Trump signs executive order overturning the 14th Amendment.

[Millennial_Messiah]

That will get sued and almost certainly overturned... I can't wait for the 7-2 decision against him to come out and him to whine about the RINO SCOTUS when only Alito and Thomas dissented, despite the fact that three out of four judges that voted with the liberal three were hand-selected by Trump and confirmed by a GOP majority.

Also....... breaking news guys, Spain is part of BRICS now. :lmao

[ElNono]

That will get sued and almost certainly overturned... I can't wait for the 7-2 decision against him to come out and him to whine about the RINO SCOTUS when only Alito and Thomas dissented, despite the fact that three out of four judges that voted with the liberal three were hand-selected by Trump and confirmed by a GOP majority.

Also....... breaking news guys, Spain is part of BRICS now. :lmao

He got sued already....

https://www.aclu.org/cases/new-hampshire-indonesian-community-support-v-donald-j-trump?document=Complaint

[Winehole23]

really setting the tone

https://www.whitehouse.gov/es/

[Winehole23]

https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreie3fwxxchlle6jkkxitrvpgqa43qgpge3hfruliflqqh fveyn4pwq@jpeg

[Thread]

And then playing that "Battle Hymn of the Republic" followed immediately in line by "An American Trilogy" at the main Ball late last night.

"How's that for wet work, huh?"

[Winehole23]

Will Usha Vance get deported?

[Winehole23]

Ivana wasn't naturalized until 1988 -- should Don Jr., Eric and Ivanka be deported?

They're not real Americans according to the proposed Trump formula.

[Blake]

Ivana wasn't naturalized until 1988 -- should Don Jr., Eric and Ivanka be deported?

They're not real Americans according to the proposed Trump formula.

Executive order: they stay

[Winehole23]

Executive order: they staySure, but it would never come to that.

The law is for little people, and besides everybody knows who you're supposed to use it on.

Impartial administration denies to the victor his spoils and to his retinue their due reward -- revenge on foreigners and minorities.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Will Usha Vance get deported?

That'd be nice. Also, I hope SCOTUS overturns Loving v. Virginia.

[Winehole23]

dragging abuelos and little kids out of schools, hospitals and churches is 100% going to happen


“This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens—including murders and rapists—who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/01/21/statement-dhs-spokesperson-directives-expanding-law-enforcement-and-ending-abuse

[Winehole23]

That'd be nice. Also, I hope SCOTUS overturns Loving v. Virginia.there was never any doubt you'd be for the strongest possible restrictions on race-mixing -- while trying to nail hot hispanic women on the side

[SnakeBoy]

Constitution not open to interpretation now

[Millennial_Messiah]

dragging abuelos and little kids out of schools, hospitals and churches is 100% going to happen

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/01/21/statement-dhs-spokesperson-directives-expanding-law-enforcement-and-ending-abuse

:tu

If we can get all those poverty shits who can't speak English out of our country, then that's a step in the right direction.



there was never any doubt you'd be for the strongest possible restrictions on race-mixing -- while trying to nail hot hispanic women on the side
:lol

Well, to be fair, I'm 100-pro choice and pro-contraception (birth controll pill, IUDs, anti-ovulation implants, abortion pill, nuvaring etc)... pretty much anything that isn't a condom.

[Winehole23]

Constitution not open to interpretation now

sure it is, but the president can't change it by decree

[Winehole23]

you're tilting at another strawman, nobody said 130 year old law is settled

it's obviously not

[Winehole23]

Trump wants to relitigate the Reconstruction for the losing side.

All the voting rights (for certain people, not everybody) gone.

All the civil rights (for certain people, not everybody) gone.

That's what this is really about.

[Winehole23]

SCOTUS looks ready to go along with

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

Testing this out before challenging 22

[Thread]

SCOTUS looks ready to go along with

I'd give my right nut for that to be so.

[ducks]

If my neighbors cow breaks through my fence then gives birth on my property … it’s still NOT MY COW AND NOT MY CALF!

[Thread]

If my neighbors cow breaks through my fence then gives birth on my property … it’s still NOT MY COW AND NOT MY CALF!

Absolutely!

[Winehole23]

I'd give my right nut for that to be so.maybe if you offer it as a tribute, the political gods will smile on you again!

[Blake]

If my neighbors cow breaks through my fence then gives birth on my property … it’s still NOT MY COW AND NOT MY CALF!

Exactly. If this were 1850 and a slave gave birth on your land, still not your slaves.

[DMX7]

If my neighbors cow breaks through my fence then gives birth on my property … it’s still NOT MY COW AND NOT MY CALF!

That's an interesting way of putting it.

[Winehole23]

I'd give my right nut for that to be so.I love that no matter how radical or raw I try to make my lampoon of y'all, there is always some jackass like you or M_M to agree with it directly

:tu

[ducks]

https://x.com/WorldHallOfFun/status/1882070961962549652

[ducks]

DOJ to investigate state or local officials who obstruct immigration enforcement: memo
Trump DOJ wants federal prosecutors across the country to crackdown on officials who obstruct immigration enforcement

[ducks]

CNN poll
Majority want all illegals gone !

