7 hours ago, Nid_Noi said:

We have to go back to jus sanguinis instead of jus soli.

Which is the issue at hand.

7 hours ago, gargamon said:

What an idiotic post. So you're born somewhere and later they decide you're not a citizen? What then, send you to a prison camp somewhere where people of no nationality are forced to live?

Many countries don't have citizenship based on the place of birth.

On 9/27/2025 at 8:18 AM, FolkGuitar said:

Right now, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship. It is the ONLY amendment with which I don't agree... but will defend because, right now, it's the law. I'd like to see that law change.

 

Personally, I don't think ANYONE should automatically be given citizenship.

I think we should have to work for it; working either in civil service to the United States or Military service. But there should be some requirement other than just that happenstance of being born. A year or two spent working, supporting, or protecting the country that protects and supports us isn't too much to ask. I've believed that since I was a teenager, which is one of the reasons I enlisted in the Military. Many countries have a 1-2 year service requirement for EVERY person who reaches the right age.

 

A lot of us gave all we had in service to our country. Many of us still wear the scars from Military service. Hundreds of thousands of Civil Servants dedicated their lives to working for the United States of America.

Those of us who work for our country certainly have the right to be called not just citizens, but patriots.

To me, just being born somewhere is an act of nature, and should not be a guarantee of citizenship.

 

So the brilliant idea is: no birthright citizenship, you gotta earn your rights by scrubbing toilets for Uncle Sam or dodging bullets in wars we haven’t needed since Pearl Harbor. Remember the US hasn't been attacked by another country since Dec 7th, 1941. Everything since then has been offense, not defense. And therefore, nothing says “land of the free” like risking your life for oil, ideology, and Raytheon’s quarterly earnings just to be allowed to exist on U.S. soil.

Also, imagine telling a newborn: “Congrats on surviving childbirth. No rights for you until you clock in a few years of unpaid labor for Uncle Sam. Otherwise, you’re just a squatter in America... get a job freeloader.

Newsflash: rights aren’t coupons you redeem after basic training.  They’re supposed to be inalienable. Turning citizenship into a government loyalty program isn’t patriotic, it’s Idiocracy with paperwork.

Trump is right. 

 

It's a loophole. Flying in when pregnant to get citizenship for your sprog.

 

End it. 

 

Great to see America wising up under Trump. Liberal naivety must end. 

5 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

 

I THINK women who are in late term pregnancy are denied visas.  Could be wrong.  

 

Sadly, that doesn't slow them down.  At least it didn't under Biden.

 

3 hours ago, Galong said:

Newsflash: rights aren’t coupons you redeem after basic training.  They’re supposed to be inalienable. Turning citizenship into a government loyalty program isn’t patriotic, it’s Idiocracy with paperwork.

Did you forget so quickly? Do you remember his words?
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
What did you do for your country? Anything other than being there and paying some money for taxes? Does that really end your responsibility to America? Personally, I don't think so. That's just hiding behind the name 'citizen.' Its only meaning to you is what you can get, not what you should give.

Sorry, that's not the America in which I grew up, nor wish to see in the future.

3 hours ago, Galong said:

So the brilliant idea is: no birthright citizenship, you gotta earn your rights by scrubbing toilets for Uncle Sam or dodging bullets in wars we haven’t needed since Pearl Harbor.

 

Here's a thought.  Apply for the correct visa and wait your turn.

The question the Trump admin has presented to the Court is twofold:

 

1. What was intent of the 14th amendment as passed

 

2. If the prevailing opinion for the last 100+ years is to be changed, is an Executive Order the valid way to do it.

 

Personally, I am more interested in the second. As with the famous line from Molière:

 

"I never realized I was speaking prose", I never realized I was a libertarian.

On 9/27/2025 at 6:13 AM, dinsdale said:

It's an interesting one. If two people are in the US illegally and have a child should the child be granted US citizenship? Parents can legally be deported but their child is a US citizen and as such cannot.

For a hundred or more years this birthright law has been scammed by hundreds of thousands of women from other countries. Women coming into the country as tourists hiding how pregnant they really are so they will not be refused entry. As well as overstaying their visas so they can give birth to the child in the US  hence, allowing them to travel freely in the US after birth and remain to care for their US birthright child. It is about time they put an end to it. 

4 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

The question the Trump admin has presented to the Court is twofold:

 

1. What was intent of the 14th amendment as passed

 

2. If the prevailing opinion for the last 100+ years is to be changed, is an Executive Order the valid way to do it.

 

Personally, I am more interested in the second. As with the famous line from Molière:

 

"I never realized I was speaking prose", I never realized I was a libertarian.

 

You didn't specifically mention the intended meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". 

 

That's going to be a big tamale here.

On 9/27/2025 at 7:06 AM, gargamon said:

U.S.-born children of foreign ambassadors would not be considered American citizens.

The same applies to Canada. 

The rational I think is that an ambassador is assigned to an embassy in the nation which constitutes sovereign foreign soil. Thus, birthright does not apply.

Trump is not only insane, he is obsessed with immigration.  His wife should be the first one booted out if his insanity becomes law.

On 9/27/2025 at 5:34 AM, webfact said:

urged the US Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of an executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship.

SCOTUS can also rule that there is a constitutional process for altering the Constitution. 

Is there a dire rush such as a verifiable national emergency (ie., affecting immediate life, liberty and freedom) that the Amendment requires immediate interpretation otherwise?

If not:

Two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress  and then ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50). A specific deadline for ratification can be set by Congress. 

6 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Sadly, that doesn't slow them down.  At least it didn't under Biden.

 

 

Yes I am aware that some try to hide it.  

21 minutes ago, KwaiSabai said:

Trump is not only insane, he is obsessed with immigration.  His wife should be the first one booted out if his insanity becomes law.

 

His wife went thru the legal process.  Why would you advocate booting her out?

2 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

6 hours ago, impulse said:

Sadly, that doesn't slow them down.  At least it didn't under Biden.

Yes I am aware that some try to hide it.  

 

Under Biden's open border, there was no hiding required.  They just waddled across, 8-3/4 months pregnant.  And nobody stopped them. 

 

Dems figured they were getting a 2-fer.  Two future Dem voters.  What a great deal.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

You didn't specifically mention the intended meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". 

 

That's going to be a big tamale here.

Posted yesterday at 11:36 AM

 

Here's the text. So most of the argument will be what "subject to the jurisdiction " constitutes.

 

BTW next up will be those in opposition to Trump's team asking the Sup's to take the case.

Birth right citizenship for illegal aliens makes a mockery out of citizenship. There's zero chance that's what any of them intended. Moreover at that time there was a whites only immigration policy so in their minds that alone would deny Mexicans for example to gain citizenship regardless.

 

It was always intended to deal with the problem of freed slaves and nothing more.

55 minutes ago, KwaiSabai said:

Trump is not only insane, he is obsessed with immigration.  His wife should be the first one booted out if his insanity becomes law.

 

Supporting illegal immigration is a fringe position. That's why he won the election. Remember the election? that's a good indication of where Americans are.

From the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ruling that the Admin wants referred to the Supreme Court

 

But one power that the President was not granted, by Article II
or by any other source, is the power to modify or change
any clause of the United States Constitution. Perhaps
the Executive Branch, recognizing that it could not
change the Constitution, phrased its Executive Order in terms of a strained and novel interpretation of the Constitution.

The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree. 

 

The Defendants’ proposed interpretation of the Citizenship Clause relies on a network of inferences that are unmoored from the accepted legal principles of 1868.