Kansas Kid said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

The common sense answer is that the only people who are US citizens are those born to US citizens or legally naturalized.

Leftists, being the archenemy of both common sense and America, do not want that answer

They want open borders and giving access to our political system to the entire 3rd world to keep themselves in power and gain the dictatorial one party state they crave

---

The problem with your common sense answer is for the last approximately 150 years including right after the 14th was adopted, citizenship was given to those born here that were children of diplomats (and I am sure a few other minor exceptions).

I am not saying that is what is should be today but unfortunately, we have a Constitution and have to either live with what it says or amend it. Asking for annything else is judicial activism which is something I can't stand.

---

The argument that the Constitution allows citizens of other country to come here and pop out a baby and that baby be a US citizen was not intended by the 14th and is an interpretation used by Democrats to exploit us and import voters and will not survive actual SCOTUS scrutiny

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

The common sense answer is that the only people who are US citizens are those born to US citizens or legally naturalized.

Leftists, being the archenemy of both common sense and America, do not want that answer

They want open borders and giving access to our political system to the entire 3rd world to keep themselves in power and gain the dictatorial one party state they crave

---

The problem with your common sense answer is for the last approximately 150 years including right after the 14th was adopted, citizenship was given to those born here that were children of diplomats (and I am sure a few other minor exceptions).

I am not saying that is what is should be today but unfortunately, we have a Constitution and have to either live with what it says or amend it. Asking for annything else is judicial activism which is something I can't stand.

---

The argument that the Constitution allows citizens of other country to come here and pop out a baby and that baby be a US citizen was not intended by the 14th and is an interpretation used by Democrats to exploit us and import voters and will not survive actual SCOTUS scrutiny

---

Amen.

Tomorrow should be interesting.

Governor DeSantis weighs in with a complementary point: https://t.co/sorrzwYO3S

— Eric W. (@EWess92) March 30, 2026

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

The common sense answer is that the only people who are US citizens are those born to US citizens or legally naturalized.

Leftists, being the archenemy of both common sense and America, do not want that answer

They want open borders and giving access to our political system to the entire 3rd world to keep themselves in power and gain the dictatorial one party state they crave

---

The problem with your common sense answer is for the last approximately 150 years including right after the 14th was adopted, citizenship was given to those born here that were children of diplomats (and I am sure a few other minor exceptions).

I am not saying that is what is should be today but unfortunately, we have a Constitution and have to either live with what it says or amend it. Asking for annything else is judicial activism which is something I can't stand.

---

The argument that the Constitution allows citizens of other country to come here and pop out a baby and that baby be a US citizen was not intended by the 14th and is an interpretation used by Democrats to exploit us and import voters and will not survive actual SCOTUS scrutiny

---

Then why has that been the way of the land since the 14th amendment was passed including in the immediate years after it was passed when those who wrote the amendment were still alive? Within the amendment itself, the framers clearly understood the difference between person and citizen. The only argument is that a person born here to illegal immigrants isn't subject to the laws of the US but that is clearly not the case as shown throughout numerous legal actions for which they can be punished for not following the law. The only people that can generally get away with not following the law are foreign diplomats which are the only people who have kids that are to the best of my knowledge never given US citizenship.

"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."

Again, I support a constitutional amendment to change it but absent that, I don't see this carrying the day with Supreme Court especially when it is an EO and not a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Anyone saying this is a slam dunk case for Trump to win is looking at it with rose colored glasses.

AustinScubaAg said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

The common sense answer is that the only people who are US citizens are those born to US citizens or legally naturalized.

Leftists, being the archenemy of both common sense and America, do not want that answer

They want open borders and giving access to our political system to the entire 3rd world to keep themselves in power and gain the dictatorial one party state they crave

---

The problem with your common sense answer is for the last approximately 150 years including right after the 14th was adopted, citizenship was given to those born here that were children of diplomats (and I am sure a few other minor exceptions).

I am not saying that is what is should be today but unfortunately, we have a Constitution and have to either live with what it says or amend it. Asking for annything else is judicial activism which is something I can't stand.