[Millennial_Messiah]

Testing this out before challenging 22

22nd will be a lot more difficult because that amendment is very specific like prohibition (18th/overturned with 21st) it's really the reason for the existence of the amendment not a sub part of it in the fine print. Would have to be ratified by 2/3 of combined congress and 3/4 of state legislatures which would never happen.


I love that no matter how radical or raw I try to make my lampoon of y'all, there is always some jackass like you or M_M to agree with it directly

:tu
Agreeing with it, and believing it is a long shot to actually happen, are not mutually exclusive

[Winehole23]

Teen Vogue with adult-level tips for mutual aid and protection among targeted communities

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ice-watch-programs-immigrants-how-to-start

[Thread]

maybe if you offer it as a tribute, the political gods will smile on you again!

Amen. It's so offered.

[Thread]

I love that no matter how radical or raw I try to make my lampoon of y'all, there is always some jackass like you or M_M to agree with it directly

:tu

I don't do "lampoon."

[Winehole23]

Elie Mystal, brisk as ever


On its face, this order violates the 14th Amendment, the statutes that mirror the 14th Amendment, and the Administrative Procedures Act (which prohibits “arbitrary and capricious” laws and orders such as “don’t give birth while on a student visa or else”). I’d also argue that it could violate the Equal Protection Clause, because it focuses more on the status of the mother than on the father. And it could violate the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution if we’re in a situation where citizenship granted in a blue state is not recognized by red states.


But I wonder when the courts will get to a discussion of these issues on the merits. Because the government and Trump judges will likely begin by arguing that nobody even has standing to sue the administration over this constitutional violation. They’ll say that an immigrant who is not pregnant has no right to sue, nor does the out-of-status person who is expecting. They’ll say that states don’t have a right to sue, because they’re not “harmed” by the order. They’ll wait until an actual baby is born, and denied documentation, and then force that literal baby to sue.


In the meantime, the courts could allow a patently unconstitutional order to go into effect and watch as the white-wing media desperately tries to normalize it. They could watch as Trump’s goons attempt to “enforce” the order as he puts families and their American-citizen children on trains and sends them to camps, waiting for just the “right” plaintiff to emerge.


Even if the courts do get around to “stopping” the order, Trump controls the military. He controls the State Department and the Justice Department. He controls the Social Security Administration. I don’t have a lot of belief that he will follow a court order on this, even if the courts order him to stop.


All I can do is tell you that the order is unconstitutional, and racist, and obviously so. The people who support this order are wrong, and racist. The journalists who promote and normalize the order are wrong and racist. This order violates one of the fundamental principles of the United States, and people should react to it like it does.


Unfortunately, the order upholds another, perhaps even more fundamental principle that has always animated the American experiment: the idea that this country is for white people, and nobody else. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order/

[Winehole23]

“(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.”

If the “except for Elon Musk” part of this order weren’t obvious before, it should be now. Musk’s future kids can still get citizenship, Trump wants to make that very clear, for some reason.

[Yonivore]

That will get sued and almost certainly overturned... I can't wait for the 7-2 decision against him to come out and him to whine about the RINO SCOTUS when only Alito and Thomas dissented, despite the fact that three out of four judges that voted with the liberal three were hand-selected by Trump and confirmed by a GOP majority.

Also....... breaking news guys, Spain is part of BRICS now. :lmao
According to my lawyer friend, it is a fundamental principle of statutory and constitutional construction that every clause must be given meaning, if at all possible. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” must mean something, must qualify the otherwise-universal citizenship accorded to babies born here. But how?

Contrary to what you may read in low-information news sources, the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the child of an illegal alien is a citizen if born within our borders. The child of a legal resident, yes. So the question remains unresolved. As a policy matter, children of illegal aliens should not be citizens. But how, exactly, can “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be applied, when it would seem that everyone is subject to our laws?

That's a question for the U. S. Supreme Court, I suppose. Personally, I hope they decide it means that illegal aliens can’t, by breaking our laws, create new American citizens.


He got sued already....

https://www.aclu.org/cases/new-hamps...ment=Complaint

He sure did. He acknowledged he probably would be sued when he signed it. Twenty-two blue states have already sued to try to block implementation of this executive order. They have an interest in continuing to attract illegal aliens, and particularly pregnant illegal aliens, who contribute to their representation in Congress and also create enormous demand for welfare and other government services–a plus if you are a Democrat.

Again, this will land at the Supreme Court.

[Thread]

According to my lawyer friend, it is a fundamental principle of statutory and constitutional construction that every clause must be given meaning, if at all possible. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” must mean something, must qualify the otherwise-universal citizenship accorded to babies born here. But how?

Contrary to what you may read in low-information news sources, the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the child of an illegal alien is a citizen if born within our borders. The child of a legal resident, yes. So the question remains unresolved. As a policy matter, children of illegal aliens should not be citizens. But how, exactly, can “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be applied, when it would seem that everyone is subject to our laws?

That's a question for the U. S. Supreme Court, I suppose. Personally, I hope they decide it means that illegal aliens can’t, by breaking our laws, create new American citizens.



