GeorgiAg said:

---

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.

---

---

How do you do "deep statistical dives" in regards to Con law or any philosophical debate? I hate buzz words.

Not his worst idea, frankly.

“John Sauer has been so effective for President Trump, both as his defense attorney and as a solicitor general. He is certainly at the top of my short list for the Supreme Court,” said Trump outside legal adviser Mike Davis.https://t.co/3ZSzZUqBTc

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 1, 2026

93MarineHorn said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

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.

---

---

How do you do "deep statistical dives" in regards to Con law or any philosophical debate? I hate buzz words.

---

From Grok:

Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimate: Roughly 33,000 - 36,000 births per year to women on tourist visas who left the U.S. shortly after giving birth (based on 20162017 American Community Survey + CDC birth data comparisons).

Context: Total U.S. births are ~3.6 million per year, so even the higher CIS estimate is <1% of all births. It's a niche industry (heavily marketed online in Mandarin, Russian, etc.), not the main driver of immigration, but it's viewed as an abuse of the system especially when tied to national-security concerns (e.g., some Chinese cases flagged by FBI).


That's enough for me. We need to curtail this bull*****

Aggrad08 said:

---

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Except the 14th amendment was meant for former slaves and their children, not for Maria or Mohommad to come over here and pop out seven kids on the taxpayer dime.

---

It wasn't written in such a restrictive way. Sounds like you need an amendment

---

Why would we need an amendment? We already have the 14th Amendment, it just needs to be applied correctly after years of misunderstanding. "…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." is the key phrase. It's actually quite clear, especially when you consider the intent (through writings) of the sponsors /drafters of the language.

GeorgiAg said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

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.

---

---

How do you do "deep statistical dives" in regards to Con law or any philosophical debate? I hate buzz words.

---

From Grok:

Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimate: Roughly 33,00036,000 births per year to women on tourist visas who left the U.S. shortly after giving birth (based on 20162017 American Community Survey + CDC birth data comparisons).

Context: Total U.S. births are ~3.6 million per year, so even the higher CIS estimate is <1% of all births. It's a niche industry (heavily marketed online in Mandarin, Russian, etc.), not the main driver of immigration, but it's viewed as an abuse of the systemespecially when tied to national-security concerns (e.g., some Chinese cases flagged by FBI).


That's enough for me. We need to curtail this bull*****

---

NVM, misread your post.

Nvm. you caught it.

jwhaby said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Except the 14th amendment was meant for former slaves and their children, not for Maria or Mohommad to come over here and pop out seven kids on the taxpayer dime.

---

It wasn't written in such a restrictive way. Sounds like you need an amendment

---

Why would we need an amendment? We already have the 14th Amendment, it just needs to be applied correctly after years of misunderstanding. "…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." is the key phrase. It's actually quite clear, especially when you consider the intent (through writings) of the sponsors /drafters of the language.

---

I agree with you. Not only that, but also this phrase:

Quote:

---

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

You cannot "reside" if you are here on a tourist visa. "Reside: have one's permanent home in a particular place"

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.

---

He probably thinks only militias can have guns...

“Our baby was born in Rivendell. That means she’s an elf and gets to vote now.” pic.twitter.com/JUgVmGQk51

— Logan Hall (@loganclarkhall) April 1, 2026

Ag with kids 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.

---

He probably thinks only militias can have guns...

---

Just give your sons and daughters the middle name Militia.

aggiehawg said:

---

First impressions:

• the decision will be a ruling on the merits and not punted on a statutory technicality
• General Sauer made a very solid presentation, the ACLU attorney, Wang, was less convincing and made several misstatements
• General Sauer emphasized that Wong Kim Ark can be distinguished as opposed to overruled, although that might occur in practice by the Court's opinion here
• Gorsuch (a fan of Native Americans and their history) is keenly attuned as to how that population was specifically addressed in the original act and then within the 14th amendment because it took another act of Congress in 1924 to clarify their status. That tells me he doesn't consider Wong controlling here as posited by the ACLU attorney
• Kavanaugh is a toss up but think he is leaning towards the government's position
• C.J. Roberts asked few questions. His mind is made up but which way? Can't tell.
• Kagan, Sotomayor and KBJ favor reaffirming Wong as controlling precedent

---

I found it interesting that Thomas asked the first question of both the SC and the ACLU atty considering his normal reticence in these proceedings...

aggiehawg said:

---

First impressions:

• the decision will be a ruling on the merits and not punted on a statutory technicality
• General Sauer made a very solid presentation, the ACLU attorney, Wang, was less convincing and made several misstatements
• General Sauer emphasized that Wong Kim Ark can be distinguished as opposed to overruled, although that might occur in practice by the Court's opinion here
• Gorsuch (a fan of Native Americans and their history) is keenly attuned as to how that population was specifically addressed in the original act and then within the 14th amendment because it took another act of Congress in 1924 to clarify their status. That tells me he doesn't consider Wong controlling here as posited by the ACLU attorney
• Kavanaugh is a toss up but think he is leaning towards the government's position
• C.J. Roberts asked few questions. His mind is made up but which way? Can't tell.
• Kagan, Sotomayor and KBJ favor reaffirming Wong as controlling precedent

---

Oh yeah? well three Wongs don't make it right.