---

You might want to check your facts children of diplomats are not US citizens.

---

Correct. I had a typo. I meant to say they were the only ones that aren't given citizenship along with a few other rare exceptions such as a child born on a ship in a US port. Essentially everyone else born in the US 50 states, DC and certain territories has been granted citizenship. (I think there is an exception for children born to a person that is part of an occupying force but that hasn't been the case for a very long time thanks to the US military)

The EO is mostly just the vehicle that was used to get the SCOTUS to take a look at this.

Trump knew the left would throw down the gauntlet on this issue.

It's time to see if a century of case law in Wong Kim Arc was a good read of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" or wrong?

I don't think the writers of the 14th Amendment had any thoughts on something like this being commonplace now. Not to mention the original reason of why the 14th was created for.

Videogame executive Xu Bo, said to have more than 100 children, and other Chinese elites are building mega-families by hiring American surrogates. https://t.co/lEIWuoFBlB

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 14, 2025

No argument from me that this isn't what was contemplated when the 14th was written but that doesn't mean we can "reinterpret" the Constitution like the Dems always like to try to do to fit there whims.

I am a strong supporter of textualism like the Federalist society has promoted since its founding. Now let's go get the text changed (yes I know it is a long shot).

Well, we are about to find out if the last 100 years was the correct reading or not.

If SCOTUS rules against Trump, then we will know that the last 100 years of case law was correct. If they rule for Trump, then there was bad case law for 100+ years from Wong Kim Arc.

Reminder: there is no Supreme Court case that says children of illegals are citizens.

Wong's parents were not here illegally

will25u said:

---

Well, we are about to find out if the last 100 years was the correct reading or not.

If SCOTUS rules against Trump, then we will know that the last 100 years of case law was correct. If they rule for Trump, then there was bad case law for 100+ years from Wong Kim Arc.

---

Let's hope it's the latter.

will25u said:

---

Well, we are about to find out if the last 100 years was the correct reading or not.

If SCOTUS rules against Trump, then we will know that the last 100 years of case law was correct. If they rule for Trump, then there was bad case law for 100+ years from Wong Kim Arc.

---

I wouldn't even say the last 100 years was bad case law, I think it would say the textualists on the court have a lot more originalist in them than they let on. We know the three ladies will vote to uphold the lower courts. I just don't see how Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas get to an overturn vote since they are consistently the leading textualists.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

The common sense answer is that the only people who are US citizens are those born to US citizens or legally naturalized.

Leftists, being the archenemy of both common sense and America, do not want that answer

They want open borders and giving access to our political system to the entire 3rd world to keep themselves in power and gain the dictatorial one party state they crave

---

The problem with your common sense answer is for the last approximately 150 years including right after the 14th was adopted, citizenship was given to those born here that were children of diplomats (and I am sure a few other minor exceptions).

I am not saying that is what is should be today but unfortunately, we have a Constitution and have to either live with what it says or amend it. Asking for annything else is judicial activism which is something I can't stand.

---

The argument that the Constitution allows citizens of other country to come here and pop out a baby and that baby be a US citizen was not intended by the 14th and is an interpretation used by Democrats to exploit us and import voters and will not survive actual SCOTUS scrutiny

---

Then why has that been the way of the land since the 14th amendment was passed including in the immediate years after it was passed when those who wrote the amendment were still alive? Within the amendment itself, the framers clearly understood the difference between person and citizen. The only argument is that a person born here to illegal immigrants isn't subject to the laws of the US but that is clearly not the case as shown throughout numerous legal actions for which they can be punished for not following the law. The only people that can generally get away with not following the law are foreign diplomats which are the only people who have kids that are to the best of my knowledge never given US citizenship.

"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."

Again, I support a constitutional amendment to change it but absent that, I don't see this carrying the day with Supreme Court especially when it is an EO and not a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Anyone saying this is a slam dunk case for Trump to win is looking at it with rose colored glasses.

---

So why was a law required to give native americians citizenship?

