I can only shake my head at all of this nonsense and the country left my children, of which

Quote:

---

we can neither endure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them.

---

-Livy

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.

---

I think if SCOTUS rules on the Constitutionality of birthright citizenship and overturns it, then an EO wouldn't be able to just create a new class of citizens.

Because it would mean the previous definition used is null and void.

aggiehawg said:

---

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

---

Your sarcasm meter could use a bit of tuning.

Post-argument, have there been any pundits predicting Trump wins here?

Catching up on The Five from this afternoon and magic 8 ball says outlook not so good.

Dana brought up a point that punting this to Congress likely results in codification of anchor babies, not a prohibition on it. Makes sense cause the libs and MSM will be relentless with sad stories and protests.

McEnany said the GAO reported there may have been 1 million births in Northern Mariana Islands. This is a huge problem.

Additional info from the Super Grok as I don't have McEnany's notes from today's show.

HTownAg98 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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

---

Your sarcasm meter could use a bit of tuning.

---

The amusing thing is your post is probably pretty accurate.



Sigh...now even **** like this is an April Fool's joke.

No matter how the Court rules, the rules regarding chain migration can be changed to remove it altogether. This decision will have no affect on that.

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

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..

---

Someone smarter than me please explain the point she was trying to make. I can't even begin to understand other than it seems like she's self owned herself

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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.

---

While rare, those already exist. If you hate the 2nd amendment then go ahead and say so.

Quote:

---

Someone smarter than me please explain the point she was trying to make. I can't even begin to understand other than it seems like she's self owned herself

---

The point she was trying to make and made it well IMO, is that she doesn't know s*** about the law nor how many forms of jurisdiction there are.

She was equating criminal violations of law in another country and being subject to prosecution for those violations to somehow pledging allegiance to that country's criminal laws, I guess. She just wound up confusing herself. BTW, KBJ holds the record for a justice saying, "I don't understand," in oral arguments.

Newsflash Ketanji: WE KNOW!

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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.

---

You should be bound by what the law says. If a law needs to changed to match current conditions then change the law. There is no law in the United States that cannot be amended, changed, or repealed.

Aggie95 said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

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..

---

Someone smarter than me please explain the point she was trying to make. I can't even begin to understand other than it seems like she's self owned herself

---

You're "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by being physically present because laws apply to you. If you're not subject to the jurisdiction then no laws apply to you.

Basically she thinks those words mean the 14th gives citizenship to everyone physically present in the country ant birth except diplomats since laws don't apply to them.

Go to Japan, form babby, get free anime.

Somehow the SC will agree with parts of the argument, then punt.

ACB also confused herself when she was trying to go down that jus soli versus jus sanguine as if those were mutually exclusive categories. Or that they were the only ways citizenship can be obtained. Even the 14th uses "naturalized"

Uhmm? Amy? Did you hear what you just said? That was dumb.

“Your honor, my client is American because he committed his crimes in America” https://t.co/PIfuZaUTGD pic.twitter.com/xKJyQMbbhf

— Mostly Peaceful Memes (@MostlyPeaceful) April 1, 2026

aggiejayrod said:

---

Aggie95 said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

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..

---

Someone smarter than me please explain the point she was trying to make. I can't even begin to understand other than it seems like she's self owned herself

---

You're "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by being physically present because laws apply to you. If you're not subject to the jurisdiction then no laws apply to you.

Basically she thinks those words mean the 14th gives citizenship to everyone physically present in the country ant birth except diplomats since laws don't apply to them.

---

And the American Indian Tribes, don't forget them. Gorsuch is the Native American law history expert on the Court. He well understands how and why Indian tribes on reservations were excluded from citizenship under the 14th, despite jus soli. In fact, it took an federal act to extend criminal jurisdiction to crimes committed on reservations in 1882. The Major Crimes Act. State laws did not apply on reservations, still don't unless the tribe has decided to allow it. (All have, as I understand it.)

So, my sense is Gorsuch will somewhat reluctantly land with Thomas and Alito. Had the 14th firmly established jus soli there would not have ever been a need for the 1924 act saying Indians were citizens. (And later Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Alaskans, etc. All by statutes. Because the 14th didn't get them there.)

black people after stealing a Japanese person’s wallet pic.twitter.com/qVEe45uvvu

— TONY (@TonyMichaelX) April 1, 2026

So if guess we need to import all conservative voters across the world to bring it all back into balance.

This is all so ridiculous. They do something by not enforcing the law because it benefits them, then what they did becomes too much to undo thus changing the entire trajectory of a nation. Pure evil.

