flown-the-coop said:

---

Just saw a commercial playing "Born in the USA" by Bruce Fonda Springsteen and saying to protect birthright citizenship.

Paid for by the ACLU.

May be the most unamerican commercial ever produced.

---

So, the ACLU is supporting illegals at the expense of Americans. Suggest they take the A and "American" out of their organizational name/title.

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.

---

My intuition is it is very unlikely Kagan, Sotomayor, and KBJ will agree to that. So, if the vote is 7-2, the best Roberts could do going this route is forge a plurality on statutory grounds . He would need 8-1 (Thomas) to get a majority on statutory grounds only.

But that would all just be the ultimate kicking of the can down the road and would require the gymnastics of stating the EO has violated a statute which is a direct restatement of the Constitutional text and what everyone seems to agree is meant to reflect the meaning of the Constitution without ruling on the Constitutional issue.

Sure, you can do that formally with one sentence.

But practically, that does not achieve very much at all other than allowing for another mess down the road that will end up in the exactly the same place as if they were to just go ahead and rule on Constitutional terms now.

Jarrin Jay said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Just saw a commercial playing "Born in the USA" by Bruce Fonda Springsteen and saying to protect birthright citizenship.

Paid for by the ACLU.

May be the most unamerican commercial ever produced.

---

So, the ACLU is supporting illegals at the expense of Americans. Suggest they take the A and "American" out of their organizational name/title.

---

They are t protecting illegals…they're protecting the ****ing Constitution. You sound like a liberal.

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. If it no longer serves the American people then we need to replace it.

---

You sound like a liberal talking about the second amendment.

Bull Meachem said:

---

Jarrin Jay said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Just saw a commercial playing "Born in the USA" by Bruce Fonda Springsteen and saying to protect birthright citizenship.

Paid for by the ACLU.

May be the most unamerican commercial ever produced.

---

So, the ACLU is supporting illegals at the expense of Americans. Suggest they take the A and "American" out of their organizational name/title.

---

They are t protecting illegals…they're protecting the ****ing Constitution. You sound like a liberal.

---

TXAggie2011 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.

---

My intuition is it is very unlikely Kagan, Sotomayor, and KBJ will agree to that. So, if the vote is 7-2, the best Roberts could do going this route is forge a plurality on statutory grounds . He would need 8-1 (Thomas) to get a majority on statutory grounds only.

But that would all just be the ultimate kicking of the can down the road and would require the gymnastics of stating the EO has violated a statute which is a direct restatement of the Constitutional text and what everyone seems to agree is meant to reflect the meaning of the Constitution without ruling on the Constitutional issue.

Sure, you can do that formally with one sentence.

But practically, that does not achieve very much at all other than allowing for another mess down the road that will end up in the exactly the same place as if they were to just go ahead and rule on Constitutional terms now.

---

And such a tortured rationale would tell me we have lost all semblance of legal reasoning and statutory construction. Was watching Branca yesterday about the oral arguments and he made a good point.

Thomas and Alito are older and attended law school before law schools really moved far leftward. Law school back then was more of a conservative experience simply because of how the law was taught. Here are the rules, follow them.

ACB, Kavanaugh KBJ and to a lesser extent, Gorsuch attended law school when the rules were considered more like suggestions to get around to thwart the intent and the even the letter of the law.

Saying a Constitutional amendment and a statute using the exact same words mean different things is contrary to everything in the law. Weare trained to parse words, true but not in such an insane manner.

Just peaking in during a short lunch, then back to no news access... Any word on when/if SCOTUS will reveal their decision on this case?

flakrat said:

---

Just peaking in during a short lunch, then back to no news access... Any word on when/if SCOTUS will reveal their decision on this case?

---

Don't expect anything before late June maybe even July

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 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.

---

My intuition is it is very unlikely Kagan, Sotomayor, and KBJ will agree to that. So, if the vote is 7-2, the best Roberts could do going this route is forge a plurality on statutory grounds . He would need 8-1 (Thomas) to get a majority on statutory grounds only.

But that would all just be the ultimate kicking of the can down the road and would require the gymnastics of stating the EO has violated a statute which is a direct restatement of the Constitutional text and what everyone seems to agree is meant to reflect the meaning of the Constitution without ruling on the Constitutional issue.