Because at the time, tribes were considered to have tribal sovereignty so their citizens weren't deemed subject to US laws at birth. In essence, they were treated as immigrants despite being born on American soil. I will grant that this would IMO be one historical context that partially supports the Administration position. The problem is tribes had unique status inside the US such as members being exempt from the draft.

One key note is it took an act of Congress to change this status. I don't see anyway an EO changing it is Constitutional (I also think most EOs by all Presidents are unconstitutional).

This is a good summary
https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2024/looking-back-at-the-1924-indian-citizenship-act.html

Kansas Kid said:

---

Because at the time, tribes were considered to have tribal sovereignty so their citizens weren't deemed subject to US laws at birth. In essence, they were treated as immigrants despite being born on American soil. I will grant that this would IMO be one historical context that partially supports the Administration position. The problem is tribes had unique status inside the US such as members being exempt from the draft.

One key note is it took an act of Congress to change this status. I don't see anyway an EO changing it is Constitutional (I also think most EOs by all Presidents are unconstitutional).

This is a good summary
https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2024/looking-back-at-the-1924-indian-citizenship-act.html

---

Even with special status that status was granted by congress not the constitution. If the status granted by congress matters, then immigration status also matters. In fact the need for this congressional action is directly in opposition the Ark ruling.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Reminder: there is no Supreme Court case that says children of illegals are citizens.

Wong's parents were not here illegally

---

The why does Wong Kim Ark keep getting brought up as giving birthright citizenship to everyone??


I've never really understood that since I knew that he'd been living here legally prior to the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Ag with kids said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Reminder: there is no Supreme Court case that says children of illegals are citizens.

Wong's parents were not here illegally

---

The why does Wong Kim Ark keep getting brought up as giving birthright citizenship to everyone??


I've never really understood that since I knew that he'd been living here legally prior to the Chinese Exclusion Act.

---

Fundamental misunderstanding of two things, status of immigration law when this was decided and the exact holding was very narrow. Yet, that ruling has been referred to as much more ecompassing than it really was.

I'm wondering how much discussion there will be Wednesday about whether the 14th Amendment applied to the children of slaves who were imported into the US after 1808, as those parents would have been illegally present in the United States.

Edited because I was thinking today was Tuesday. This is gonna be a long week for me.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

The common sense answer is that the only people who are US citizens are those born to US citizens or legally naturalized.

Leftists, being the archenemy of both common sense and America, do not want that answer

They want open borders and giving access to our political system to the entire 3rd world to keep themselves in power and gain the dictatorial one party state they crave

---

The problem with your common sense answer is for the last approximately 150 years including right after the 14th was adopted, citizenship was given to those born here that were children of diplomats (and I am sure a few other minor exceptions).

I am not saying that is what is should be today but unfortunately, we have a Constitution and have to either live with what it says or amend it. Asking for annything else is judicial activism which is something I can't stand.

---

The argument that the Constitution allows citizens of other country to come here and pop out a baby and that baby be a US citizen was not intended by the 14th and is an interpretation used by Democrats to exploit us and import voters and will not survive actual SCOTUS scrutiny

---

Then why has that been the way of the land since the 14th amendment was passed including in the immediate years after it was passed when those who wrote the amendment were still alive? Within the amendment itself, the framers clearly understood the difference between person and citizen. The only argument is that a person born here to illegal immigrants isn't subject to the laws of the US but that is clearly not the case as shown throughout numerous legal actions for which they can be punished for not following the law. The only people that can generally get away with not following the law are foreign diplomats which are the only people who have kids that are to the best of my knowledge never given US citizenship.

"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."

Again, I support a constitutional amendment to change it but absent that, I don't see this carrying the day with Supreme Court especially when it is an EO and not a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Anyone saying this is a slam dunk case for Trump to win is looking at it with rose colored glasses.

---

EDIT: NM< see already asked and answered.

will25u said:

---

Well, we are about to find out if the last 100 years was the correct reading or not.

If SCOTUS rules against Trump, then we will know that the last 100 years of case law was correct. If they rule for Trump, then there was bad case law for 100+ years from Wong Kim Arc.

---

We've certainly been on the wong legal arc for 100 years IMO!

