Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
A constitutional republic, by definition, is not changed through democracy.
You don't consider a vote from 2/3s of the officials voted into federal power by the citizens and a vote by 3/4s of the officials voted into state power by the citizens a democratic process?
I prefer that you go back to humoring my bullshit unless you can point to the data on the net negative effects on the country of birthright citizenship over the last 30-40 years.
Takes too many people on the same page to do that.
Smarter Supreme court justices could reverse this decision, and that's probably the only way it happens.
Had the 14th amendment been worded more precisely as to what it covered, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. I believe this was written about freed slaves, and not anyone with ovaries and sperm.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
I'm old enough to remember when people were against activist judges and legislating from the bench.
So do we all think that a President of the United States should be able to undo a Constitutional Amendment like 14 with an Executive Order?
What if a future President of the United States tried to undo the 2nd Amendment with an Executive Order?
Never ever ever ever should Any President have that power.
Never, never ever. Checks and balances are good. Three distinctly separate, yet equally important arms of government.
The system ain’t broke, it’s just been exploited.
They have. If you can't see the impact, you are part of the problem.
Me too, and it looks like we just saw it happen again.
By upholding precedent?
Lol
Clearly we interpret the 14th differently, I don't think we had a cottage industry housing pregnant women from adversarial countries back when it was written.
When the 14th Amendment was adopted 150 years ago it did not make native American Indians citizens. How can we say now that it was intended to cover everyone that is born here when it did not at that time? The Supreme Court botched this one.
Check out Poland, they’re doing things the right way
Nor did we have the internet for the first, or Dillon Aero mini guns for the second.
Unfortunately, the broad sword cuts both ways.
The court did what it was designed to do. If we don’t like that outcome? We redress our Representatives, as Republican government is promised us, to amend the law. Does it have that kind of support? Taxation without Representation?
I’ve entered the, “when the government no longer suits the needs of the people” camp. My apologies I’ll go crawl back in my hole………
I think we aren't too far apart on what we would like the amendment to say, the same mechanism that led to that amendment is still in play today to change it.
The obvious lesson here is that the 14th amendment was written to solve a problem that existed at the time. The south could have chosen to deal with slavery in a constitutional way and the outcome today would have probably been better than starting a civil war and suffering the fallout from it 150 years in the future. Something to think about when calibrating the trajectory of the next actions on this front.
The Court would have to redefine the 14th Amendment as, what? Who gets included? Who gets excluded? Would any change be retroactive? Fine-tuning may be needed, but this wasn’t the way to do it.
It has, and is.
You just don't notice it because you live in a 3rd world country. You know, the one with the "6th biggest economy in the world"?
A population educated by TV sets, who don't get out and see other places -- especially 3rd world shitholes -- have NO idea where this is going.
I spent 25 years cumulatively in shitholes ranging from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe..... via Angola, China, Congo, Russia, Somalia... and 17 in Kaliforniya, from 1985 ....the good old days.
Most 'Merkins are in for one helluva rude awakening. You have 10 years...... maybe.
Ask the French and Germans what life was like in 2015....and now.
Pit Row
Correct…..It was written for the slaves.
I know you guys want to believe what you want to believe, but don't you think that 4 years after the death of almost a million men in an effort to free the slaves and reconstitute the United States they wrote the citizenship clause to be maximally inclusive on purpose?
I mean, they just welcomed back the the citizenry millions of people that seceded and started a war in the very same country. Mexicans and birth tourists are a drop in the bucket compared to that.
(I do think that there should be major efforts and change of laws to curb illegal entry for any reason and birth tourism but I think putting qualifiers on citizenship is not a great road to go down at this point)
Well, Lumpy, are you arguing that only rich people can come here and do it the right way, like it's too onerous? Because that is flat out false.