Sure, you can do that formally with one sentence.

But practically, that does not achieve very much at all other than allowing for another mess down the road that will end up in the exactly the same place as if they were to just go ahead and rule on Constitutional terms now.

---

And such a tortured rationale would tell me we have lost all semblance of legal reasoning and statutory construction. Was watching Branca yesterday about the oral arguments and he made a good point.

Thomas and Alito are older and attended law school before law schools really moved far leftward. Law school back then was more of a conservative experience simply because of how the law was taught. Here are the rules, follow them.

ACB, Kavanaugh KBJ and to a lesser extent, Gorsuch attended law school when the rules were considered more like suggestions to get around to thwart the intent and the even the letter of the law.

Saying a Constitutional amendment and a statute using the exact same words mean different things is contrary to everything in the law. Weare trained to parse words, true but not in such an insane manner.

---

How is that more tortured than arguing that Congress
A) passed a law using the same language as the Constitution and
B) did mean for it to codify birthright citizenship even though that had been the understanding of that language for decades and
C) never demanded enforcement of their revised meaning?

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

This country is cooked.

We cant pass legislation on things with 80% support.

We're all just arguing about a piece of paper as the titanic sinks, and democrats are drunkenly celebrating their own idiocy as we all slowly die.

---

And these are the words accompanying the drumbeat to authoritarianism. Might as well be Jar-jar binks on the floor of the senate raising a motion to ignore that annoying constitution.

---

You were *for* covid lockdowns and mandatory vaccine shots i'm guessing.

---

nope.

Try curiosity over judgmentalism and tribalism

Well, you would have to take the stance that Congress at the time misunderstood the Constitution and therefore codified the "wrong" understanding. And therefore say it violates the statute, which expanded citizenship beyond the Constitutional floor, but not the Constitution's own floor.

But that would be a real intellectual and interpretive mess ("tortured"). Typically, you would just say Congress codified the Constitution and it means what the Constitution means, regardless of what Congress *thought* it meant.

Quote:

---

But that would be a real intellectual and interpretive mess. Typically, you would just say Congress codified the Constitution and it means what the Constitution means, regardless of what Congress *thought* it meant.

---

Precisely. There were very few actual immigration laws in effect at the time other than Chinese exclusion laws. And it was the Chinese exclusion laws that were responsible in part for the holding in Wong. His parents were precluded from becoming US citizens but otherwise did everything they could to be lawful permanent residents.

Something illegal aliens do not do.

That was not A TEAM performance especially on the Indians question, this was not the way to come before the high court.

Burpelson said:

---

That was not A TEAM performance especially on the Indians question, this was not the way to come before the high court.

---

How so?

you two are confused on the timing and statutory language

the statute passed right before the 14th amendment did not have the same language.

it said " not subject to any foreign power." It was only in the 20th century that the current statute that tracks the 14th amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" showed up.


and that later statute was done at a time when the conventional wisdom of the 50s was that it included the birth right citizenship. that does not mean it was correct.

so its not a matter of two documents saying the same thing at the same time. its an amendment and statute written probably 70 years apart.

its also not a matter of saying "this violates the statute, but not the constitution." its saying "this violates the statute, we aren't going to analyze if it violates the constitution"

so a concurrence that essentially pushes "this EO violates the statute from the 40s or 50s as the term "subject to the jurisdiction" was understood then, which may have been incorrect. Congress can pass a law now to 14th amendment does not include birth right for illegals, and we will look at if that was what "subject to the jurisdiction meant in the 1860s"


neither trump nor ACLU want this path, which makes me think it may have a better than fighting chance.

Dan Carlin said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

This country is cooked.

We cant pass legislation on things with 80% support.

We're all just arguing about a piece of paper as the titanic sinks, and democrats are drunkenly celebrating their own idiocy as we all slowly die.

---

And these are the words accompanying the drumbeat to authoritarianism. Might as well be Jar-jar binks on the floor of the senate raising a motion to ignore that annoying constitution.

---

You were *for* covid lockdowns and mandatory vaccine shots i'm guessing.

---

nope.

Try curiosity over judgmentalism and tribalism

---

I'm plenty curious. You just don't inspire much curiosity.