He sure did. He acknowledged he probably would be sued when he signed it. Twenty-two blue states have already sued to try to block implementation of this executive order. They have an interest in continuing to attract illegal aliens, and particularly pregnant illegal aliens, who contribute to their representation in Congress and also create enormous demand for welfare and other government services–a plus if you are a Democrat.

Again, this will land at the Supreme Court.

60/40 we'll lose, but it's the best that he could do. And he did it>>>immediately.

[Millennial_Messiah]

60/40 we'll lose, but it's the best that he could do. And he did it>>>immediately.

And I'd proudly endorse a Pelican Brief of every last "justice" who votes in favor of the birthright citizenship regardless of who appointed the "justice". Replace them all with hardliners like Alito and Thomas who will surely vote in favor of repealing birthright citizenship.

[Winehole23]

According to my lawyer friend, it is a fundamental principle of statutory and constitutional construction that every clause must be given meaning, if at all possible. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” must mean something, must qualify the otherwise-universal citizenship accorded to babies born here. But how?Native Americans, brainiac. Read the goddamn Congressional Globe, it's all spelled out there.

Subject to US law but not partaking of citizenship, we still needed to kill and remove Native Americans, there was no question of them being included in the 14th Amendment.

Yonivores are very gullible.

[Blake]

According to my lawyer friend, it is a fundamental principle of statutory and constitutional construction that every clause must be given meaning, if at all possible. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” must mean something, must qualify the otherwise-universal citizenship accorded to babies born here. But how?

Contrary to what you may read in low-information news sources, the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the child of an illegal alien is a citizen if born within our borders. The child of a legal resident, yes. So the question remains unresolved. As a policy matter, children of illegal aliens should not be citizens. But how, exactly, can “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be applied, when it would seem that everyone is subject to our laws?

That's a question for the U. S. Supreme Court, I suppose. Personally, I hope they decide it means that illegal aliens can’t, by breaking our laws, create new American citizens.



He sure did. He acknowledged he probably would be sued when he signed it. Twenty-two blue states have already sued to try to block implementation of this executive order. They have an interest in continuing to attract illegal aliens, and particularly pregnant illegal aliens, who contribute to their representation in Congress and also create enormous demand for welfare and other government services–a plus if you are a Democrat.

Again, this will land at the Supreme Court.

Lol "muh lawyer friend"

[Thread]

And I'd proudly endorse a Pelican Brief of every last "justice" who votes in favor of the birthright citizenship regardless of who appointed the "justice". Replace them all with hardliners like Alito and Thomas who will surely vote in favor of repealing birthright citizenship.

That Barrett girl will be our poison. She'll go Left and Roberts will follow her every fucking time she does. Just have to hope and pray that she won't go completely Left and we can get (every other one) our way. Trump chose poorly with her and that GD CNN knew it on-the-spot. I remember they were upbeat about her at the time, and they turned out to be correct. He needed just one more ringer and didn't get it. Fuckin' shame.

[Yonivore]

Lol "muh lawyer friend"
Should I have said, I'm not a lawyer but I pretend to be one in Spurstalk? I just happened to rely on the opinion of a lawyer I trust.

The only relevant take from my relying on this particular attorney is that the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the child of an illegal alien is a citizen if born within our borders. If you can find a cite that contradicts that statement, I'd be interested.

I believe this, and the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" will be the relevant questions before the court.

[Thread]

Should I have said, I'm not a lawyer but I pretend to be one in Spurstalk? I just happened to rely on the opinion of a lawyer I trust.

The only relevant take from my relying on this particular attorney is that the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the child of an illegal alien is a citizen if born within our borders. If you can find a cite that contradicts that statement, I'd be interested.

I believe this, and the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" will be the relevant questions before the court.

Yep.

[Millennial_Messiah]

That Barrett girl will be our poison. She'll go Left and Roberts will follow her every fucking time she does. Just have to hope and pray that she won't go completely Left and we can get (every other one) our way. Trump chose poorly with her and that GD CNN knew it on-the-spot. I remember they were upbeat about her at the time, and they turned out to be correct. He needed just one more ringer and didn't get it. Fuckin' shame.
should have picked someone like Judge Jeanine who never wavers imo. Someone of that ilk I get it if she was too old.

I never trusted Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, she's socially woke and has some black/mixed race kids. Got to properly vet these people especially for the highest fuckin' judicial position in the world. I don't care that "oh she's this devout anti abortion Catholic who will overturn Roe some day....". That means nothing to me. There are tons of Catholics including the pope who lean left on damn near every other issue except abortion. Tons of Woke Catholics like that lesbo idiot in DC from yesterday. If you're picking for the supreme court, especially if you're picking a female, you've got to get a hardline social conservative who is based on all the issues and would have the stones to overturn something like Loving v VA or the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s if they came up. Someone who goes further than being a Trump sycophant, who is loyal to the conservative populist nationalism movement to the bone.

[Winehole23]

should have picked someone like Judge Jeanine who never wavers imo. Someone of that ilk I get it if she was too old.