Sorry, I'll leave the thread now.

Quote:

---

I found it interesting that Thomas asked the first question of both the SC and the ACLU atty considering his normal reticence in these proceedings...

---

its a common occurrence post-covid.

when they were doing these remotely, Roberts would go down the list of justices based on seniority for questions. since then, Thomas routinely asks the first question

GeorgiAg said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Except the 14th amendment was meant for former slaves and their children, not for Maria or Mohommad to come over here and pop out seven kids on the taxpayer dime.

---

It wasn't written in such a restrictive way. Sounds like you need an amendment

---

Why would we need an amendment? We already have the 14th Amendment, it just needs to be applied correctly after years of misunderstanding. "…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." is the key phrase. It's actually quite clear, especially when you consider the intent (through writings) of the sponsors /drafters of the language.

---

I agree with you. Not only that, but also this phrase:

Quote:

---

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

You cannot "reside" if you are here on a tourist visa. "Reside: have one's permanent home in a particular place"

---

You can't "reside" if you are illegal.

Birthright citizenship is so stupid in this day and age.

Our useless country cannot do a thing to protect itself. Always open for foreigners to come in and invade.

The best Trump can hope for is a 7-2 beat down loss.

Agree there, too.

infinity ag said:

---

Our useless country cannot do a thing to protect itself. Always open for foreigners to come in and invade.

---

It's what happens when half a country hates the other half. Most of the differences are out of spite - "if the other party is for it, we must be against it".

javajaws said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Our useless country cannot do a thing to protect itself. Always open for foreigners to come in and invade.

---

It's what happens when half a country hates the other half. Most of the differences are out of spite - "if the other party is for it, we must be against it".

---

Well, that happens in every democracy and cannot be stopped. China and Islamic countries are immune to this. Maybe this is a fatal flaw in democracies? When people build a great country, there is always a sliver of people who put themselves above the country and use all kinds of tools like wokeness, cancel culture etc to get to their goal. This is what we see now. We are supposed to embrace every immigrant who comes to our door.

Dallas82 said:

---

The best Trump can hope for is a 7-2 beat down loss.

---

What you want to happen isn't going to make it so.

Likely to go 5-4 or 6-3 either way.

7-2 is unlikely.

infinity ag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Our useless country cannot do a thing to protect itself. Always open for foreigners to come in and invade.

---

It's what happens when half a country hates the other half. Most of the differences are out of spite - "if the other party is for it, we must be against it".

---

Well, that happens in every democracy and cannot be stopped. China and Islamic countries are immune to this. Maybe this is a fatal flaw in democracies? When people build a great country, there is always a sliver of people who put themselves above the country and use all kinds of tools like wokeness, cancel culture etc to get to their goal. This is what we see now. We are supposed to embrace every immigrant who comes to our door.

---

It's the reason we were never supposed to *be* a democracy.

Yeah there is a 0% chance this court gets rid of birthright citizenship. Plan Trusters prepare yourselves

Quote:

---

China and Islamic countries are immune to this. Maybe this is a fatal flaw in democracies?

---

China and Islamic countries are autocracies where a small elite of either royals or politically connected folks get powerful and rich at the expense of 99% of the rest of the population.

They are all inherently unstable, undeveloped, and poor compared to the US and their citizens have maybe 1/10th of the personal freedoms we enjoy.

Why would we want to be more like them?

"New world out there, but same Constitution".......that said it all.

BTKAG97 said:

---

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.

---

Well, that's because you implicitly assume we won't reasonably have a "nuclear bullet" that can be shot off by an "arm" in the future.

It was 165 years between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the invention of the AR-15. Are you suggesting our Constitutional test should be whether we believe that persons 165 (or more) years ago believed a development 165 years in the future was "reasonable?" Are you suggesting you have the ability to reasonably predict whether in the next 165 (or more) years in the future we may or may not have a "nuclear bullet" that can be shot off with whatever "arms" can be beared in 2191?

How far into the future should this go? Should Americans in 2791 be technologically bound by whatever was believed reasonable a 1000 years before?

Judging what the past deemed a "reasonable" future is folly and a terrible legal test.

will25u said:

---

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

---

No. Not really. This is conflating today's issue with other issues.

