Go back
How Will SCOTUS Rule On Birthright Citizenship

How Will SCOTUS Rule On Birthright Citizenship

Debates

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down
-4

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trumps-challenge-to-birthright-citizenship/

This is going on today, a big day. I predict that they will rule for President Trump, the 14th Amendment clearly applies ONLY to children of slaves. Democrats will not be happy, especially since Trump stopped future democrats at the Border.

Any predictions?


Also, as an aside, all of this is not about race anymore, it is all about culture. I have been saying that on the forum for years, and we are all now seeing the light. Seventy, eighty years ago, foreigners came from their homes and made the USA their homes, and assimilated. Today, they show up with their flags,,,for gods sake...and have specific intent to change the culture of our society, They are already deep into it.
Do you know that Iraq just changed its law, marrying age of girls dropped from 18 to the age of 9. Go ahead, defend that. Y'all will defend anything.

1 edit
Vote Up
3
Vote Down

@AverageJoe1 said
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trumps-challenge-to-birthright-citizenship/

This is going on today, a big day. I predict that they will rule for President Trump, the 14th Amendment clearly applies ONLY to children of slaves. Democrats will not be happy, especially since Trump stopped future democrats at the Border.

Any predictions?
...[text shortened]... ng age of girls dropped from 18 to the age of 9. Go ahead, defend that. Y'all will defend anything.
First three words:

"All persons born................"https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

I think there's a better chance it's a 9-0 affirming more than 125 years of precedent than Trump's ridiculous position is accepted by the SCOTUS.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-4

@no1marauder said
First three words:

"All persons born................"https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

I think there's a better chance it's a 9-0 affirming more than 125 years of precedent than Trump's ridiculous position is accepted by the SCOTUS.
There are exceptions to that "all persons born" phrase. You cannot believe that a terrorist who comes into the US with his pregnant wife, bombs a school bus and kills a dozen children, while his wife gives birth, will have an American citizen child. If so then your constitution needs to be amended asap.

Im pretty sure that are other exceptions. All that is required is for the supreme court to see that in the current political environment the people whose children are being granted citizenship are in the category of aliens with their loyalties elsewhere.

Vote Up
5
Vote Down

@Rajk999 said
There are exceptions to that "all persons born" phrase. You cannot believe that a terrorist who comes into the US with his pregnant wife, bombs a school bus and kills a dozen children, while his wife gives birth, will have an American citizen child. If so then your constitution needs to be amended asap.

Im pretty sure that are other exceptions. All that is required is ...[text shortened]... children are being granted citizenship are in the category of aliens with their loyalties elsewhere.
The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the intentions of those who wrote the words not on "the current political environment".

Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@AverageJoe1 said
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trumps-challenge-to-birthright-citizenship/

This is going on today, a big day. I predict that they will rule for President Trump, the 14th Amendment clearly applies ONLY to children of slaves. Democrats will not be happy, especially since Trump stopped future democrats at the Border.

Any predictions?
...[text shortened]... ng age of girls dropped from 18 to the age of 9. Go ahead, defend that. Y'all will defend anything.
Every time you diminish the Constitution, you also diminish it for citizens.

You ignorant Trumpers need to wake up before you sell us all down the river.

1 edit
Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@Rajk999 said
There are exceptions to that "all persons born" phrase. You cannot believe that a terrorist who comes into the US with his pregnant wife, bombs a school bus and kills a dozen children, while his wife gives birth, will have an American citizen child. If so then your constitution needs to be amended asap.

Im pretty sure that are other exceptions. All that is required is ...[text shortened]... children are being granted citizenship are in the category of aliens with their loyalties elsewhere.
Too bad for you, but the US is not some elite country club.

There is no sign on the Statue of Liberty saying "Sorry, only whites may apply".

What America needs far fewer of is hateful idiots like you.

What is too bad is that nearly half of America IS hateful idiots like you.




You cannot tell the future, none of us can. But what if that kid, son of parents from another country, grew up to become a research scientist who finds the cure for cancer? Of course you don't give a damn. "Just keep everyone who's not a white American OUT!"

Let's keep this shining city on the hill a destination for everyone, not just those who can pay their way in.

Like Trump and his BS $100,000 H1-B visas. This is a pox on this country.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-3

@no1marauder said
First three words:

"All persons born................"https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

I think there's a better chance it's a 9-0 affirming more than 125 years of precedent than Trump's ridiculous position is accepted by the SCOTUS.
So here we go again. A liberal cherry-picks a few words, but omits '...subject to the jurisdiction thereof". First thing that comes to all of our minds...why didnt they just stop with 'born or naturalized'? Why didn't they?

Applying the definition of 'jurisdiction' would necessarily have to consider the way that the word was used at the time, (mid 1860's) when dealing with treaties and melding international laws. So, it would follow that the amendment is designed to ensure citizenship to slaves and indians.

