UntoldSpirit said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Ah yes the deviousness of a plain text reading. You are the same as liberals trying to read something else into the second amendment. The words matter or they don't. We all just down the line get to feel what they really meant.

---

Why is the phrase "subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" in the amendment? Why was it put there? It's not meaningless.

And please, don't try and mix this with the 2nd Amendment. That's not the issue today.

---

It's not meaningless. It was to prevent Indians and foreign armies ect. From having children be considered US citizens

If a nation isn't permitted to decide who may be a citizen or remain in the nation, then it isn't really a nation, is it?

Aggrad08 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Ah yes the deviousness of a plain text reading. You are the same as liberals trying to read something else into the second amendment. The words matter or they don't. We all just down the line get to feel what they really meant.

---

The difference is I read the words and understand their meaning, and context of when they were written.

You are reading the words and are coming up with a completely different meaning, siding with an interpretation that is completely against the original intention of said words.

Essentially *******izing the words and context which ultimately is eroding whatever intent and meaning they had within our republic.

---

If that were true we would have not had the default be birthright citizenship as had been applied in the past

---

How long have you been on the Earth? You actually think the "default" position cannot be wrong and unintended? Politics has existed for a long time.

Thinking it will be 5-4 or 6-3 for removing birthright citizenship. But I know little about law, so I am probably wrong.

I thought if it goes the other way, it would have a carveout that birth tourism would get the axe somehow, but they specifically stated that birth tourism doesn't play into this ruling.

Aggrad08 said:

---

UntoldSpirit said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Ah yes the deviousness of a plain text reading. You are the same as liberals trying to read something else into the second amendment. The words matter or they don't. We all just down the line get to feel what they really meant.

---

Why is the phrase "subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" in the amendment? Why was it put there? It's not meaningless.

And please, don't try and mix this with the 2nd Amendment. That's not the issue today.

---

It's not meaningless. It was to prevent Indians and foreign armies ect. From having children be considered US citizens

---

Do think the anchor baby industry, from China for example, is different from foreign armies or etc.?

CBP should deny entry at POEs to anyone appearing pregnant. Be an easy skirting for the time being and a ruling against the administration.

nhamp07 said:

---

The argument of the writers of the 14th amendment could have never known about birth tourism etc...

Isnt that the same argument that no way the writers of the right to bear arms could have known about AR15s?

---

Not at all. It is reasonable to expect the technology of firearms to improve over time.

Predicting birth tourism would be on the same lines as predicting something that didn't exist like nuclear weapons. No one (other than possibly some nutjobs) is arguing the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to own a nuke.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Ah yes the deviousness of a plain text reading. You are the same as liberals trying to read something else into the second amendment. The words matter or they don't. We all just down the line get to feel what they really meant.

---

The difference is I read the words and understand their meaning, and context of when they were written.

You are reading the words and are coming up with a completely different meaning, siding with an interpretation that is completely against the original intention of said words.

Essentially *******izing the words and context which ultimately is eroding whatever intent and meaning they had within our republic.

---

If that were true we would have not had the default be birthright citizenship as had been applied in the past

---

It's been applied because it's not been litigated, and it benefitted the political class and certain interest groups. Hence now the EO and the current case to try to stop the abuse. If the US had not become such a mass immigration destination, it's possible it never would have gotten anyone interested enough to care. Like we hear all the time about all the "new world" countries that have birthright citizenship, but it doesn't really matter if people aren't streaming across the border to get in your country.

Ihatefallscounty said:

---

yall are for this? This is nuts, i'm pretty conservative but even for trump, this is insane. I'm a conservative/republican w/e but between trump's craziness and abbott's anti public education, this organization has completely alienated me from them.

---

So China can send women here to have 1 million or more babies, go back to China, and those children can run for President one day, be sent over here in mass after they turn 18 and take over state politics? China will keep sending women here to have babies. There's a Chinese billionaire who has artificially inseminated somewhere between 100-300 babies - are they American? Over time, the USA will not exist. Americans will not be in control of their country.

People who are naturalized can't run for president. Even kids who were naturalized and have lived here the majority of their lives can't run, but a Chinese resident will be able to because he or she was born here and whisked away back to China to live?

Birth tourism is going to explode.

That's not what I said. You are presenting over 100 years of precedence in action with an unfounded twisting of the text divorced from its actual meaning. It's a poor argument

TAMU1990 said:

---

Ihatefallscounty said:

---

yall are for this? This is nuts, i'm pretty conservative but even for trump, this is insane. I'm a conservative/republican w/e but between trump's craziness and abbott's anti public education, this organization has completely alienated me from them.