It is already illegal to obtain a visitor visa for the primary purpose of birthing a child here and no one, that I am aware of, is trying to argue that is unconstitutional. The only thing being argued is whether the child must or must not be given citizenship. You could still punish the parent(s) who violated law by engaging in birth tourism. Or, you could punish whoever operated the scheme.

See, for example: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/rancho-cucamonga-man-and-woman-found-guilty-federal-criminal-charges-connection-birth

Similarly, the ACLU wasn't up there today arguing we cannot regulate immigration because immigrants might have a child here that would be entitled to citizenship.

I hope the EO is overturned by the Supreme Court even though we need to end birth tourism.

My reason is if this stands, it takes pressure off Congress to pass a law changing the situation (yes I know it is very difficult to pass). This then means each President can pass an executive order changing the definition. What would stop the next Dem President from saying everyone born in the US under Trump's EO is now a citizen and issue those kids passports along with reestablishing the historical system?

For those that say there won't be a Democrat President for a long time, history says otherwise. For most posters on Texags, a maximum of 1x in their life has the American people voted in a new President from the same party as the outgoing President and that is Reagan/Bush. Before that, you have to go back to Hoover/Coolidge. (LBJ, Truman and Ford don't count since they ascended due to death or resignation).

If we want to solve this issue, an EO won't do it and I think it could make it worse.

Burpelson said:

---

"New world out there, but same Constitution".......that said it all.

---

A sentiment that Solicitor General Sauer and every conservative Justice 100% agrees with!!

Otherwise, its "living and breathing."

The world may change, but the constitution should not without amendment!


If "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 19th century meant "completely subject" to the United States' "political jurisdiction," owing it "direct and immediate allegiance," then that is what it means now!

That politics or circumstances change does not alter that!!

nortex97 said:

---

Not his worst idea, frankly.

“John Sauer has been so effective for President Trump, both as his defense attorney and as a solicitor general. He is certainly at the top of my short list for the Supreme Court,” said Trump outside legal adviser Mike Davis.https://t.co/3ZSzZUqBTc

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 1, 2026

---

There's a reason the Germans were called "square heads" by the Brits in WW1. Sauer is exhibit A.

Kansas Kid said:

---

I hope the EO is overturned by the Supreme Court even though we need to end birth tourism.

My reason is if this stands, it takes pressure off Congress to pass a law changing the situation (yes I know it is very difficult to pass). This then means each President can pass an executive order changing the definition. What would stop the next Dem President from saying everyone born in the US under Trump's EO is now a citizen and issue those kids passports along with reestablishing the historical system?

For those that say there won't be a Democrat President for a long time, history says otherwise. For most posters on Texags, a maximum of 1x in their life has the American people voted in a new President from the same party as the outgoing President and that is Reagan/Bush. Before that, you have to go back to Hoover/Coolidge. (LBJ, Truman and Ford don't count since they ascended due to death or resignation).

If we want to solve this issue, an EO won't do it and I think it could make it worse.

---

.

Agree in principle, but Congress is so dysfunctional now it will never pass a consequential bill that is not budget related unless and until the Dems regain control and abolish the filibuster. Then watch out. The most consequential legislation in two generations will be coming.

Until then, government is by EO, the permanent bureaucracy and the courts.

There is a very critical distinction between the Court ruling on a statutory basis and their ruling on the basis of the 14th Amendment. Statutes can be changed.

Say Congress passes an immigration law that forbids birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.

If SCOTUS rules based on a statutory basis, the new statute could stand.

If they rule on the basis of the 14th amendment, the new statute would fail. Would require an amendment.

(To be clear I am making the assumption that Trump's EO is struck down.)

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.

---

That's where I'm at. Roberts writes it, with Alito and Thomas dissenting.
Roberts, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch say now it not the time to decide the heart of the issue, just that the EO is unlawful.
Kavanaugh writes his own concurrence that goes off on a tangent and isn't relevant to the case.
Gorsuch writes his own concurrence having an Airing of Grievances pointing out how everyone is a hypocrite and that suggesting that Indians don't have citizenship is insane.
Kagan writes a concurrence joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, saying the issue can be decided today.
Jackson writes a concurrence that is some word salad no one understands.
Alito write the dissent, joined by Thomas.
Thomas writes his own dissent about how Wong was wrongfully decided and Chinese immigrants aren't US citizens.
This thing will be over 250 pages long and won't be ready until after July 4th.

The lawyers I talked to didn't they would rule on a statutory basis with this case (or at least a majority wouldn't). What are your thoughts and other lawyers on the board on why they would or wouldn't.

April Fools joke? Or is my sarcasm meter in need of adjustment?