Some of the fiercest opponents to illegal immigration I know are people that came here the legal way. My friend Eduardo came here with his Dad as a teen, his Dad went back to Venezuela and Eddie got a job at KFC and spent thousands of dollars, despite having nothing, to do it the right way. You think he enjoys seeing freeloaders roll in and get it all for free? Now, decades later, he still works at KFC as a manager and raised two kids.
My friend DIpka is a successful journalist in DC who was raised by an Indian guy who worked at 7-11 to give her the opportunities she now enjoys and guess what, they were dirt poor and did it the right way. She despises illegal immigration and is a staunch Republican.
And the same idiotic political party that argues that people that have been here for generations and generations and came here legally are on stolen land, while some asshole that wanders across the border and has a kid is entitled to the full benefits of being an American, even more so in CA where they get a bunch of FREE shit like healthcare. This is the state that fines regular citizens if they don't fork over money for health insurance and gives it to the illegals. It's insanity.
I had people I knew from South American that pressured me hard to marry their daughters for $3000 to get citizenship and scam the system. Glad I turned them down.
Here’s the ChatGPT ‘analysis’:
—————————————
The historical record is more nuanced than the claim often made today.
Yes, there is overwhelming evidence that the primary motivation for the 14th Amendment was to guarantee citizenship and civil rights to formerly enslaved people after the abolition of slavery and to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford. That point is not seriously disputed.
No, there is not strong evidence that Congress intended the Citizenship Clause to apply only to freed slaves. In fact, much of the congressional debate points the other direction.
Some examples:
“every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction…”
He then listed exceptions:
Why the confusion?
There are really two different questions that often get blended together:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
Where does the modern disagreement come from?
Some originalist scholars argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant complete political allegiance, not merely being subject to U.S. laws. Under that interpretation, children of temporary visitors or people unlawfully present would not qualify. Organizations like The Heritage Foundation have advanced versions of this argument.
Most constitutional historians—and until very recently, nearly every federal court—have concluded that the historical record and the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark support a broader interpretation of birthright citizenship. That remains the prevailing interpretation after the Supreme Court’s recent reaffirmation.
So if someone claims:
“The 14th Amendment was intended only for freed slaves.”
the historical evidence doesn’t really support that absolute statement. A more historically accurate statement would be:
“The 14th Amendment was adopted primarily because of the need to protect freed slaves, but Congress wrote the Citizenship Clause in broader language and rejected attempts to limit it only to former slaves.”
That distinction is supported by both the text of the amendment and the congressional debates.
The constitution has been amended 27 times, if it takes too many people on the same page to amend it again, it shouldn't be changed.
Maybe you could use GBT to compile a list of other nations that allow birthright citizenship, and birthright tourism. 🤔
Or... any other nation where anyone would want to.
GBT is nothing more than a biased, argumentative info source, fed by its programmer's.
^^^
...found a summary of aplman's copy-paste GPT crapola posted above...
The native American tribes are considered to be sovereign nations, and their tribal members were considered to have a primary allegiance to their tribes. That was the justification for excluding them from automatic citizenship. Based on that reasoning, a person who enters the US to give birth, or is not legally present in the US would not have a primary allegiance to the US, but instead to their country of origin. Based on that precedent, the Supreme Court got it wrong this time
Ding ding ding. A lot of people of the left, including the supreme court justices, have deemed "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as redundant and meaningless.
Why would lawmakers include this language at all if they wanted to grant mass citizenship to foreign nationals? It's a terrible interpretation; low IQ reasoning and rooted in leftist activism.
In the amendment, the person subject to the jurisdiction is the newborn baby, this differentiates out Indians and those with diplomatic immunity it has nothing to do with parents allegiance to other countries. The word citizen appears in the amendment 2 times. If they had intended for citizenship to be transferred by citizen bloodline they would have written it in there. It passed 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures with this wording.
Let’s not forget that part of the SC’s decision addressed Trump’s executive order. Allowing a president to modify amendments by executive order would create a massive rift in check & balances and concentrate power under a single branch.
Post a reply to: If you are born here you are ….