BMX Bandit said:

---

you two are confused on the timing and statutory language

the statute passed right before the 14th amendment did not have the same language.

it said " not subject to any foreign power." It was only in the 20th century that the current statute that tracks the 14th amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" showed up.


and that later statute was done at a time when the conventional wisdom of the 50s was that it included the birth right citizenship. that does not mean it was correct.

so its not a matter of two documents saying the same thing at the same time. its an amendment and statute written probably 70 years apart.

its also not a matter of saying "this violates the statute, but not the constitution." its saying "this violates the statute, we aren't going to analyze if it violates the constitution"

so a concurrence that essentially pushes "this EO violates the statute from the 40s or 50s as the term "subject to the jurisdiction" was understood then, which may have been incorrect. Congress can pass a law now to 14th amendment does not include birth right for illegals, and we will look at if that was what "subject to the jurisdiction meant in the 1860s"


neither trump nor ACLU want this path, which makes me think it may have a better than fighting chance.

---

Question: Could the Indian tribes be the reason for the change from "not subject to any foreign power" to "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the 14th? But by the time the subsequent statute was passed the issue of Indian citizenship had be addressed by the 1924 act?

Nice try. The Constitution as written does NOT allow for birthright citizenship, period.

It also does not allow for all the federal agencies and social welfare programs we have, but we have them anyway.

Quote:

---

Nice try. The Constitution as written does NOT allow for birthright citizenship, period.

---

Per legal decisions going back to the early 1800s and then enshrined by the 14th amendment and validated by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, the Constitution does indeed allows for birthright citizenship.

That is why the Supremes outside of Thomas and Alito were all so hostile to John Sauer's attempts to redefine what was basically settled language going back a very long way.

I'm aware of the timing if that's a response to me.

Either way, I'll say again, a Justice(s) could try to unhook the meaning of the (1940/1952) statute from the meaning of the Constitution but that's an intellectual and interpretive mess, that's just kicking the can down the road and will lead to essentially the same lawsuit, the same briefs, and the same oral argument.

Its a wasteful pursuit and nobody wants them to do it. So just don't do it.

aggiehawg said:

---

flakrat said:

---

Just peaking in during a short lunch, then back to no news access... Any word on when/if SCOTUS will reveal their decision on this case?

---

Don't expect anything before late June maybe even July

---

Unless they vote to overturn Wong - in which case, it'll be leaked around May 1.

Quote:

---

Either way, I'll say again, a Justice could try to unhook the meaning of the (1952) statute from the meaning of the Constitution but that's an intellectual and interpretive mess. And if it were to be a controlling reasoning in this case, that's just kicking the can down the road and will lead to essentially the same lawsuit, the same briefs, and the same oral argument.

---

Kavanaugh was politely saying this to John Sauer during the oral arguments.

" JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: By the time of the 1940 and 1952 congressional actions where Congress repeats "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," given Wong Kim Ark, one might have expected Congress to use a different phrase if it wanted to try to disagree with Wong Kim Ark on what the scope of birthright citizenship or the scope of citizenship should be. And yet Congress repeats that same language, knowing what the interpretation had been. So how are we to think about that?

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: But there's Executive Branch interpretations and others. And if -- if you're in Congress in 1940 and 1952 and you want to limit the scope of Wong Kim Ark or to eliminate ambiguity, why do you repeat the same language rather than choosing something different? For example, you could use the language from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or some similar formulation if your idea in 1940 and 1952 was to not have ambiguity or not have an overly broad scope."

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Either way, I'll say again, a Justice could try to unhook the meaning of the (1952) statute from the meaning of the Constitution but that's an intellectual and interpretive mess. And if it were to be a controlling reasoning in this case, that's just kicking the can down the road and will lead to essentially the same lawsuit, the same briefs, and the same oral argument.

---

Kavanaugh was politely saying this to John Sauer during the oral arguments.

" JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: By the time of the 1940 and 1952 congressional actions where Congress repeats "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," given Wong Kim Ark, one might have expected Congress to use a different phrase if it wanted to try to disagree with Wong Kim Ark on what the scope of birthright citizenship or the scope of citizenship should be. And yet Congress repeats that same language, knowing what the interpretation had been. So how are we to think about that?

