Posted on 11/21/2025 2:13:01 PM PST by SharpRightTurn
“SCOTUS will find arguments to support the idea that if you are here illegally but drop a baby on American soil, that child is PRESTO!”
I suspect the images of having Antifa rats show up at their houses could well weigh on their decision.
Has Nancy been told this? Truth is they all slop at the same trough and the all know it. USAID was their biggest source of income.
The dems will do anything to garner votes even sell out America.
“Would there be a grandfather clause? If you were born here the day before the decision is issued you can stay and claim citizenship? Or 9 months and one day after the decision is issued? Or just a blanket no anchor babies at all?”
The way I see it, there would be no grandfather clause. Regardless of when you were born on U.S. soil, the SC will purport to interpret the meaning of the language as originally written, so unless they (the SC) put language in the majority opinion as to an effective date, the ruling should extend as far back as the 14th Amendment itself.
They will vote 9-0 to uphold the text of XIV.
This has been moronic from the beginning. An Amendment is necessary to undo birthright citizenship.
They have to grandfather them in. The Constitution forbids ex post facto laws. Laws (and any changed interpretation or enforcement application) can only look forward, never backward.
The Civil War was not fought over the following issues:
1) School Prayer. That’s not why 600k+ Americans died.
2) Gay marriage. That’s not why 600k+ Americans died.
3) Illegal aliens. That’s not why 600k+ Americans died.
4) Abortion. That’s not why 600k+ Americans died.
..........
1776 2.0 is always on the table.
Heck, it’s on the Oval Office wall these days.
If a mother and father break the law entering or staying in the country illegally, their kids don't get to claim "birthright citizenship", no matter how many years it takes to catch them.
I just do not think this court would go that far. Thomas, Alito yes
Did I miss something? This article says oral arguments happened Friday but that does not appear to be true. It looks like the court met to decide if they will hear the case.
It is big dream type thoughts.
It would never be ratified even if passed, which is unlikely.
If “birthright citizenship” was never intended to grant citizenship to illegal invaders, temporary visitors, etc., the revocation of such citizenship would be retroactive.
Someone tell them what “and under the jurisdiction thereof” means.
Yes, Roberts and Barrett will be voting to keep things as they are. Disgusting but I don’t have much faith in them.
Oral Argument Transcript at 11-12:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: No, we don't, because the argument here is that the president is violating an established -- not just one but, by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents. We have the Wong Ark case, where we said fealty to a foreign sovereign doesn't defeat your entitlement -- your parents' fealty to a foreign sovereign doesn't defeat your entitlement to citizenship as a child. We have another case where we said that even if your parents are here illegally, if you're born here, you're a citizen. We have yet another case that says, even if your parents came here and were stopped at the border and -- but you were born in our territory, you're still a citizen. And we have another case that says, even if your parents secured citizenship illegally, you're still a citizen. So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents.
What it doesn't mean also needs to be established.
Just following common laws (like don't murder or steal) does NOT mean anyone from anywhere is "under the jurisdiction thereof”.
Proof of residency without ANY affiliation with the country of origin, clearly final, long term such as in the Wong case is ONLY one indicator. Allegiance to ONLY the US with all bridges behind them proven burned is a start.
We just need a healthy, revitalized militia movement...
The interpretation of the 14A has significant paper written during the writing n debates leading to passage n sending to the States.
IIRC birthright citizenship can be dropped at the feet of Ted Kennedy
Some background from scotusblog.com:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/how-birthright-citizenship-made-it-back-to-the-supreme-court/
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.