I seriously don't get how the 6 non communist judges don't see the honest answer here especially knowing what will happen to this county that their friends and family live in. While the justices MAY not be affected by communist or sharia rule, undoubtedly their family and friends will be. They are so weak!!

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Aggie95 said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

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..

---

Someone smarter than me please explain the point she was trying to make. I can't even begin to understand other than it seems like she's self owned herself

---

You're "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by being physically present because laws apply to you. If you're not subject to the jurisdiction then no laws apply to you.

Basically she thinks those words mean the 14th gives citizenship to everyone physically present in the country ant birth except diplomats since laws don't apply to them.

---

And the American Indian Tribes, don't forget them. Gorsuch is the Native American law history expert on the Court. He well understands how and why Indian tribes on reservations were excluded from citizenship under the 14th, despite jus soli. In fact, it took an federal act to extend criminal jurisdiction to crimes committed on reservations in 1882. The Major Crimes Act. State laws did not apply on reservations, still don't unless the tribe has decided to allow it. (All have, as I understand it.)

So, my sense is Gorsuch will somewhat reluctantly land with Thomas and Alito. Had the 14th firmly established jus soli there would not have ever been a need for the 1924 act saying Indians were citizens. (And later Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Alaskans, etc. All by statutes. Because the 14th didn't get them there.)

---

True tho I'm just trying to explain her argument.

Gorsuch sounded like he didn't like that Sauer basically agreed with you. That the 14th didn't cover American Indians. The uncomfortable truth is that it intentionally didn't.

“Total difference between lawful presence and birth tourism — and the Court knows it.”@JonathanTurley flags a “gulp moment” for the administration: even John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch were exploring ways to rule against the government.

This case isn’t going… pic.twitter.com/5VbqScUOpw

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) April 1, 2026

It appears that this case is going exactly like most Americans thought it would.

“The 9/11 hijackers were American because they murdered someone in America. In a sense, it’s allegiance.” https://t.co/I5oqqcsUpW

— Mostly Peaceful Memes (@MostlyPeaceful) April 1, 2026

Bull Meachem said:

---

It appears that this case is going exactly like most Americans thought it would.

---

…but not like most "Americans" think is should.

About 9% of all U.S. births in 2023 were to unauthorized or temporary legal immigrant mothers combined. Using total U.S. births (~3.6 million in 2023), this implies roughly 225,000250,000 births to undocumented mothers annually. That percentage of US births is way too many. Birthright citizenship should be granted only to children of legal immigrants and lawful residents because illegal immigrants should not get the privilege of giving birth to US Citizens. This is why chain migration laws need to be drastically modified.

Deport all the illegal pregnant mommies that get over the big beautiful wall before they drop new citizens happens.

Law-Apt_3G said:

---

Deport all the illegals.

---

FIFY

Secolobo said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

It appears that this case is going exactly like most Americans thought it would.

---

…but not like most "Americans" think is should.

---

Should? Most? Hardly.

The Constitution is pretty clear to anyone with a brain.

Bull Meachem said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

It appears that this case is going exactly like most Americans thought it would.

---

…but not like most "Americans" think is should.

---

Should? Most? Hardly.

The Constitution is pretty clear to anyone with a brain.

---

True, unfortunately politicians are too spineless to make the change.

MelvinUdall said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

It appears that this case is going exactly like most Americans thought it would.

---

…but not like most "Americans" think is should.

---

Should? Most? Hardly.

The Constitution is pretty clear to anyone with a brain.

---

True, unfortunately politicians are too spineless to make the change.

---

They'er not spineless when they know who's voting for them…
Just like in Europe.

MelvinUdall said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

It appears that this case is going exactly like most Americans thought it would.

---

…but not like most "Americans" think is should.

---

Should? Most? Hardly.

The Constitution is pretty clear to anyone with a brain.

---

True, unfortunately politicians are too spineless to make the change.

---

Conservatives have done a terrible job of selling the change from birth right citizenship to bloodline citizenship. But a according to the previous poster, he disagrees and thinks most care about this. If they did, we could get an amendment passed.

I wonder what Rubio thinks of all this. Would he lose his citizenship?

eater of the list said:

---

Would he lose his citizenship?

---

no



try again

MelvinUdall said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

It appears that this case is going exactly like most Americans thought it would.

---

…but not like most "Americans" think is should.

---

Should? Most? Hardly.

The Constitution is pretty clear to anyone with a brain.

---

True, unfortunately politicians are too spineless to make the change.

---

Politicians can't just "make the change" in our current constitution, much to the chagrin of the wannabe-autocrat we currently have running the show. There is a framework for amending the constitution that is deliberately difficult exactly to protect peoples' rights from temporary eras of populist hysteria.