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: But there's Executive Branch interpretations and others. And if -- if you're in Congress in 1940 and 1952 and you want to limit the scope of Wong Kim Ark or to eliminate ambiguity, why do you repeat the same language rather than choosing something different? For example, you could use the language from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or some similar formulation if your idea in 1940 and 1952 was to not have ambiguity or not have an overly broad scope."

---

Wong Kim Ark was decided upon stipulated facts. Those facts did not include the children of aliens here illegally. In fact, immigration in general much less illegal immigration was not even a blip on the radar screen when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

The boom of immigration (think Ellis Island) started in the late 1890s and hit a peak in the mid 1920s. But those immigrants were processed so the country knew who was coming in for the most part and from which countries they were from. Nor was welfare, Medicaid, nor Medicare in existence back then.

And in reaction to that boom of immigration, laws were beginning to be passed to more closely monitor the number and origin of those coming into the country even setting some quotas.

Where everything went to hell was in 1965. That immigration act along with welfare, Medicare and Medicaid PLUS providing for chain migration gave illegals even more incentive to enter illegally. Just to get the "free" stuff.

Stop the free stuff, end chain migration and those problems will be abated.

Kavanaugh (and Gorsuch) were barking up the wrong trees. (Gorsuch with the Indian question ignoring the 1924 statute altogether and focusing solely on the 14th. If the 14th truly addressed the issue of tribal Indians there would not have been need to pass a specific act expressly granting them citizenship. Ditto for Hawaiians, Alaskans, Puerto Ricans and so forth. They required specific statutes since the 14th alone did not reach them.)

Report: 9% of all 2023 births in the United States were to parents who are not legally or permanently in the countryhttps://t.co/YkNmaOojQZ

— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) April 2, 2026

Now add chain migration to those babies to form migrant households a majority of which are on public assistance of some sort instead of being sponsored and assisted by the organizations sponsoring them.

Came here to post this. Ho. Lee. Chit.

BMX Bandit said:

---

you two are confused on the timing and statutory language

the statute passed right before the 14th amendment did not have the same language.

it said " not subject to any foreign power." It was only in the 20th century that the current statute that tracks the 14th amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" showed up.


and that later statute was done at a time when the conventional wisdom of the 50s was that it included the birth right citizenship. that does not mean it was correct.

so its not a matter of two documents saying the same thing at the same time. its an amendment and statute written probably 70 years apart.

its also not a matter of saying "this violates the statute, but not the constitution." its saying "this violates the statute, we aren't going to analyze if it violates the constitution"

so a concurrence that essentially pushes "this EO violates the statute from the 40s or 50s as the term "subject to the jurisdiction" was understood then, which may have been incorrect. Congress can pass a law now to 14th amendment does not include birth right for illegals, and we will look at if that was what "subject to the jurisdiction meant in the 1860s"


neither trump nor ACLU want this path, which makes me think it may have a better than fighting chance.

---

nm...misread it...

aggiehawg said:

---

Report: 9% of all 2023 births in the United States were to parents who are not legally or permanently in the countryhttps://t.co/YkNmaOojQZ

— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) April 2, 2026

Now add chain migration to those babies to form migrant households a majority of which are on public assistance of some sort instead of being sponsored and assisted by the organizations sponsoring them.

---

The experiment is over.

aggiehawg said:

---

Report: 9% of all 2023 births in the United States were to parents who are not legally or permanently in the countryhttps://t.co/YkNmaOojQZ

— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) April 2, 2026

Now add chain migration to those babies to form migrant households a majority of which are on public assistance of some sort instead of being sponsored and assisted by the organizations sponsoring them.

---

All by design to destroy America from within.

Quote:

---

The experiment is over.

---

Although LBJ was not the crusader of noblesse oblige like JFK (LBJ was of humble beginnings unlike JFK) he saw the political benefit of wrapping himself in a fallen President's mantle to ensure his 1964 election, that he pressed that advantage even though he believed the Dem party would lose the South going forward.

