Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/02/2026 8:48:34 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on the Trump administration’s challenge to the decades-long practice of interpreting the 14th Amendment to allow foreigners to obtain American citizenship simply by being born within the boundaries of the country. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this view, allowing any foreigner circumstantially (or intentionally) born on U.S. soil to be automatically adopted into the Union as a citizen, it will mean the end of actual American citizens taking the high court seriously.
As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to black people and freed slaves after the Civil War. Making the point further, Thomas asked, “How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer noted that there was very little, if any, which suggests that the intent of the 14th Amendment was never to be the international migration boondoggle it has become.
While Thomas appeared to recognize that reality, it was difficult to tell where the rest of the court stood on the issue at times — except for the other reliable conservative, Justice Samuel Alito.
But if the justices harbor any consideration of keeping the 14th Amendment migration train running by upholding the current bastardization of the amendment, it will signal to the American people the illegitimacy of even the highest legal authority in the land, ostensibly with a 6-3 conservative majority.
A SCOTUS decision to uphold birthright citizenship as currently applied would communicate that it means to follow in the footsteps of successive presidential administrations and Congresses, selling Americans’ jobs, land, and promises of freedom to the highest bidder, or simply giving them away to foreigners who cross the border illegally. Whereas many view the head of the judicial branch as a safeguard, upholding the Constitution when the executive branch and Congress overstep their bounds, a majority decision affirming unbounded birthright citizenship would suggest they too have no regard for the people who have a right to be here, and whose futures depend on the end of mass migration.
In his opening remarks, Sauer brought up the reality of “birth tourism,” pregnant foreigners coming to the United States in order to give birth on American soil and obtain citizenship with an anchor baby, who is automatically granted full citizenship under the current 14th Amendment framework. The issue is prominent in China, where there are actual businesses — reportedly more than 1,000 — that exist for achieving that goal, as Sauer pointed out.
Sauer’s introduction of the issue of birth tourism led to a potentially telling exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts, where Roberts asked about birth tourism’s prominence. Sauer cited the high number of such operations, stating,” No one knows for sure,” adding, “We are in a new world now.” Roberts seemed to reply flippantly: “It’s a new world, it’s the same Constitution.”
Roberts has consistently postured himself as the chief justice most intent on preserving the institution of the Supreme Court. He is suspected to have sided with majorities he may not actually agree with, in order to make the ruling more acceptable to the American people (a 6-3 decision is more convincing than a 5-4 decision, as the argument goes).
That is what makes his line of questioning both confusing and concerning, because it suggests he believes the proper constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment would continue to allow these birthright farms to send foreigners to the United States so their babies can receive rubber-stamp citizenship.
If the conclusion from the Supreme Court is that any country on earth can lay claim to the American homeland, so long as they send enough people to give birth here, then Americans will have no choice but to reject that notion out of hand. Such a decision would further deteriorate confidence in the Supreme Court, leading the American people to reject it as a legitimate authority on the Constitution altogether.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I don’t have confidence that the majority of justices have the best interests of this country in mind.
It will mean foreign travel agents and airlines get to decide the future of the United States.
Roberts and his lapdog Barrett of the blank notebook, will vote the same way as Jackson. The most retarded idiot to ever sit on the SC. They are a friggen disgrace.
Its own peril???? What about the country’s peril?
“8 U.S. Code § 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
....”
That should have been fixed last year.
I have no confidence the American people will be disappointed. Birthright citizenship has gotten more acceptable rather than less.
Trump has two secure votes: Justices Thomas and Alito. Gorsuch is a maybe, and Kavanaugh and Amy Conehead are suspect. CJ Roberts will likely only join the other conservatives if he needs to soften the opinion, which he can write as CJ. The female Rat trio cares nothing about law, and wants the children of illegals recognized as U.S. citizens so they can divide and conquer the legitimate native citizen population.
“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.”
Many babies of PRC moms never reside in any state. Mere popping out in the USA is insufficient.
The “and” is important. It means that the clause is merely retroactive as of the date of ratification.
born - past tense
naturalized - past tense
are - present (time of ratification [1868]) tense
******
Shall is normally used in the Constitution for the future tense.
Amendment X uses “are reserved”.
Reserve means “to keep back or save for future or special use”
The citizenship clause is at most a one-time (1868) grant.