I never trusted Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, she's socially woke and has some black/mixed race kids. Got to properly vet these people especially for the highest fuckin' judicial position in the world. I don't care that "oh she's this devout anti abortion Catholic who will overturn Roe some day....". That means nothing to me. There are tons of Catholics including the pope who lean left on damn near every other issue except abortion. Tons of Woke Catholics like that lesbo idiot in DC from yesterday. If you're picking for the supreme court, especially if you're picking a female, you've got to get a hardline social conservative who is based on all the issues and would have the stones to overturn something like Loving v VA or the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s if they came up. Someone who goes further than being a Trump sycophant, who is loyal to the conservative populist nationalism movement to the bone."DEI hire"

"those black kids are suspicious"

[Thread]

should have picked someone like Judge Jeanine who never wavers imo. Someone of that ilk I get it if she was too old.

I never trusted Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, she's socially woke and has some black/mixed race kids. Got to properly vet these people especially for the highest fuckin' judicial position in the world. I don't care that "oh she's this devout anti abortion Catholic who will overturn Roe some day....". That means nothing to me. There are tons of Catholics including the pope who lean left on damn near every other issue except abortion. Tons of Woke Catholics like that lesbo idiot in DC from yesterday. If you're picking for the supreme court, especially if you're picking a female, you've got to get a hardline social conservative who is based on all the issues and would have the stones to overturn something like Loving v VA or the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s if they came up. Someone who goes further than being a Trump sycophant, who is loyal to the conservative populist nationalism movement to the bone.

Yep.

Grim business.

[Winehole23]

wow

what caused y'all to turn against Amy Coney Barrett?

did she dare to think for herself or something?

[Blake]

wow

what caused y'all to turn against Amy Coney Barrett?

did she dare to think for herself or something?

The underlying misogyny seeping out is my guess. She should have never left the kitchen where she belongs.

[Tyronn Lue]

Reality TV moves. This is Trump doing the Jake Paul/Mike Tyson thing by getting some retard credit for trying, but knowing full well it's futile.

[Winehole23]

Reality TV moves. This is Trump doing the Jake Paul/Mike Tyson thing by getting some retard credit for trying, but knowing full well it's futile.if his agencies ignore court orders, who will stop them?

[Winehole23]

Eisenhower's Bracero program petered out because business owners continued to solicit so-called illegals for employment at the border, and also because it swept up no small number of US citizens.

Even in normal times, ICE deports real US citizens from time to time.

[Winehole23]

Judge Coughenour won't be the last judge to call bullshit


https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreidvjb54tw4wmtpakp3h2slg32vn7v5okwoyrj6hpwx5j f7u6f3tjy@jpeg

[Winehole23]

Why birthright citizenship?

To keep authorities from deporting former slaves, in part.


Mass deportation of nonwhites was still very much on the table after the Civil War. A week after surrendering to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 14, 1865, Robert E. Lee (who was to become the most visible symbol of Southern resistance) sat down with a reporter (https://john-reeves.com/news/2018/5/23/a-forgotten-interview-with-robert-e-lee) from the New York Herald:


The best men of the South have long been anxious to do away with this institution, and [are] quite willing to-day to see it abolished. They consider slavery forever dead. But with them, in relation to this subject, the question has ever been, ‘What will you do with the freed people?’ That is the serious question to-day, and one that cannot be winked at. It must be met practically and treated intelligently. The negroes must be disposed of.


Almost a year later, on February 17, 1866, Lee once again expressed his support for the deportation of blacks. During congressional hearings on Reconstruction, Rep. Henry Taylor Blow (R-Mo.) asked Lee (https://books.google.com/books?id=dUgWAAAAYAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=%22Do%20you%20not%20think%20that%20Virginia%20w ould%20be%20better%20off%20if%20the%20colored%20po pulation%20were%20to%20go%20to%20Alabama%2C%20Loui siana%22&pg=RA1-PA136#v=onepage&q=%22Do%20you%20not%20think%20that%20Virginia%20wo uld%20be%20better%20off%20if%20the%20colored%20pop ulation%20were%20to%20go%20to%20Alabama,%20Louisia na%22&f=false): “Do you not think that Virginia would be better off if the colored population were to go to Alabama, Louisiana, and the other southern States?” Lee responded: “I think it would be better for Virginia if she could get rid of them. That is no new opinion with me. I have always thought so, and have always been in favor of emancipation—gradual emancipation.”

Emancipation plus deportation. This was the preferred Southern plan. And had been from the very beginning.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/claremont-campaign-against-birthright-citizenship-john-eastman

[Winehole23]

Trump preparing to denaturalize Native Americans?

Looney Tunes


The Justice Department attorneys return to the topic of whether or not Native Americans should be entitled to birthright citizenship later in their arguments, citing a Supreme Court case, Elk v. Wilkins, in which the court decided that “because members of Indian tribes owe ‘immediate allegiance’ to their tribes, they are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to Citizenship.”https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/excluding-indians-trump-admin-questions-native-americans-birthright-citizenship-in-court/ar-AA1xJKcs

[Winehole23]

I guess if they can use that gloss of the 14A here, then they can turn around and say children born to foreign parents in the US "owe allegiance" to their parents' place of birth, and therefore are not eligible for birthright citizenship.

I guess for some, nuking the US citizenship of Native Americans is small price to pay for undoing 160 years of jus soli in order to round up brown children born in the US to deport them.

