@wildgrass saidLaw keeping is one of those things that can be taken too far. Some common sense is what is required to do what is best for the country, not brainless aw-keeping. In all countries there are dozens of ridiculous laws still on the books which are primitive and destructive. This one with birthright citizenship is one of them. The 4 people are the smart ones. The other 5 are lacking commonsense.
Fine, do those other things but don't let 9 unelected bureaucrats change the constitution on their own. We got lucky on this one, a 5-4 decision in favor of sanity. It's remarkable that 4 people appointed to the top judicial positions in the land apparently cannot even read. They wrote something about "allegiance" that's obviously nowhere to be found in constitutional law. ...[text shortened]... up.
If 'achieving your goals' includes ignoring the law, and you're a judge, I'd say that's bad.
@Rajk999 saidIt's already the right thing. Who cares what other countries do.
You disagree with the method. How about the principle? Do you believe that a 180 year old law regarding birthright citizenship [which many European countries have removed from their books], is the right thing to do in the US today?
1 edit
@Rajk999 saidI don't think our current system is as broken as it is portrayed. Birth tourism is less than 1% of US births. The scale of this problem is marginal and can be addressed through regulation rather than constitutional amendments. And I don't like the alternative systems for obtaining citizenship, which are more expensive and overly bureaucratic. We already wait in hours long lines just to get an ID. Birthright is simple, cheap and easy to administer. Birthright doesn't work for Europe (good for them) but it does work for most of the Americas.
You disagree with the method. How about the principle? Do you believe that a 180 year old law regarding birthright citizenship [which many European countries have removed from their books], is the right thing to do in the US today?
As with most things, Trump hits a problem with the cudgel instead of using more logical, surgical and effective approaches.
@wildgrass saidIf you believed your own argument you wouldn’t need to lie…
I don't think our current system is as broken as it is portrayed. Birth tourism is less than 1% of US births. The scale of this problem is marginal and can be addressed through regulation rather than constitutional amendments. And I don't like the alternative systems for obtaining citizenship, which are more expensive and overly bureaucratic. We already wait in hours long l ...[text shortened]... ump hits a problem with the cudgel instead of using more logical, surgical and effective approaches.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/31/about-9-of-us-births-in-2023-were-to-unauthorized-or-temporary-legal-immigrant-mothers/
3 edits
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou're doing that thing again, Mott, calling me a liar without even reading my post. Obviously I was writing about birth tourism.
If you believed your own argument you wouldn’t need to lie…
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/31/about-9-of-us-births-in-2023-were-to-unauthorized-or-temporary-legal-immigrant-mothers/
For Visa immigrants, what would you suggest for citizenship? How would we handle that other than what we currently do? They live here.
EDIT: From your article, the number of people born with illegal immigrant parents from 2006 to 2023 is 4.4 million. This is 1.2% of our population. And... many of those people have died or left the country already, which works against the argument that these folks are a drain on our public resources.
It's a small problem, and MAGA has no solution for how the other 98.6% of US citizens will now prove they are citizens.
@Rajk999 saidBrett Kavanaugh, who a few years ago wrote that a women's right to bodily sovereignty was limited in scope to what all-male legislatures thought 150÷ years ago, had the chutzpah to proclaim that the increased illegal immigration was a sufficient changed circumstance to alter the constitutional meaning of the Citizenship Clause from what has been accepted since the late 19th Century.
Law keeping is one of those things that can be taken too far. Some common sense is what is required to do what is best for the country, not brainless aw-keeping. In all countries there are dozens of ridiculous laws still on the books which are primitive and destructive. This one with birthright citizenship is one of them. The 4 people are the smart ones. The other 5 are lacking commonsense.
Gorsuch disappointed me since he had a reputation for strict construction of terms and seemed highly skeptical of the government's position at oral argument. His brief dissent did indicate he would consider the children of illegal immigrants who had permanently settled here as covered by the clause, however ( one has to be "domiciled" somewhere and immigrants, no matter how they got here, who have become residents and started a family here can hardly be considered to be "domiciled" in countries they left, many decades earlier).
@AverageJoe1 saidYou people whine and complain when we call you stupid, then you turn around and prove it.
He asked you what it meant little girl. He did not ask you to slander him.
We are all waiting for you to tell us what it means.
You write such a tough post, but you cannot tell us what it means. In that case, we have before us another nothing Post, they have been several of those today..
None of the mental midgets in MAGA, nor their Dear Leader, know what it means, despite it being in plain English.
Educate yourselves before you come whining to me.
@AverageJoe1 saidExcept that they are entitled to this one, like it or not.
I got this, one , my specialty. Yes, generally it does, it naturally applies to everyone that the law governs. . Laws often apply to everyone within the jurisdiction of the United States, for crime traffic, et al.
But there is a little more nuance you’re talking about constitutional rights and protections. Remember the constitution distinguishes between the people, ...[text shortened]... ons, but they’re not necessarily entitled to all rights and privileges that are reserved to citizens
@AverageJoe1 saidCould you please stop writing about stuff you have no idea about?
? If you are born here, you are a citizen. 🤔
Are you into judicial philosophy here? We all know that.letter of law is its exact wording, the spirit refers to what is to be achieved by a law. The law says you cannot shoot a gun here. The spirit is to promote safety. This gets a bit silly.
So what is your point🤔
I'm not assuming for you, but I am going by your own confession here.
@AverageJoe1 saidSomeone has to constantly remind you people that they are people too.
You write the word Black again. You areconstantly writing about race. You’re constantly writing about skin color.What difference does the color of the justice have?
As you know, this makes you appear to be a racist.
Just yesterday, I wrote a letter about the horrible Ilhan Omar, not giving up communication with the fraudsters, and you wrote back that I am writin ...[text shortened]... t, but you think about it. And the forum goes round and round. Or frankly, you go round and round.
@Rajk999 saidIn this instance, the interests of citizens and immigrants are the same. To make America a better place for their children. Isolationists aren't interested in this at all.
The spirit of the US constitution is first to serve the interest of the American people, and second, all others who are under US control. This can be found in statements like "We the people", "for our posterity", and in the Gettysburg address, a government "for the people". This sentiment is repeated many times. The fact that you need to be told that means your heart is no ...[text shortened]... ts supersede the interest of citizens then that would be contrary to the spirit of the constitution.
@wildgrass saidFor example, nowhere in the Constitution is it written "but only if you're white".
The 14th amendment grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States". You can change it or write new laws, but there is no spirit to that. Certainly it should be universally appreciated that a president cannot just write an order telling everyone to add in another proviso to the constitution.
@AverageJoe1 saidThe United States is ALWAYS better withOUT racism. Again, like it or not.
But, easy man. You libs look negatively at E V E R Y T H I NG. Do you not find his efforts reasonable? Protecting our country? Let’s say I am president, and find something not right about a chinee taking pregnant wife to Guam and going back to China with a US citizen in the family!,!
So the only device for me is to have SCOTUS rule on it. , the device bein ...[text shortened]... urning things have to be in process for them to get a handle on it. Thus, the order. The catalyst.
@Rajk999 saidThen it's a good thing that the letter AND the spirit of the law agree in this case, no?
There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. When the letter can be used to violate the spirit of the law, you should know that the law has failed, and needs to be re-worded.
Some people take a while to figure this out, some dont. If you do then kindly back away and allow people to do the right thing so that what the law intended, can be enforced.