---

So China can send women here to have 1 million or more babies, go back to China, and those children can run for President one day, be sent over here in mass after they turn 18 and take over state politics? China will keep sending women here to have babies. There's a Chinese billionaire who has artificially inseminated somewhere between 100-300 babies - are they American? Over time, the USA will not exist. Americans will not be in control of their country.

People who are naturalized can't run for president. Even kids who were naturalized and have lived here the majority of their lives can't run, but a Chinese resident will be able to because he or she was born here and whisked away back to China to live?

Birth tourism is going to explode.

---

No matter how this turns out, birth tourism has got to get reigned in. It is insane we allow this to happen. My flight to Hong Kong last month had 15 newborns in coach and another dozen between business and first class. Make it make sense.

WSJ: Trump is right

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-is-right-on-birthright-citizenship-954ae377?mod=e2fb

Aggrad08 said:

---

That's not what I said. You are presenting over 100 years of precedence in action with an unfounded twisting of the text divorced from its actual meaning. It's a poor argument

---

It's not a poor argument if scotus agrees with it. Which they may. That's why courts exist.

Justice KBJ: "If I steal a wallet in Japan, I am subject to Japanese laws….. in a sense, it's allegiance."

Her case for birthright citizenship: pic.twitter.com/2oEal2seWv

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 1, 2026

I think it ends up as a 5-6 vote majority on statutory grounds that applies the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, and a 2-3 Justice plurality in the middle declines to say if the language in the statue and the language of the 14th Amendment mean the same thing. They don't… https://t.co/SkuBu9Embh

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 1, 2026

I could feel my iq drop two points listening to that drivel.

Gaeilge said:

---

Justice KBJ: "If I steal a wallet in Japan, I am subject to Japanese laws….. in a sense, it's allegiance."

Her case for birthright citizenship: pic.twitter.com/2oEal2seWv

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 1, 2026

---

Her example...jeez. Way to buck stereotypes..

As many are beginning to understand after listening to oral arguments today, the Supreme Court does not exclusively weigh the law, the facts, the text, and the history to come to its conclusions. Sometimes it does that. But in the most political and contentious cases, that is…

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) April 1, 2026

Quote:

---

I think it ends up as a 5-6 vote majority on statutory grounds that applies the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, and a 2-3 Justice plurality in the middle declines to say if the language in the statue and the language of the 14th Amendment mean the same thing. They don't need to reach that outcome to find that the EO is contrary to the statute.

The middle will be Roberts, Barrett, and Gorsuch -- maybe joined by Kavanaugh, with the 3 liberals concurring in the outcome but saying they would reach the constitutional question and answer it.

That returns the issue to the political branches. If the statute is changed, and the language conflicts with the 14th Amendment, THEN you have a conflict that the Court must resolve -- is the statute unconstitutional?

---

It is against statutory construction rules to say that the use of the exact same words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means something different in the 14th and then the later statute. What is meant under the Constitutional Amendment, is codified by the statute and not altering the meaning.

Thanks for posting, that was a good read. Full text below for the X-avoiders.

Quote:

---

As many are beginning to understand after listening to oral arguments today, the Supreme Court does not exclusively weigh the law, the facts, the text, and the history to come to its conclusions. Sometimes it does that. But in the most political and contentious cases, that is most definitely not what happens.

We do not actually have a supreme court, we have a lifelong legislature of lawyers who prefer the robe to the campaign trial.

One-third of the court makes decisions based entirely on what is best for the Democrat party and never wavers from that mission. Only two of the nine justices seem to have any consistent interest in determining a given law's text and original meaning.

Of the remaining four, the chief justice thinks he's a thermometer whose job is take to the temperature of the country and then make decisions based on whether they'll make people like him. The former professor seems to think she's still writing academic papers. The former Western judge is occasionally reliable when he's not claiming boys can become girls or fan-girling over Indian treaties. The final justice seems to be saddled with the horrifying task of corralling the two rudderless and emotional basket cases into something resembling coherence.

And if that weren't horrifying enough, let me comfort you with the observation that this collection of Democrat party operatives, weepy thermometers, wannabe legislators, and only sometimes actual lawyers is actually the least dysfunctional of the three federal branches of government.

Happy Wednesday!

---

Justice KBJ: "If I steal a wallet in Japan, I am subject to Japanese laws….. in a sense, it's allegiance."

Her case for birthright citizenship: pic.twitter.com/2oEal2seWv

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 1, 2026

Mazie Hirono level stupid.

Damn that's a well phrased quote.

Please do not insult the distinguished lady from Hawaii.