[Winehole23]

just amazing shit getting thrown on the wall here

[Yonivore]

A good article, clearly laying out the case why the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship just because someone manages to get born here. Frankly, it's what I've always believed, and on the merit of the facts and a clear reading of the text it's a no-brainer, but I have no confidence SCOTUS will rule that way. Given my lack of confidence in SCOTUS, I have even less confidence the opposition members of this forum will give it a fair read.

But, hey! It's a another, new, great day in America!

Birthright Citizenship:
Game On! (https://americanmind.org/salvo/birthright-citizenship-game-on/)


Our argument is straightforward. The text of the 14th Amendment contains two requirements for acquiring automatic citizenship by birth: one must be born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. The proper understanding of the Citizenship Clause therefore turns on what the drafters of the amendment, and those who ratified it, meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Was it merely a partial, temporary jurisdiction, such as applies to anyone (except for diplomats) who are subject to our laws while they are within our borders? Or does it instead apply only to those who are subject to a more complete jurisdiction, one which manifests itself as owing allegiance to the United States and not to any foreign power?

...

So which understanding of “subject to the jurisdiction” did the drafters of the 14th Amendment have in mind?

Happily, we don’t need to speculate, as they were asked that very question. They unambiguously stated that it meant “complete” jurisdiction, such as existed under the law at the time, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which excluded from citizenship those born on U.S. soil who were “subject to a foreign power.”

[Winehole23]

A good article, clearly laying out the case why the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship just because someone manages to get born here. Frankly, it's what I've always believed, and on the merit of the facts and a clear reading of the text it's a no-brainer, but I have no confidence SCOTUS will rule that way. Given my lack of confidence in SCOTUS, I have even less confidence the opposition members of this forum will give it a fair read.

But, hey! It's a another, new, great day in America!

Birthright Citizenship:
Game On! (https://americanmind.org/salvo/birthright-citizenship-game-on/)anyone residing in the US is subject to US law

this is stupid and ignores the original intent, which was jus soli for everyone except Native Americans

[Winehole23]

"changing the constitution with the changing times" is back, so long as Republicans are doing it

[ChumpDumper]

A good article, clearly laying out the case why the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship just because someone manages to get born here. Frankly, it's what I've always believed, and on the merit of the facts and a clear reading of the text it's a no-brainer, but I have no confidence SCOTUS will rule that way. Given my lack of confidence in SCOTUS, I have even less confidence the opposition members of this forum will give it a fair read.

But, hey! It's a another, new, great day in America!

Birthright Citizenship:
Game On! (https://americanmind.org/salvo/birthright-citizenship-game-on/)
J:lolhn Eastman

[Winehole23]

(I guess I'm still on Yonivore's shit list for pantsing him on the reg 10-15 years ago)

[ducks]

The Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit research organization that focuses on immigration, said Friday that based on its preliminary findings, there were between 225,000 to 250,000 U.S. births to illegal immigrants in 2023, which accounts for about 7% of total births in the U.S. that year.

To put the figure into context, the group says those figures are greater than the total number of births in all but two states taken individually.

Furthermore, it appears that more children were born to illegal immigrant parents than to legal noncitizens.

[Winehole23]

The Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit research organization that focuses on immigration, said Friday that based on its preliminary findings, there were between 225,000 to 250,000 U.S. births to illegal immigrants in 2023, which accounts for about 7% of total births in the U.S. that year.

To put the figure into context, the group says those figures are greater than the total number of births in all but two states taken individually.
Furthermore, it appears that more children were born to illegal immigrant parents than to legal noncitizens.this is an argument for more immigration, tbh

[ducks]

Get vetted have enough $$$ for 6 months then come in legally

[ElNono]

He sure did. He acknowledged he probably would be sued when he signed it. Twenty-two blue states have already sued to try to block implementation of this executive order. They have an interest in continuing to attract illegal aliens, and particularly pregnant illegal aliens, who contribute to their representation in Congress and also create enormous demand for welfare and other government services–a plus if you are a Democrat.

Again, this will land at the Supreme Court.


60/40 we'll lose, but it's the best that he could do. And he did it>>>immediately.


And I'd proudly endorse a Pelican Brief of every last "justice" who votes in favor of the birthright citizenship regardless of who appointed the "justice". Replace them all with hardliners like Alito and Thomas who will surely vote in favor of repealing birthright citizenship.

Good to see you all acknowledge it's pure pandering and largely a waste of time, tbh, I agree. The only strategic thing that makes sense is that he's prepared to fail at this to build political momentum for sending to States' legislatures a constitutional amendment to revoke/modify that section of the 14th amendment, which is really how you go about these things.

And "this will land at the Supreme Court" is pure copium, IMO. We all know it will. The SCOTUS just really isn't (at least yet) as corrupt as he is (see: him being a felon). It'll only be 60/40 because, as Andy said, you have Uncle Thomas and Alito, which are the rotten part of the court.

Ultimately things like this are just a distraction, which he'll need plenty of if his first term is any indicator.

[Winehole23]

free countries don't have forcible migrations

[Winehole23]

y'all's dipshittery and goonery will not pass unnoticed

[ElNono]

free countries don't have forcible migrations


y'all's dipshittery and goonery will not pass unnoticed

I think you're missing the forest from the trees, tbh. There's one clear end goal here, which is why this was hurried up, and has nothing to do with immigration: Is the SCOTUS stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot and allow altering the Constitution by executive dictum?