Again it's the legality

If you are present here legally and have a kid they get citizenship

But the idea that you can sneak in here illegally and have a kid and get citizenship is a complete farcical interpretation of Wong who was not here illegally

Whelan's guess is they don't reach the merits:

https://t.co/9tgvJGYeUZ

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) March 31, 2026

Im Gipper said:

---

Whelan's guess is they don't reach the merits:

https://t.co/9tgvJGYeUZ

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) March 31, 2026

---

That would be totally expected from the Roberts' Court.

They'll make a narrow ruling and avoid the actual issue.

i agree. But were gonna need congress to pass a law that says so

Guess we'll see which direction the Court is leaning from the questions they ask tomorrow. Saw a pundit say this AM that she expected oral arguments will last over two hours tomorrow. Were they leaning towards essentially punting on those statutory grounds, that would be a much shorter session.

I am seeing quite a few conservative lawyers on X saying they think SCOTUS will strike down Trumps EO. Here is one the other way...

Professor @RandyEBarnett , one of the most influential Originalists of all time, has written an article in the @WSJ explaining that President Trump is right on Birthright Citizenship. He is one of the leading libertarian law professors. Originalists agree on this issue. pic.twitter.com/c0D993qAP3

— Eric W. (@EWess92) March 31, 2026

Read the full piece here: https://t.co/UWausahfxZ

— Eric W. (@EWess92) March 31, 2026

aggiehawg said:

---

Guess we'll see which direction the Court is leaning from the questions they ask tomorrow. Saw a pundit say this AM that she expected oral arguments will last over two hours tomorrow. Were they leaning towards essentially punting on those statutory grounds, that would be a much shorter session.

---

Doesn't SCOTUS announce ahead of time how much time will be allotted for each side and for each issue argued?

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Guess we'll see which direction the Court is leaning from the questions they ask tomorrow. Saw a pundit say this AM that she expected oral arguments will last over two hours tomorrow. Were they leaning towards essentially punting on those statutory grounds, that would be a much shorter session.

---

Doesn't SCOTUS announce ahead of time how much time will be allotted for each side and for each issue argued?

---

Yes they do and the time set for this one was one hour. That was her point. She believed that despite past history wherein oral arguments rarely really change a justice's opinion after all of the briefing, orals on this case would take much longer. Keep in mind, need 4 justices to grant cert in the first place so need one more justice to get a majority. Already had 4 willing to take another look at birthright citizenship. "To go there," in popular parlance.

aggiehawg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Guess we'll see which direction the Court is leaning from the questions they ask tomorrow. Saw a pundit say this AM that she expected oral arguments will last over two hours tomorrow. Were they leaning towards essentially punting on those statutory grounds, that would be a much shorter session.

---

Doesn't SCOTUS announce ahead of time how much time will be allotted for each side and for each issue argued?

---

Yes they do and the time set for this one was one hour. That was her point. She believed that despite past history wherein oral arguments rarely really change a justice's opinion after all of the briefing, orals on this case would take much longer. Keep in mind, need 4 justices to grant cert in the first place so need one more justice to get a majority. Already had 4 willing to take another look at birthright citizenship. "To go there," in popular parlance.

---

So we should know by what time, you think?

No Spin Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Guess we'll see which direction the Court is leaning from the questions they ask tomorrow. Saw a pundit say this AM that she expected oral arguments will last over two hours tomorrow. Were they leaning towards essentially punting on those statutory grounds, that would be a much shorter session.

---

Doesn't SCOTUS announce ahead of time how much time will be allotted for each side and for each issue argued?

---

Yes they do and the time set for this one was one hour. That was her point. She believed that despite past history wherein oral arguments rarely really change a justice's opinion after all of the briefing, orals on this case would take much longer. Keep in mind, need 4 justices to grant cert in the first place so need one more justice to get a majority. Already had 4 willing to take another look at birthright citizenship. "To go there," in popular parlance.

---

So we should know by what time, you think?