But the combined effects of the 1965 Immigration Act, creation of welfare, Medicaid and Medicare became the perfect storm.

aggiehawg said:

---

Kavanaugh (and Gorsuch) were barking up the wrong trees. (Gorsuch with the Indian question ignoring the 1924 statute altogether and focusing solely on the 14th. If the 14th truly addressed the issue of tribal Indians there would not have been need to pass a specific act expressly granting them citizenship. Ditto for Hawaiians, Alaskans, Puerto Ricans and so forth. They required specific statutes since the 14th alone did not reach them.)

---

Gorsuch was not suggesting he thought the 14th Amendment gave Indians birthright citizenship.

Gorsuch was telling the government that their asserted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, focused on lawful presence and domicile, would seem to grant Indians birthright citizenship (even though it is known it does not.)

The implication is that if your interpretation can't account for (the largest) exception to the rule, then maybe it is a poor interpretation.

Or, another way to say it, if your qualification for citizenship does not disqualify the largest group known to be disqualified, your qualification maybe is a poor qualification.

Sauer, arguing for the government, stumbled over it for a reason.

hth.

The fact that the 14th is known to have not included Indians shows that it does not "clearly" grant birthright citizenship "as written". The 14th amendment, as written, is known and understood to not have included Indians. It is also Known and understood to not have included diplomats and foreign invaders. In other words, people that have a different sovereign over them. Which is essentially someone that sneaks in and has a baby (the scenario where they go back to their country helps clarify that). One has to jump through more hoops to ignore language in the 14th ( "subject to jurisdiction " and "where they reside" ) to think it applies to people that this country has no idea are here, didn't come through the proverbial front door, and are attempting to get to the country's coffers (through their kids citizenship) (sound anything like a foreign invader?)

Edit: and Wong ark did not change that. The holding very specifically "as written" says that. And in the 40s and 50s, it was not understood that the case did. I posted a link in this thread to a leading treatise from that time that says specifically the new act did not apply to people here illegally.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Kavanaugh (and Gorsuch) were barking up the wrong trees. (Gorsuch with the Indian question ignoring the 1924 statute altogether and focusing solely on the 14th. If the 14th truly addressed the issue of tribal Indians there would not have been need to pass a specific act expressly granting them citizenship. Ditto for Hawaiians, Alaskans, Puerto Ricans and so forth. They required specific statutes since the 14th alone did not reach them.)

---

Gorsuch was not suggesting he thought the 14th Amendment gave Indians birthright citizenship.

Gorsuch was telling the government that their asserted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, focused on lawful presence and domicile, would seem to grant Indians birthright citizenship (even though it is known it does not.)

The implication is that if your interpretation can't account for (the largest) exception to the rule, then maybe it is a poor interpretation.

Or, another way to say it, if your qualifier for citizenship does not disqualify the largest group known to be disqualified, your qualifier maybe is a poor qualifier.

Sauer, arguing for the government, stumbled over it for a reason.

hth.

---

Disagree. When the question is whether the 14th applies to all jus soli but there are exceptions then it does not universally apply. It is unanswered for illegals for that reason.

Fore-Fathers about to turn over in their graves? Satan has his minions in place.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Kavanaugh (and Gorsuch) were barking up the wrong trees. (Gorsuch with the Indian question ignoring the 1924 statute altogether and focusing solely on the 14th. If the 14th truly addressed the issue of tribal Indians there would not have been need to pass a specific act expressly granting them citizenship. Ditto for Hawaiians, Alaskans, Puerto Ricans and so forth. They required specific statutes since the 14th alone did not reach them.)

---

Gorsuch was not suggesting he thought the 14th Amendment gave Indians birthright citizenship.

Gorsuch was telling the government that their asserted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, focused on lawful presence and domicile, would seem to grant Indians birthright citizenship (even though it is known it does not.)

The implication is that if your interpretation can't account for (the largest) exception to the rule, then maybe it is a poor interpretation.

---

that's exactly what his point was and Sauer had no answer.

Administration wants a ruling on the 14th amendment. Gorsuch said let's focus on the amendment; here's why you may have problems with the domicile theory. I think this is another indication we just get a ruling on the statute and not the amendment.

Quote:

---

Question: Could the Indian tribes be the reason for the change from "not subject to any foreign power" to "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the 14th? But by the time the subsequent statute was passed the issue of Indian citizenship had be addressed by the 1924 act?

---

Certainly a possibility; but could also be someone saying "why don't we make these match?"