I'm of the belief the SCOTUS isn't that stupid, especially since Roberts and co knows what would follow with this administration.

[Winehole23]

I think you're missing the forest from the trees, tbh. There's one clear end goal here, which is why this was hurried up, and has nothing to do with immigration: Is the SCOTUS stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot and allow altering the Constitution by executive dictum?

I'm of the belief the SCOTUS isn't that stupid, especially since Roberts and co knows what would follow with this administration.You were a voice of caution wrt SCOTUS for Dobbs and we all see how that turned out -- women's rights taken away.

Not saying you're wrong, El Nono, SCOTUS might do as you say in this case and bow up to DJT, but it's not very hard to see them joining the dipshittery either.

[Tyronn Lue]

if his agencies ignore court orders, who will stop them?
If the branches of the government are all corrupt, no one stops them.

[Winehole23]

If the branches of the government are all corrupt, no one stops them.this is the point of loyalty vetting

[Tyronn Lue]

this is the point of loyalty vetting
And can be thwarted by actually going to the polls to vote, unless we are saying all politicians are corrupt.

[ducks]

Biden ignored Supreme Court rulings

[ElNono]

Biden ignored Supreme Court rulings

False. Like which one?

[Winehole23]

And can be thwarted by actually going to the polls to vote, unless we are saying all politicians are corrupt.I'm saying US government hasn't had partisan and personal loyalty oaths for government workers and agency heads since the 19th century. Trump has a Jacksonian approach to government staffing -- proven buddies and loyalists only need apply.

[Thread]

Good to see you all acknowledge it's pure pandering and largely a waste of time, tbh, I agree. The only strategic thing that makes sense is that he's prepared to fail at this to build political momentum for sending to States' legislatures a constitutional amendment to revoke/modify that section of the 14th amendment, which is really how you go about these things.

And "this will land at the Supreme Court" is pure copium, IMO. We all know it will. The SCOTUS just really isn't (at least yet) as corrupt as he is (see: him being a felon). It'll only be 60/40 because, as Andy said, you have Uncle Thomas and Alito, which are the rotten part of the court.

Ultimately things like this are just a distraction, which he'll need plenty of if his first term is any indicator.

...only to IF you take back the House/Senate in 2 years. If it stays ours it will be smooth sailing barring you hunting him again.

Frankly, it will take a miracle.

[koriwhat]

False. Like which one?

Higher education relief which was the most notable. Maybe do a bit of leg work.

[Tyronn Lue]

I'm saying US government hasn't had partisan and personal loyalty oaths for government workers and agency heads since the 19th century. Trump has a Jacksonian approach to government staffing -- proven buddies and loyalists only need apply.
Well I guess it fits since he mentioned a policy from over 100 years ago during his campaign. I cannot recall what stupid shit that fat fuck said but it's just more drivel from the care facility called the White House these days.

[ElNono]

Higher education relief which was the most notable. Maybe do a bit of leg work.

He complied with the SCOTUS ruling. He had to start all over again with a different regulatory framework which was much slower.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2023/06/30/supreme-court-blocks-bidens-debt-relief-plan

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/despite-collapse-of-his-forgiveness-plan-millions-had-student-loans-canceled-under-biden

[ElNono]

You were a voice of caution wrt SCOTUS for Dobbs and we all see how that turned out -- women's rights taken away.

Not saying you're wrong, El Nono, SCOTUS might do as you say in this case and bow up to DJT, but it's not very hard to see them joining the dipshittery either.

Dobbs had a very high cost on this court from a credibility standpoint, and given that they continue to have to to address it, it points out why it'll inevitably go the way of "separate but equal" in due time. There's only so many black eyes you can have.

Ultimately, though, Dobbs didn't need to address more institutional issues, like separation of powers. This goes squarely into that, and if executive dictum is all you need to change the Constitution, then the SCOTUS would basically be handing out all their own power.

[Winehole23]

Dobbs had a very high cost on this court from a credibility standpoint, and given that they continue to have to to address it, it points out why it'll inevitably go the way of "separate but equal" in due time. There's only so many black eyes you can have.

Ultimately, though, Dobbs didn't need to address more institutional issues, like separation of powers. This goes squarely into that, and if executive dictum is all you need to change the Constitution, then the SCOTUS would basically be handing out all their own power.Another way to look at it is, at least the justices won't be targeted by the feral MAGA mob or strangled in their sleep by a mercurial POTUS.

SCOTUS can always go back to enforcing separation of powers if, by some unthinkable misfortune, Democrats should wind up in the White house again.

[ElNono]

Another way to look at it is, at least the justices won't be targeted by the feral MAGA mob or strangled in their sleep by a mercurial POTUS.

SCOTUS can always go back to enforcing separation of powers if, by some unthinkable misfortune, Democrats should wind up in the White house again.

Well, that's the other issue. If you open the floodgates now, you open it for everybody. I know some people here think the SCOTUS is a bunch of MAGA retards, but that's not really the case, especially when it comes to it's own survival.