The parents of any other groups would (would have) owed sole allegiance to another sovereign. I think that 'subject to the jurisdiction;' can ONLY mean exclusive allegiance. I don't think for one second that the Framers could have given one whit about parents who were loyal to other sovereigns.,

So, This is how I think SCOTUS should reason. And your saying that it has always been the same for 125 years. WHAT has? Certainly not our immigration landscape............IT aint Nuthin like it has been for 125 years....It is another play, another theater, with different actors. Actors who wave flags of Somalia and Mexico in our faces.

Our judges will think through this, They will consider modern birthright issues. You seem to want all people from all countries to be able to be citizens here? Do you hate our treasured country? I thought you just hate Trump.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-3

@Rajk999 said
There are exceptions to that "all persons born" phrase. You cannot believe that a terrorist who comes into the US with his pregnant wife, bombs a school bus and kills a dozen children, while his wife gives birth, will have an American citizen child. If so then your constitution needs to be amended asap.

Im pretty sure that are other exceptions. All that is required is ...[text shortened]... children are being granted citizenship are in the category of aliens with their loyalties elsewhere.
"Current political environment'. Exactly, but more than that, say the immigration environment out loud 10 times, and it will hit you. Not you, Rajk, you already got it.
No way to read between the lines of Maruader, but do you detect some underlying tone to his posts...like, he is working undercover for some really bad characters, mayb Soros?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down
-3

@no1marauder said
The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the intentions of those who wrote the words not on "the current political environment".
Rule on intentions??? like they are trained in psychology, or in the paranormal? Get a seance going to talk to a few of the framers? Geeez.
And how could their intentions be considered when their intentions were without the info on illegal alien invaders? They could NOT NOT NOT have considered the effects of illegal alien invaders. 125 years ago be dammed. (oops, get carried away, like liberals do)

Vote Up
2
Vote Down
-1

@AverageJoe1 said
So here we go again. A liberal cherry-picks a few words, but omits '...subject to the jurisdiction thereof". First thing that comes to all of our minds...why didnt they just stop with 'born or naturalized'? Why didn't they?

Applying the definition of 'jurisdiction' would necessarily have to consider the way that the word was used at the time, (mid 1860's) when d ...[text shortened]... s to be able to be citizens here? Do you hate our treasured country? I thought you just hate Trump.
The founding fathers used their words (something you tend to suck at) to describe exactly what they wanted from the Constitution and these Amendments.

The SC has already denied the 14th Amendment by letting Trump run again, when he should have been barred from doing so. Insurrection is not something deserving only a slap on the wrist. But Trump has spit in the face of precedent. If Mitch McConnell had respected Obama's pick for the SC, we wouldn't be in this mess today. These 5-4 rulings would be 4-5.

Either we are serious about the Constitution (and that goes for SC Justices as well) or we are not.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-3

Time to Vote!!! Maruader says they will leave it like it has been for the last 125 years. His reason is , well, because it has been that way for 125 years!!!!!. So was the Jane Doe case. They will change something that just ain't right.

Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@AverageJoe1 said
Rule on intentions??? like they are trained in psychology, or in the paranormal? Get a seance going to talk to a few of the framers? Geeez.
And how could their intentions be considered when their intentions were without the info on illegal alien invaders? They could NOT NOT NOT have considered the effects of illegal alien invaders. 125 years ago be dammed. (oops, get carried away, like liberals do)
Take a class on government. Please.

It is exceptionally clear what the founding fathers' intent was. It is all over their writings.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down
-3

@Suzianne said
The founding fathers used their words (something you tend to suck at) to describe exactly what they wanted from the Constitution and these Amendments.

The SC has already denied the 14th Amendment by letting Trump run again, when he should have been barred from doing so. Insurrection is not something deserving only a slap on the wrist. But Trump has spit in the fa ...[text shortened]...
Either we are serious about the Constitution (and that goes for SC Justices as well) or we are not.
You say 'Exactly What The Wanted'. Are you psychic like Marauder. BOTH of you think you can tell us what they were thinking and what they wanted!!!!!!

I just uttered a prediction to my granny, will get back to you....

Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@no1marauder said
First three words:

"All persons born................"https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

I think there's a better chance it's a 9-0 affirming more than 125 years of precedent than Trump's ridiculous position is accepted by the SCOTUS.
You are far more optimistic about Trump's Supreme Court than I am.

Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@AverageJoe1 said
You say 'Exactly What The Wanted'. Are you psychic like Marauder. BOTH of you think you can tell us what they were thinking and what they wanted!!!!!!

I just uttered a prediction to my granny, will get back to you....
Psychics not needed.

All you have to do is READ what they wrote.

It is clear as day.


You could also try reading other papers written by these same people. Their intent is crystal clear. If they saw you and Trump conspiring to corrupt their work, they would, like Marauder, say that the American people won't let them do that. My opinion is far less optimistic. Half of the American people are under thrall to a corrupt man and his government.