---

We won't get a ruling tomorrow but will hear some clues as to which way certain justices are leaning. My gut tells me C.J. Roberts and ACB are still in the undecided category and persuadable. Maybe Kagan and Gorsuch? Be easier to guess if we were told which 4 voted to grant cert. Sadly we don't know that.

Which is another reason I think Whelan has misread the intentions of the Court on punting the question on purely procedural statutory grounds as that would more likely be a per curiam opinion with no need for multiple concurring, dissenting opinions.

aggiehawg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Guess we'll see which direction the Court is leaning from the questions they ask tomorrow. Saw a pundit say this AM that she expected oral arguments will last over two hours tomorrow. Were they leaning towards essentially punting on those statutory grounds, that would be a much shorter session.

---

Doesn't SCOTUS announce ahead of time how much time will be allotted for each side and for each issue argued?

---

Yes they do and the time set for this one was one hour. That was her point. She believed that despite past history wherein oral arguments rarely really change a justice's opinion after all of the briefing, orals on this case would take much longer. Keep in mind, need 4 justices to grant cert in the first place so need one more justice to get a majority. Already had 4 willing to take another look at birthright citizenship. "To go there," in popular parlance.

---

So we should know by what time, you think?

---

We won't get a ruling tomorrow but will hear some clues as to which way certain justices are leaning. My gut tells me C.J. Roberts and ACB are still in the undecided category and persuadable. Maybe Kagan and Gorsuch? Be easier to guess if we were told which 4 voted to grant cert. Sadly we don't know that.

Which is another reason I think Whelan has misread the intentions of the Court on punting the question on purely procedural statutory grounds as that would more likely be a per curiam opinion with no need for multiple concurring, dissenting opinions.

---

Okay, well, time to wait and see.

Gracias

Branca going over this. And reading from the original author of the amendment and what they had to say while introducing the amendment to Congress for debate.

https://www.youtube.com/live/IBK-KolO7rM?si=EoBLbqkk-DcAXLc6

aggiehawg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Guess we'll see which direction the Court is leaning from the questions they ask tomorrow. Saw a pundit say this AM that she expected oral arguments will last over two hours tomorrow. Were they leaning towards essentially punting on those statutory grounds, that would be a much shorter session.

---

Doesn't SCOTUS announce ahead of time how much time will be allotted for each side and for each issue argued?

---

Yes they do and the time set for this one was one hour. That was her point. She believed that despite past history wherein oral arguments rarely really change a justice's opinion after all of the briefing, orals on this case would take much longer. Keep in mind, need 4 justices to grant cert in the first place so need one more justice to get a majority. Already had 4 willing to take another look at birthright citizenship. "To go there," in popular parlance.

---

Do they ever go over the time allotted?

Yes, but not very often. Clarence Thomas was famous for many years for never asking a single question during oral arguments. He does now.

Further, since KBJ joined the Court, she is setting records as the justice who speaks way more than any other justice. Between her and Sotomayor, the dumb statements and questions keep extending the time of those sessions.

Several months ago, Branca was admitted to the SCOTUS bar and was there to be sworn in. Justices invited the newly admitted to stay to hear oral arguments. He said that everytime KBJ started speaking, Thomas would remove his glasses, lay his head back against his chair and just stare up at the ceiling. Once she stopped, he would lean forward, put his glasses back on and pay attention again.

BREAKING: President Trump tells Fox News' Peter Doocy he's going to Supreme Court Wednesday for expected birthright citizenship arguments.

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 31, 2026

aggiehawg said:

---

Yes, but not very often. Clarence Thomas was famous for many years for never asking a single question during oral arguments. He does now.

Further, since KBJ joined the Court, she is setting records as the justice who speaks way more than any other justice. Between her and Sotomayor, the dumb statements and questions keep extending the time of those sessions.

Several months ago, Branca was admitted to the SCOTUS bar and was there to be sworn in. Justices invited the newly admitted to stay to hear oral arguments. He said that everytime KBJ started speaking, Thomas would remove his glasses, lay his head back against his chair and just stare up at the ceiling. Once she stopped, he would lean forward, put his glasses back on and pay attention again.

---

That's hilarious. I'm ready for her to sue him because of the hostile work environment.