The 14th Amendment & Birthright Citizenship

[UT alum]

On 4/1/2026 at 3:51 PM, OlDawg said:

Ha! I prefer the Denzel version. Decent flick.

I thought so, too. I’ll betcha “Manchurian candidate”isn’t used as a double entendre very often.

[Big girl]

On 4/1/2026 at 11:17 AM, OlDawg said:

True. Sauer’s rebuttal just chewed up the ACLU argument. Wow! He pointed out almost every case they referenced was BEFORE the 14th, and every case he cited was after.

Still don’t know if it will be enough though. Gorsuch’s comment was troubling about accepting the ACLU argument and making a quick ruling. I really thought he would be more on the textualism/originalism side. Now, I’m not so sure.

Judge Amy asked him how do we know which illegal immigrants have an allegence to this nation.She also said that she is sure that some of the slaves that were forced here had an allegence to their native land., yet they became citizens. The lawyer couldnt answer the question. It is not looking too good for the Trump administration,  but we will see.

[Big girl]

On 4/1/2026 at 10:58 AM, Reagan said:

Again, I don’t think it was a coincidence that the 14th was right after the 13th that freed the slaves.  THIS is what the 14th had to do with.  I know which way 3 Justices will vote.  Why?  Because that’s why they were put there.  You know — to do the left’s bidding.  This last Justice was really bad and really telling!  DEI at its finest!!  We want this individual to know what the Constitution says when she doesn’t know what a woman is!  

It is sad that you believe that all black women are DEI hires. Smh

[Big girl]

On 4/1/2026 at 2:16 PM, OlDawg said:

What's interesting--that most people don't think about--is that a child born by someone here temporarily is a U.S. citizen--according to the current situation. That person can become a future POTUS.

Hypothetical:

A Chinese birth tourism agency recruits a Chinese female to have a baby born in the U.S. That baby then leaves the U.S., grows up in Communist China for all their lives until they are 21. Then, they move back to the U.S. At 35, they file to run for President of the United States.

They would qualify. They would be a natural U.S. citizen, they would have lived in the U.S. for the last 14 years, and they would be 35 years old.

Oh well. How are you a citizen if they take away birthright citizenship?

[Reagan]

12 minutes ago, Big girl said:

It is sad that you believe that all black women are DEI hires. Smh

No, not all.  But it's not hard to figure when they are!

[Big girl]

1 minute ago, Reagan said:

No, not all.  But it's not hard to figure when they are!

Are unqualified white people ever hired?

[Big girl]

17 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Judge Amy asked him how do we know which illegal immigrants have an allegence to this nation.She also said that she is sure that some of the slaves that were forced here had an allegence to their native land, yet they became citizens

The lawyer couldnt answer the question. It is not looking too good for the Trump administration,  but we will see.

 

[Reagan]

Just now, Big girl said:

Are unqualified white people ever hired?

I'm sure there are.  But it's never sanctioned by the government like DEI was.  

[Reagan]

1 minute ago, Big girl said:

 

Do you agree that the 14th is a direct correlation to 13th?  

[baddog]

18 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Are unqualified white people ever hired?

All the time. It’s why there used to be a hiring process called an interview. I’ve worn suit and tie to several interviews. When one is hired for gender or race, the quality is watered down, to be nice about it. That was not a very intelligent question.

[UT alum]

3 hours ago, Big girl said:

It is sad that you believe that all black women are DEI hires. Smh

It ain’t sad, it’s pitiful.

[Reagan]

18 minutes ago, UT alum said:

It ain’t sad, it’s pitiful.

 

18 minutes ago, UT alum said:

It ain’t sad, it’s pitiful.

My response:  No, not all.  But it's not hard to figure when they are!

[OlDawg]

What I thought was interesting were the basic arguments. Both advocates were arguing for original intent. They just disagreed on said intent. The real change was the implication. I found the typical sides somewhat reversed.

The ACLU typically argues form a 'living Constitution' framework. They believe the interpretation should change with the times. Except, not in this case. In this case, Wong specifically stated that even if Congress voted 435-0 to modify citizenship, they shouldn't be allowed to because of her interpretation of the 14th. This is typically an originalist/textualist argument.

The Solicitor General was arguing that times had changed, and the original intent was misinterpreted in earlier cases. So, he was basically arguing that the current times and events showed that the Framers of the 14th wouldn't have meant how it was being applied in the current interpretation. He was using current events to justify meaning, along with historical text and rulings.

I just thought it struck me as almost a reversal of argument roles.

I'm also surprised Sauer didn't hammer home the point that 'allegiance' also requires agreement from the people of the U.S. more than he did. It's not just a one-way street where the immigrant says they want to be here. The people of the U.S.--via immigration laws--have to say they're willing to accept their allegiance. Until immigration law changes by the People's will through their Representatives, illegal immigrants are just that--illegal, and not supposed to be here. Thus, their children shouldn't be here. If they want to come to the U.S. through legal channels, the People typically welcome with open arms.

[OlDawg]

I thought both sides argued their cases pretty well. I didn’t agree with some of Wong’s assertions about ‘no foreign national’s children ever being citizens’ because she totally disregarded legal domicile, and WKA relied on domicile. But, domicile seemed to be a question among some of the Justices also.

I wonder if SCOTUS tries to find a way to rule that an EO can’t address this question of citizenship without directly addressing constitutionality.

Basically, they rule the EO unconstitutional, but don’t really totally close the quandary of the meaning of the 14th. They kind of punt, and hope it goes away for a while.

I could see there being multiple decisions using different rationale on this one instead of just a majority and dissenting using similar stances.

[baddog]

The perpetrators were supposedly “birthright citizens” but one fled to China. I’m sure the dems will protect them somehow..

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[TheMissingBand]

Barron and Marco Rubio should be the first to go. Barron was an anchor baby for Melania, and neither of Marco’s parents were citizens when he was born. 
 

Why not repeal the 13th Amendment, too, while MAGA is at it?  So much racism. 

[TheMissingBand]

39 minutes ago, baddog said:

The perpetrators were supposedly “birthright citizens” but one fled to China. I’m sure the dems will protect them somehow..

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I’m sure Trump will proclaim rhis as another failed assignation attempt and blame the democrats. 

[thetragichippy]

15 hours ago, UT alum said:

It ain’t sad, it’s pitiful.

Maybe you can show me based on what Reagan posted that he said "all black women are DEI hires"

Based on what I have read from Reagan on this forum, that is an outright lie. 

Did the 9th commandment get taken out?

[thetragichippy]

24 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

Barron and Marco Rubio should be the first to go. Barron was an anchor baby for Melania, and neither of Marco’s parents were citizens when he was born. 
 

Why not repeal the 13th Amendment, too, while MAGA is at it?  So much racism. 

You REALLY need to get back to letting AI type your messages..... You're not very good at it

Barron is not an anchor baby, as his Dad is and has been a US Citizenn.

Rubio's parents came in the RIGHT way and became US citizens. They were here legally in the US when Marco was born. 

 

[Reagan]

9 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

You REALLY need to get back to letting AI type your messages..... You're not very good at it

Barron is not an anchor baby, as his Dad is and has been a US Citizenn.

Rubio's parents came in the RIGHT way and became US citizens. They were here legally in the US when Marco was born. 

 

I think we confuse CB with the facts!

[Reagan]

 

Not sure how birthright citizenship in it's present form is pro America!

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

Maybe you can show me based on what Reagan posted that he said "all black women are DEI hires"

Based on what I have read from Reagan on this forum, that is an outright lie. 

Did the 9th commandment get taken out?

Looks pretty ambiguous to me.

[baddog]