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.
There is a difference between impact and repercussions. The first half dozen or so posts in this thread predicted mayhem because of this ruling.
Some people just need someone or something to blame for whatever malady they’re suffering. Birthright citizenship seems good a reason as any.
So far I have not seen any data that points to birthright citizenship as having had a net negative impact in this country. However, I do think the amendment should be modified to exclude "anchor babies" but I don't want any president having the power to do it. The SCOTUS just re affirmed that. In fact, when it comes to amending the constitution, the president has nothing to do with it.
Thanks for the correction, so 15% of countries have it. I'm sure they all have open borders and almost 10% of their population as illegal migrants as well.
I guess the real question, which many supporters seem to avoid, is why do you think we should offer this particular incentive to illegal immigrants and foreign nationals?
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Free shipping: VITALMX
The question isn’t whether we should or shouldn’t “offer this particular incentive to illegal immigrants”. The question is whether or not the Constitution grants people born here citizenship. It’s clear that it does if you aren’t starting out from a position that you simply don’t like it.
As I’ve said before, I would support a Constitutional Amendment to clearly exclude people born here whose parents (at least one of them) aren’t at the very least permanent residents. But based on the wording of the Constitution today, the justices seemed to get it right.
I think that the wording of the 14th Amendment is actually clearer than the wording of the 2nd Amendment’s reference to “a well regulated militia….”. And I’m a 2A supporter.
I believe this to be an exaggeration to the highest degree. Has something like this happened? Probably more than once but not regularly. If you think it does, then you Sir are clueless.
Were the children of Native Americans born on US soil granted citizenship automatically? I can't find a concrete answer one way or another. If they were, the Supreme Court got it right according to law and precedent. If not, they got it wrong.
That said, I'm not unhappy they struck down that executive order. I don't believe any president or even Congress should be able to modify the Constitution.
Where change can be made is Congress can codify the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in law. That would serve to limit the scope of who is eligible for birthright citizenship.
I did pose a question based in opinion, knowing this has already been ruled on by the supreme Court.
I'll assume you're diligently voting to flip your district red for the 2/3 vote on that constitutional amendment. Unless you think the Democrats plan to do it.
There’s nothing to vote on right now, so no, I’m not diligently voting to turn any district any color right now.
Because we support and defend the Constitution as it was written, not as we wish it was written.
As far as I can tell it came down to being a member of a tribe and being subject to the jurisdiction of tribal treaties with the US government regardless of where they were born. In practice, there were likely natives that left the tribe and were integrated into society and had offspring that were citizens covered by the 14th amendment.
The thing about codifying what "jurisdiction thereof" is that the right wing angles on this issues want you to believe that that is a question for the parents but it only applies to the newborns legal status.
I'm sure you are a pure constitutionalist.
You might also be confused about what I "wish was written" as I'm not the one that suggested re-writing the Constitution.
Early 20's? It got harder in 1924 because of concerns that stemmed from ww1. There was no more "just show up and you're in" type of immigration and they started capping the number that could enter. You either had to either be kinda lucky, persistent, or rich. The 50's were about the same as post-1924 and it's all way more difficult today. It was fun learning little tidbits about the process when looking into our family history. Even some minor variances on the census data throughout the decades was interesting. And it's crazy how many errors there are on vital records. My great grandfather's birth record is basically a blank placeholder for something they never completed. It just says "baby boy (last name)" and nothing else lol.
Who's trying to re-write the constitution?
The Constitutional amendment suggested above by APLMAN would be a way of rewriting the Constitution. I simply said the interpretation made by the courts is bad, and then pointed out the ways it's being exploited.
It's silly to celebrate and defend this decision as some sort of legal or constitutional victory while having to ignore the cost it has on the country.
There's nothing wrong with amending the constitution if you do it through the proper channels that have always been used.
I still haven't seen a coherent argument in this thread for why the supreme court decision and interpretation is wrong. Pointing out the negative affects of the law does not count as arguing that the case was decided incorrectly. I posted the text of the amendment, it's very simple and straight forward.
Because white there's always been migration, It's been pedal to the metal for about the last 15 years.
There's no binary right or wrong that can be proven because the text is not specific enough. It's a majority interpretation between nine justices as I'm sure you know. Three of those justices wrote coherent dissenting opinions that are out there to read.
Pit Row
Sure I could read what the egg head elites want you to think, but I think it's more interesting to pick the brain of the common man.
The text is only not specific enough if you don't want it to be specific enough, that's why it's been the way it is for a long long time.
I'm very surprised they didn't overturn it. The issues surrounding what should happen to slaves after the civil war, which is very specifically and narrowly why the 14th exists, are no longer relevant. There would be no harm leaving the 14th in place for future slaves once bezos/gates/zuck/elon/theil privatize the government for profit, but I don't see how the 14th would have been violated if the court ruled that it didn't apply to people that travel here to have babies and gain citizenship by bypassing the naturalization process.
From APLMAN99's post:
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.
I haven't read the original transcripts, so I don't know if they were specifically trying to cover the usage we see today, but I highly doubt it. And when you look at the various immigration acts going back to the 1890's, the restrictions they began enacting would fly in the face of such ridiculously low and meritless criteria like "coitus" as being a citizenship qualifier.
It already has.... 2.44 million born to non-US Citizens in the last 10 years. Lookup how the Chinese (for example, there are others) are using this law to their advantage.
Way easier said than done.... Have you seen our congress in action (or better, inaction)? Those do-nothing dim-wits can't agree that the sky is blue, let alone change a constitutional amendment.
A deadlocked government is the best we can hope for. We don't need any more narcissists out there thinking, "I'LL FIX IT!!".
First, so what? Can you show me the data on how these 2.4 million have been a net negative for our country. Second would you prefer that the president be able to change the constitution at will?
People just don’t seem to realize there has never been a “Trustworthy Government”, in the history of governments.
That's for damn sure. They will gladly take all the power you give them and a bunch you don't give them.
Funny its not the 1st time or the last and sadly its a normality especially when they can not afford to keep paying lawyers to sit on their asses collecting that $$$$$$$ year after year after year and the whole process takes 10x longer than it should.
Other voters disagree with you, otherwise why would they keep getting voted back in?
Post a reply to: If you are born here you are ….