******
The fact that the writers didn’t use the oft used Constitutional word “shall” matters. It was the obvious choice. It would have accomplished what they undoubtedly intended.
******
Also consider the citizenship of babies born in the USA with parents having citizenship from the country of India.
The babies can get Indian citizenship upon application, but they are not born with it.
Why does India have such a system? Probably so that babies of citizens of India don’t run afoul of the complete jurisdiction requirement.
******
“If birth in the US alone would constitute US citizenship (particularly following Wong Kim Ark of 1898), then there would have been no need for the Indian Citizenship Act (Snyder Act) of 1924.”
It would be silly to say that a baby of Mexican Apaches if popped out in hospital room in El Paso would be an American citizen under Amendment XIV but a baby of American Apaches if popped out in the adjoining hospital room would not.
100% true. I have seen these birthing centers and have met people who use them. They came in all shapes and sizes. Some are high-end "spa" type places, for the super wealthy, while most are low cost apartments, with shady lawyers handling the passport applications afterwards. It's often run by criminal gangs.
95% of them simply send the women to the local county hospital to give birth, with no intention of paying any of the bills. Taxpayers pay for everything. The women return to China and the "birthing centers" have no legal, financial or insurance footprint, so they are impossible to chase down.
It’s going to be 9-0 for Barabara et al. based on 8 USC 1401.
The Dred Scott(?) override constitutional clause will be 6-3 against Barbara et al.
IMHO, Roberts, as usual, will “punt” the issue.
He will say, yes, maybe the 14th Amendment now in the 21st century is not perfect, but its up to Congress to fix this.
I really don’t understand this nonsense at all. So what the DemoMarxists believe is that some breeding cow from the middle east can sneak over the border, dump a baby in some US hospital so there’s a record, get discharged from the hospital, immediately fly to Afghanistan to rejoin her husband who belongs to the Taliban, raise the kid as a terrorist who declares he hates America and wants to destroy it and that kid is considered a US citizen with full constitutional rights. What kind of freakin’ insanity is this?
The Supreme Court has two pseudo-conservatives who will almost certainly side with the liberals on the issue: John Roberts, who has shifted leftward with every year since his appointment, and Amy Conney-Barrett, who was never a conservative to begin with apart from being anti-abortion. Roberts has already stated his support for the liberal interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Not only will the Supreme Court not move on the issue, there won't even be much in the way of debate about what original intent means in this context - i.e. the 14th amendment was NOT enacted so that illegals could run across the border to give birth and create anchor babies.
Mel Brooks couldnt write this crap.
> it will mean the end of actual American citizens taking the high court seriously <
And why should they care? I get that there are a few good justices, and judges. But most of them live in a bubble, far removed from the problems of the average citizen.
So, yeah. I sadly predict the Supreme Court will uphold birthright citizenship. I sure hope I’m wrong.
This, like illegal immigration itself, is a problem that was easy to ignore when only a few thousand catholics a year were slipping over the border to go to work on farms and meat-packing plants. But those days are gone. When you have 20 or 30 million in the country, on government stipends, in government housing, the problem is existential. For reference, look at Britain and western Europe.
This has to be dealt with firmly and the toxic left is going to freak out. So be it. If the Supremes fail us, we have to find another way. We can’t look the other way.
The question is: what was meant when they put the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” except just “ a person born in the United States”. It seems just being born here was not enough.
Limit the size of the feed bowls so more moochers are not welcome.
******
Enter in bills for two constitutional amendments.
******
Levies on any residential property of less than 2799 square feet of finished living space shall be no higher than the 2019 dollar amounts for the property, or for a newer or since resold property no higher than what it would have been levied at for 2019 if it lacked owner specific tax breaks, increased by 3% per calendar year since 2019 and by any percentage increase to its finished living space.
******
Federal taxation on personal income shall be progressively capped as follows:
below 20% of the median federal full-time civilian employee compensation amount, 10%,
below 50% of the median federal full-time civilian employee compensation amount, 22%,
below the median federal full-time civilian employee compensation amount, 30%,
below the average federal full-time civilian employee compensation of the 100,000 largest recipients, 35%,
below the average federal full-time civilian employee compensation of the 10,000 largest recipients, 40%.
I believe it will be 9-0...I just can’t see anything that would change what is written....born here...you are a citizen...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.