She more like Hank "Dokkamintz" Johnson dumb.

Some opinions from X.

My snap judgment having just finished listening to oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara: The Supreme Court will not stand in the way of our country, its institutions, and Constitution ultimately being wholly overrun. https://t.co/EYpQwDo7f1

— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) April 1, 2026

Four points on the argument in today's birthright citizenship case:

1. There was barely any mention of the recent invasion of illegal aliens. Whatever your views on the history and interpretation of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause, there is absolutely zero…

— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) April 1, 2026

Three takeaways:

1. SG John Sauer put on a masterclass.
2. The Trump Administration is dead right on the law and the Constitution.
3. This one is going to be close.

The Supreme Court must protect American citizenship and strike down the scam that is Birthright Citizenship. https://t.co/xnKqcLXSOZ

— Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) April 1, 2026

You misunderstand the stakes. If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, Congress CANNOT prohibit birth tourism, because the children produced by birth tourism would be constitutionally entitled to citizenship.

That's how insane the left's interpretation is. https://t.co/9qE0Z9RRUn

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) April 1, 2026

In 2023, there were 3.6 million babies born in America.

About 245,000 of those babies born were to mothers who were illegal aliens and fathers who were not citizens or lawful permanent residents.

If President Trump’s executive order had been in effect, none of those 245,000… pic.twitter.com/8pMSZSEDsV

— Pat Adams (@PatAdams96) April 1, 2026

following along those lines of shipwreckedcrew's prediction, my guess is that Roberts forges a coalition to just rule that the EO violates 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) without ruling on the constitutional issue to create a path for congress to pass a law that shuts down the birthing tourism issue.

wild ass guess, 7-2 against Trump.

We are screwed as a nation. Congress can't pass a law much less a constitutional amendment. The country is over.

The meltdown over Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is truly something EVERYONE needs to pay attention to. You see, as the first & only black woman to ever serve on the court, she had to be 10 times better than most… She continues to flex her brilliance in oral arguments & many…

— Jasmine Crockett (@JasmineForUS) April 1, 2026

will25u said:

---

The meltdown over Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is truly something EVERYONE needs to pay attention to. You see, as the first & only black woman to ever serve on the court, she had to be 10 times better than most… She continues to flex her brilliance in oral arguments & many…

— Jasmine Crockett (@JasmineForUS) April 1, 2026

---

April Fools....

BMX Bandit said:

---

create a path for congress to pass a law

---

Not to disparage your prediction, but I had a chuckle. It'll be a while before we see Congress passing a law unless it has to do with spending money.

Quote:

---

Thinking it will be 5-4 or 6-3 for removing birthright citizenship. But I know little about law, so I am probably wrong.

---

Most court watchers I read are saying the opposite.

Kavanaugh served up the easy off ramp, observing Trump's EO lacked statutory authority. That alone will probably kill the argument.

Against - Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch Brown, Kagan. Sotomayor, and likely Barrett.

The conservative duo of Roberts and Alito in dissent.

The left’s argument for birthright citizenship is obviously insane but it’s even more insane when you consider that they actually don’t believe in your or my “birthright.” We are on stolen land and don’t belong here, according to them. But the anchor baby whose parents got here…

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) April 1, 2026

Matt makes an interesting point- hoe can any of us have citizenship on stolen land?

I am new to the thread so I asked Grok to provide me with a summary to catch up. I agree that birth tourism is B.S. and needs to be curtailed. I don't think Trump's E.O. will be allowed to stand, however. They need to deny visas to any late term pregnant women without a dire need to travel here for a solid reason.

I thought this was funny:

Quote:

---

Overall vibe: Enthusiastic, patriotic, "finally!" energy. Little dissent visible in the top repliestypical for TexAgs politics threads. No deep statistical dives; it's more opinion and frustration-sharing.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

following along those lines of shipwreckedcrew's prediction, my guess is that Roberts forges a coalition to just rule that the EO violates 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) without ruling on the constitutional issue to create a path for congress to pass a law that shuts down the birthing tourism issue.

wild ass guess, 7-2 against Trump.

---

Congress can't pass a budget, the odds of them ever doing this is literally zero. They may as well be disbanded at this point.

Spergin said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

following along those lines of shipwreckedcrew's prediction, my guess is that Roberts forges a coalition to just rule that the EO violates 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) without ruling on the constitutional issue to create a path for congress to pass a law that shuts down the birthing tourism issue.

wild ass guess, 7-2 against Trump.

---

Congress can't pass a budget, the odds of them ever doing this is literally zero. They may as well be disbanded at this point.

---

We are cooked as a nation. Our government has truly failed us.