[velik_m]

Well, that's the other issue. If you open the floodgates now, you open it for everybody. I know some people here think the SCOTUS is a bunch of MAGA retards, but that's not really the case, especially when it comes to it's own survival.

History is full of stupid "smart" people who thought they can control the dictator once they've given him full power. Berezovsky was once Russia's richest man and brought Putin to power, it did not end well for him. SCOTUS signed their own irrelevance as soon as they shielded Trump and put him above the law.

[z0sa]

History is full of stupid "smart" people who thought they can control the dictator once they've given him full power. Berezovsky was once Russia's richest man and brought Putin to power, it did not end well for him. SCOTUS signed their own irrelevance as soon as they shielded Trump and put him above the law.

Yep, yep, yes, say it louder for the people in the back ...

The Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich is one of the all-time great journalistic endeavors, and it goes on and on about just such reasoning in the Weimar republic. Most of those people actually had a better excuse, too - Hindenburg being the President who could rally everyone against anyone. Not many people realize that the Night of the Long Knives was almost directly in response to his posturing about the SA. We don't have such luxuries in the USA.

[FrostKing]

Okay smart people in the room. Our industries are being closed in the name of climate. We saw Covid strong arm.

Enough complaining bout Orange Man

[ChumpDumper]

Okay smart people in the room. Our industries are being closed in the name of climate. We saw Covid strong arm.

Enough complaining bout Orange ManWhy are you against free speech?

[Winehole23]

it hurts their feelings

they don't like free speech for other people

[Blake]

Okay smart people in the room. Our industries are being closed in the name of climate. We saw Covid strong arm.

Enough complaining bout Orange Man

What industries are you referring to? Name one

[Winehole23]

during the Depression, about a million people were forced out of the U.S. across the border into Mexico. It wasn't called deportation. It was euphemistically referred to as repatriation, returning people to their native country. But about 60 percent of the people in the Mexican repatriation drive were actually U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.

[Winehole23]

history teaches us that forcible migration and racial profiling are as American as apple pie, Donald Trump's the living proof

[Winehole23]

John Bingham on Monsters and Natural-Born Fools

From a speech he gave on October 8, 1867:


[T]hey framed your matchless Constitution of Government at Philadelphia, known as the Constitution of the United States.— The word white is not there. The words "natural-born citizen" are there, and the man is a natural-born fool who does not understand that the term "natural-born citizen" implies that citizenship is a birthright. It comes with a man into the world. He has a right to citizenship, no matter what his complexion, upon the spot in which he had his origin; and the man who denies it to him, or attempts to withhold it from him, is simply a monster. When he comes to you with his nostrums you ought to herald his approach with the cry of the old cheating peddler: "This is the genuine old Doctor Jacob Townsend's saraparilla." - [Laughter.]

[Yonivore]

I think the question of what "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." actually means, is going to be settled in the U. S. Supreme Court relatively soon - probably this session.

Continue to argue the point is useless, in this forum. There are actual brilliant legal minds -- on both sides of the issue -- who will be more persuasive in litigating this than you or I. I'm satisfied with agreeing to disagree until those who actually have the power to settle this question have spoken.

[ChumpDumper]

I think the question of what "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." actually means, is going to be settled in the U. S. Supreme Court relatively soon - probably this session.

Continue to argue the point is useless, in this forum. There are actual brilliant legal minds -- on both sides of the issue -- who will be more persuasive in litigating this than you or I. I'm satisfied with agreeing to disagree until those who actually have the power to settle this question have spoken.

You're a fucking moron.

[Yonivore]

You're a fucking moron.
Not sure how what I just said makes me a moron but, I'll consider the Cheeto-stained fingers, Mommy-basement-dwelling source.

[ChumpDumper]

Not sure how what I just said makes me a moron but, I'll consider the Cheeto-stained fingers, Mommy-basement-dwelling source.
Your invented definition of "subject to jurisdiction" proves you're a moron.

[Yonivore]

Your invented definition of "subject to jurisdiction" proves you're a moron.
Not invented. I cited the source -- who happened to be the author of the amendment.

[ChumpDumper]

Not invented. I cited the source -- who happened to be the author of the amendment.

Your tortured interpretation of his simple sentence proves you're a moron.


Or just completely dishonest.

Take your pick.

[Yonivore]

Your tortured interpretation of his simple sentence proves you're a moron.


Or just completely dishonest.

Take your pick.
Well, there are constitutional scholars that, unlike you, don't eat their boogers, that agree with my interpretation. Yes, there are other equally capable constitutional scholars that disagree. That's why it's probably headed to tbe Supreme Court. Not sure, other than because you can't help yourself (impulse control is another sign of immaturity) and must troll me on every thing I post.

I'm willing to wait until this plays out in the courts. I've said as much. Why do you want to keep beating a dead horse? Is your dick sore?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, there are constitutional scholars that, unlike you, don't eat their boogers, that agree with my interpretation.Which ones?

Which laws and court cases do they cite?

Why are you thinking about my dick?

[Yonivore]

Which ones?
I've read Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center and others. He's probably the most prominent.


