@RealTheoWold Then change the Constitution. This is not a problem for the court. The Constitution has been changed 27 times in the past, go ahead and make it 28.
English
Socal_CPA
11.2K posts
Socal_CPA
@Socal_CPA
Unapologetic Clipper and Dodger fan, anti-authoritarian (from all sides), pro-democracy, anti fascism, and pro-choice
Katılım Ocak 2013
774 Takip Edilen191 Takipçiler
Chief Justice Roberts' casual dismissal of birth tourism illustrates everything wrong with the Supreme Court.
Americans understand that the United States is a homeland— not a hotel.
But the court has become so detached from the realities confronting everyday people.
English
@mitchellvii The constitution is pretty clear on both counts. Tariffs are to be set by Congress, and children born in America are citizens.
English
It's hard to imagine that the Supreme Court would end Trump's tariffs AND institutionalize birthright citizenship forever!
I mean, my God, whose side are they on?
English
@briannalyman2 Does the constitution state that they become part of my family? No? Then no they do not.
English
If someone walks into your living room and gives birth, is that child now part of your family?
No, right?
Now apply that to illegal aliens having anchor babies.
English
@realBrandonGill You are a sitting Congressman, you can introduce an amendment to the Constitution if you so desire.
English
America belongs to Americans.
It does not belong to the world.
English
Two illegal aliens producing a baby should never produce an American citizen - it should produce 3 deported illegal aliens. Period.
English
@TheBrancaShow Well the founders were dead when the 14th amendment was adopted, so they didn't have much say in it.
English
I don't believe our Founders fought a desperate 8 year war against the most powerful military in the world so that "We the People of the United States and our posterity" could have our citizenship seized by Chinese birth tourists and illegal invaders.
Phyllis Schlafly’s Pot Roast 🍲@OccamsBraiser
If the Supreme Court rules that we can't withhold citizenship from children born to aliens who are here either unlawfully or temporarily, they will have interpreted the Constitution as signing away our national sovereignty, in which case the entire compact would be null & void.
English
@Red_Texas_22 Are you going to tell Marco Rubio he lost his citizenship or should I?
English
@Ghostofcynthia The same constitution that gives citizenship to people born here?
English
The idea that anyone can just fly into America, pop out a baby and walk away with automatic citizenship for the kid is fucking insane.
When America started believing this shit, it forgot that the constitution must be protected and followed or we no longer have a country anymore.
This was written for the slaves, their children and their descendants. Nobody else.
We're not the worlds fucking daycare.
An American kid doesn’t magically turn Chinese just because they’re born in China.
So why the hell would a Chinese citizen’s kid automatically become American just by being born here?
The whole thing just falls apart. It makes zero fucking sense.
No to birthright citizenship. Get rid of it.
English
@KevinRobertsTX Then they should have been clear about what they meant. Since they didn't we rely on the words they used. #textualism #originalism
English
The 14th Amendment was never meant to reward illegal aliens with the right to siphon off Americans’ birthright by having children in the U.S.
English
Then he should have included it in the Constitution. Since he didn't include that language it is not constitutional. #textualism #originalism
English
@adamkjohnston Then change the constitution if you don't like what it says. Seems like a fairly simple solution.
English
The E.O. is justified and completely defensible.
Entire nations are using the current interpretation of birthright citizenship as a means to subvert our nation while entire birth tourism industries have been built around it.
If “conservatism” can’t even conserve the sanctity of citizenship, then what good is conservatism?
Jonah Goldberg@JonahDispatch
My warm take on birthright citizenship: Wholly defensible to be against it as policy and wholly reasonable to want to reform it in some way. Also intellectually defensible to say that the 14th amendment is being misinterpreted. Doesn't mean I agree, but I don't think it's crazy either. But even if you win that argument, you still need to deal with century+ of precedent and statutory language that codifies it and has created massive reliance interests. I consider it an open question whether Congress can repeal or modify birthright citizenship. I think it is absolutely nuts and dangerous to think a president can repeal it through executive order, and defending the E.O. because you agree with the underlying policy is itself indefensible. That's it. That's my take.
English
@JesseHughes Yes it is. Diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If an immigrant commits a crime (documented or not) they are arrested. Diplomats are not, they are not charged with crimes if alleged.
English
“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.”
Seems like a VERY important phrase.
English
Three things the left won’t tell you about birthright citizenship:
- The 14th Amendment includes "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," referring to citizens and freed slaves, not illegals.
- Roughly 9% of US births are tied to the birth tourism industry built around exploiting it.
- Only 33 countries allow it, none comparable to the US
This is a loophole being abused.
Congressman Shri Thanedar@RepShriThanedar
As an immigrant myself, today's arguments on birthright citizenship are deeply personal to me. The 14th Amendment is clear: the children of immigrants are guaranteed US citizenship. Despite President Trump's wishes, he cannot rewrite the Constitution.
English
@Vincee1776 @genericishname @BasedMikeLee If only babies born of parents that reside in states arare citizens then babies born of parents that reside in Puerto Rico or Guam are not citizens? You're not good at this.
English
@Socal_CPA @genericishname @BasedMikeLee If birth tourism is constitutional why does the 14th say they need to reside in a state?
English
You never address the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
It’s amazing what you can declare “clear” in the Constitution when you omit language you don’t like
Senator Tim Kaine@SenTimKaine
Our Constitution is clear—no matter who your parents are or where they are from, if you are born here, you are an American. Citing white supremacists in an effort to overturn birthright citizenship tells you everything you need to know. I hope SCOTUS will reject this bid.
English
@genericishname @Vincee1776 @BasedMikeLee If that's what they meant then they should have added that to the constitution, but they didn't. 🤷♂️ #textualism #originalism
English
@Vincee1776 @Socal_CPA @BasedMikeLee Is this the quote?
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
English
@ryanswalters73 Correct. That's what the constitution states, if you don't like then change it. The Constitution has been changed 27 times, so you can make it 28 if you so choose.
English
Apparently, according to all the legal and historical experts here on X, our Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, provides that any foreigner who is 9 months pregnant can come to America and have the baby, who then becomes a US citizen with full rights and privileges, just like any of us who have been here for centuries.
A thimble full of brains will render such thinking as utter madness! That was never the intention of the 14th Amendment, no matter what delusions leftists conjure up!
If you think that was the intended policy, you are worthy of no intellectual respect whatsoever!
English
English
The 14th Amendment says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Senator Jacob M. Howard indicated this did not include certain foreigners and aliens, and Lyman Trumbull defined jurisdiction as not owing allegiance to another country.
That suggests the framers understood jurisdiction as full political allegiance...not just physical presence or being subject to laws.
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court instead relied on English common law (jus soli) to interpret citizenship more broadly. Wong Kim Ark’s parents were lawfully present and domiciled in the United States, though not citizens.
The Trump administration’s position is not necessarily to overturn Wong Kim Ark directly,(I wish) but to argue that its reasoning should not extend to children of those who are not lawfully present or domiciled in the United States
English
@BasedMikeLee Can the parents be arrested for murder? If yes then they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, if no (like diplomats) then they aren't. See how that works?
English
English
Something tells me that when Senator Jacob Howard wrote 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th amendment, his intention wasn't that pregnant Guatemalans could cross into Texas, give birth, and have a child with the same rights as you and I.
English
@j_fishback If I don't have any kids do I get that same $13K? If my kids have graduated do i get that same $13K? If I don't get any food stamps do I get a refund?
English
If you decide to pull your child from public school and homeschool your child
You should get the full $13,000 for your child that would have been spent on your child in public school
English