country, regardless of their background, have equal claim to being American.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a majority of only five. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the ruling but disagreed about the meaning of the Constitution. He said Mr. Trump’s order violated not the 14th Amendment, but a statute Congress passed in 1940. This is a shakier basis for birthright citizenship than the majority’s. It’s a lot easier to pass a new law than to amend the Constitution.

The majority’s decision is a relief because this Supreme Court is not always willing to apply the law equally to Mr. Trump. Yes, it rightly rejected his tariffs as a usurpation of Congress’s authority to tax. But the court’s six Republican-appointed justices have been inappropriately deferential in a string of other cases.

They have allowed his administration to discriminate on the basis of race when making immigration stops. They have allowed him to shut down federal programs that Congress approved. They have effectively endorsed his campaign of extreme partisan gerrymandering. This week, they gave him new power to fire the heads of regulatory agencies for any reason. They set up many of the excesses of his second term in a 2024 decision that gave presidents sweeping immunity from crimes that they might commit while in office. The birthright citizenship ruling is a reminder of what a principled, Constitution-bound court should look like.

We regret that the three dissenting justices picked up the thin thread of revisionist scholarship. The dissents argue that citizenship turns on an allegiance to the country that is created only if a child’s parents have “domicile,” meaning a permanent home, in the United States. “This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the court, and in my judgment, the court has made a serious mistake,” wrote Justice Alito.

Chief Justice Roberts detailed how little support there is for the dissent’s theory in the historical record. There are many difficult questions in constitutional law. Birthright citizenship is not one of them. Conservatives often say that they are faithful, above all else, to the text of the Constitution. In this case, the Constitution is clear. People born in this country and subject to its laws are citizens.


Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/opinion/supreme-court-firings-trump-ftc-fed.html

I said I see both sides of the argument. You cannot, apparently.

If you survive the journey, you deserve the reward.

Now, "survive the journey" doesn't really apply to being flown into the country, bussed to free housing and such. But I digress.

(no message)

(no message)

better values than you've got.

Unconscionable that the vote wasn't 9-0...


Link: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/eliminating-birthright-citizenship-would-not-solve-problem-unauthorized-immigration/

Give me an example of how someone becomes "stateless."

(no message)

provided for your education on this issue...Sheesh...Roll Eyes...Smack Head (LOL)...then come back when you're ready to get serious.

(no message)

You simply believe that birthright citizenship is for club members —- that look like you — real Americans.

The Constitution says otherwise.

Original intent is a legitimate constitutional analytical tool. You just happen to oppose it when it disagrees with your preferred policies. Which basically means you don't like having a constitution.

As to policy:

I agree with the policy approach most countries take: no birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship is a minority position globally. I nonetheless used to believe birthright citizenship was important. But that was before the Democrats started abusing it by encouraging human and child trafficking. And that was before I understood bloodline citizenship solved the problem better in modern times, and that the problem that birthright citizenship solved no longer exists today.

You're policy position is destructive to our nation. We can have open borders/citizenship, or a successful capitalist economy with a substantial government welfare safety net...we just can't have both. This SCOTUS decision will require, as a practical matter, that we substantially scale back our government assistance programs, that is, unless you are fine destroying the Republic.

Much to the chagrin of generations of xenophobes and racists.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

that says whatever MAGAorange says.

(no message)

This one's not close.