Which laws and court cases do they cite?
The most often-cited case on both sides of the argument is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held Ark was a citizen at birth because he parent were legal immigrants. Constitutionalists on Trump's side of the argument say since the ruling narrowly defined the status of his parents as being legal immigrants, it doesn't apply to illegal aliens. In fact, there are no court cases address the citizenship of children born to illegal aliens which is why it's probably headed to the Supreme Court.

[ChumpDumper]

There aren't any because the law was settled.

Just pass a new amendment since you think it's so wildly popular.

[Winehole23]

Judge denies Trumplandia their request to implement the purported birthright citizenship revocation by EO while it is being appealed.

"Repastinating" was a new word to me

"This was not a close case."



https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.279895/gov.uscourts.mad.279895.165.0.pdf

[CosmicCowboy]

Most educated people know why the 14th amendment was put in place after the Civil War. It was to clarify the rights of slave children born in the US from parents who were brought to the US against their will. It had nothing to do with birth tourism although it has been abused that way for ever.

[Winehole23]

Most educated people know why the 14th amendment was put in place after the Civil War. It was to clarify the rights of slave children born in the US from parents who were brought to the US against their will. It had nothing to do with birth tourism although it has been abused that way for ever.we've always had birthright citizenship in the USA, except for slaves and native Americans.

one of the qualifications for president is to be a "natural born citizen"

[Winehole23]

anyway, this is the settled SCOTUS precedent from 1898, they seemed pretty clear about it

educated people in this thread appear to be unfamiliar with it

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | 169 U.S. 649 (1898) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/)

[ChumpDumper]

Most educated people know why the 14th amendment was put in place after the Civil War. It was to clarify the rights of slave children born in the US from parents who were brought to the US against their will. It had nothing to do with birth tourism although it has been abused that way for ever.

Oh look, CC has been "educated" into agreeing with Trump.















Again.

[CosmicCowboy]

we've always had birthright citizenship in the USA, except for slaves and native Americans.

one of the qualifications for president is to be a "natural born citizen"

If we have always had birthright citizenship, why was the 14th amendment only signed into law on July 9th, 1868?

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, neither an originalist nor a textualist argument could change the case law around birthright citizenship without some pretty obscene legal backflips by the Supremes. Now the stooges there are completely capable of those backflips to invent some stupid and arbitrary exclusions, but if you really want a permanent change AND you think your position is uberpopular, draw up a new "mostly whites please" amendment and get to work ratifying it.

[Winehole23]

If we have always had birthright citizenship, why was the 14th amendment only signed into law on July 9th, 1868?
If you have a point, please make it

[ChumpDumper]

If we have always had birthright citizenship, why was the 14th amendment only signed into law on July 9th, 1868?
Because the Taney Court had been as batshit retarded reactionary as the current one.

[CosmicCowboy]

If you have a point, please make it

The very reason I already stated. Post civil war relating to ex slaves.

[ChumpDumper]

The very reason I already stated. Post civil war relating to ex slaves.The rest had been common law up to that time.

Since the 14th it's all codified into the Constitution for everyone with the exception of children of high level diplomats or a hypothetical foreign military occupation.

If it was just for former slaves, it would say so. It doesn't.

What are you trying to say here?

[Blake]

Most educated people know why the 14th amendment was put in place after the Civil War. It was to clarify the rights of slave children born in the US from parents who were brought to the US against their will. It had nothing to do with birth tourism although it has been abused that way for ever.

Lol "abused"

What talking head told you that?

[Winehole23]

The very reason I already stated. Post civil war relating to ex slaves.Dred Scott came up in ChumpDumper's reply, does that case mean anything to you?

[Winehole23]

(implicitly)

[Winehole23]

[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.
.https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/wjohnson/files/no_rights_which_the_white_man_is_bound_to_respect_ boston_review.pdf

[Winehole23]

I think you're missing the forest from the trees, tbh. There's one clear end goal here, which is why this was hurried up, and has nothing to do with immigration: Is the SCOTUS stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot and allow altering the Constitution by executive dictum?

I'm of the belief the SCOTUS isn't that stupid, especially since Roberts and co knows what would follow with this administration.I think SCOTUS might be that scared by now

the mask is off

[Winehole23]

CC ghosted

guess that was just more racist throat clearing, very typical for CC

[Winehole23]

I don't do "lampoon."not consciously, no

[Blake]

CC ghosted

guess that was just more racist throat clearing, very typical for CC

Just about every thread with him:

- make an opinion
- mix in some not so subtle richer brag
- get angry when it turns on him
- eject for a few weeks/ months

Death, taxes, old faithful and the CC forum playbook

[Winehole23]

accurate

so emo

[Winehole23]

icu lurking again, CC

no riposte?

[Winehole23]

tell us about how Wong Kim Ark was wrong and Dred Scott was right

[Winehole23]

Trumplandia continues to lose in court

TRO on the EO remains nationwide


it is notable that the government is not prepared to argue that it will likely prevail on the merits of the Executive Order itself. We are aware of no case – and the government has not cited one – in which a court has stayed a preliminary injunction of a policy, already found likely unlawful, in which the movant did not argue for the policy’s legality. Under these circumstances, especially, we are hesitant to disturb a preliminary injunction that maintains the status quo while the lawfulness of the Executive Order is litigated.

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rTUGy9vKTZ6g/v0