For the love of god, have you read the petioner's brief in the birthright citizenship

2,533 Views | 58 Replies | Last: 9 days ago by Aunburdened
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 8:55p, 4/2/26
DiabloWags said:
wifeisafurd said:

Sounds like this goes 7 to 2 or 8 to 1 against the Administration from today's argument.

I'm still going with 9 - 0.
I guess Native Americans are the only U.S. citizens.

Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren said she's a Native American.
Reply Quote
3
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:37p, 4/2/26

This is a conservative number, the actual numbers are much higher per the Center for Immigration Studies.
Reply Quote
2
HawaiiBear33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:10p, 4/2/26
Does nobody see a catastrophic problem with birth tourism?

Estimated 1-1.5 million Chinese babies born in the US already and being indoctrinated in mother China.

If you could introduce a bill to only stop this loophole without changing anything else would you? Or do you really think everything is just swell the way it is?

Congress is a **** show because the lump everything together. They should do clear and simple changes and vote per the actual will of their constituents.

You're too busy looking through your lawyer glasses and ignoring a true hostile threat.
Reply Quote
3
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to socaltownie • 11:17p, 4/2/26
socaltownie said:
wifeisafurd said:
DiabloWags said:
tequila4kapp said:
Can you post a link to the brief?


20260226190357248_No. 25-365_Amicus Brief.pdf

Microsoft Word - Birthright Citizenship Stay Amicus Brief FINAL FOR FILING

This is an amicus brief by a bunch of academics that no one will pay attention to.

I suspect SoCal could provide a link if he really read the brief, which it is pretty obvious he didn't do. The OP questions his credilbity.

The DOJ's brief is basically an historical discussion about what the 14th amendment supposedly did.Trump's EO breaks with well over a century of legal precedence in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898). Basically the DOJ brief says Wong Kim Ark is wrongfully decided because the 14 amendment's language was to only to help insure slaves (who were not technically citizens) enjoy citizenship rights. The problem with that, as was pointed out by various Justices, is Congress had that same understanding of the Citizenship Clause in 1940 as the Wong Kim Ark Court, when it enacted in what is now 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), and when it re-enacted that provision in 1952. Therefore such "birthright" citizenship is established as a matter of statute, regardless of how a President today might read the Fourteenth Amendmentand. Executive Branch officials may not act in contravention of existing statute.

Sounds like this goes 7 to 2 or 8 to 1 against the Administration from today's argument.

Magahat - I just hate doing your resarch for you which requires me to log onto a lap top to easily cut and paste.

But here you go

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392236/20260120203524283_25-365BarbaraGovtBr.pdf

Yes, I actually read the brief.

Not even a first year law student in their first week of school could read the brief and come to the conclusion:

"It is terrifying. When you dive into it (seriously (sic) you magaheads, give it a read) you see that what they are arguing is that the President has the sole power to determine 'And under the jurisdiction' clause."

Did you figure you could just make this stuff up and no one read the brief?
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
socaltownie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 11:27a, 4/3/26
wifeisafurd said:
socaltownie said:
wifeisafurd said:
DiabloWags said:
tequila4kapp said:
Can you post a link to the brief?


20260226190357248_No. 25-365_Amicus Brief.pdf

Microsoft Word - Birthright Citizenship Stay Amicus Brief FINAL FOR FILING

This is an amicus brief by a bunch of academics that no one will pay attention to.

I suspect SoCal could provide a link if he really read the brief, which it is pretty obvious he didn't do. The OP questions his credilbity.

The DOJ's brief is basically an historical discussion about what the 14th amendment supposedly did.Trump's EO breaks with well over a century of legal precedence in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898). Basically the DOJ brief says Wong Kim Ark is wrongfully decided because the 14 amendment's language was to only to help insure slaves (who were not technically citizens) enjoy citizenship rights. The problem with that, as was pointed out by various Justices, is Congress had that same understanding of the Citizenship Clause in 1940 as the Wong Kim Ark Court, when it enacted in what is now 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), and when it re-enacted that provision in 1952. Therefore such "birthright" citizenship is established as a matter of statute, regardless of how a President today might read the Fourteenth Amendmentand. Executive Branch officials may not act in contravention of existing statute.

Sounds like this goes 7 to 2 or 8 to 1 against the Administration from today's argument.

Magahat - I just hate doing your resarch for you which requires me to log onto a lap top to easily cut and paste.

But here you go

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392236/20260120203524283_25-365BarbaraGovtBr.pdf

Yes, I actually read the brief.

Not even a first year law student in their first week of school could read the brief and come to the conclusion:

"It is terrifying. When you dive into it (seriously (sic) you magaheads, give it a read) you see that what they are arguing is that the President has the sole power to determine 'And under the jurisdiction' clause."

Did you figure you could just make this stuff up and no one read the brief?

Page 14 of the petitioner's

:In the context of the Citizenship Clause, "jurisdiction" refers to "political jurisdiction," a concept that turns on whether a person owes sufficient allegiance to and may claim protection from the United States. Elk, 112 U.S. at 102. "

And pg. 29

" By definition, illegal aliens are in the United States in defiance of U.S. law. That defiance is inconsistent with establishing the requisite allegiance i.e., "natural, lawful, and faithful obedience" to the United States.

So at least in this part of the argument the petitioners are looking to the question of "allegiance" as the core question. As above, who is the decider of that - at a time when the executive has been throwing around charges of "treason and threatening to strip US citizenship from, among others Rosie ODonnel and George Clooney.

Now the petition goes on to then try (fairly tortured,. IMHO) to link thinks back to the concept of domicile because they do not want to take on But as point out at oral arguments, domicile could (but does not) appear in the 14th amendment. As I believe CR Roberts noted, the question of domicile because they are not asking the court to overturn WKA. But then that requires them to asert some standard of domicile that is also not in the statutes on immigration. It because, I guess, akin to a Duck. But the problem is that while you and I might agree that it quacks and walks like one the President has aserted he is the sole decider and could, in theory, look to start trying to stirip you of citizenship and then force you (see Barret's questioning) to esablish "allegiance" and prove "domicility". Be fun while sitting in Alligator alley while you wait extradition as a stateless person.
Take care of your Chicken
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:53p, 4/3/26
Reply Quote
3
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:56p, 4/3/26

Yikes!
Reply Quote
3
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:24p, 4/3/26
Reply Quote
4
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 3:40p, 4/3/26
Rubio's parents were in the process of becoming U.S. citizens as they entered the country legally unlike others who are trying to game the system and produce anchor babies.

The Democrats need illegals to win elections.
Reply Quote
4
HawaiiBear33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:45p, 4/3/26


You want China to pass us by as world leader?
This multibillion dollar transplant industry is real.

Or just microanalyze lawyer points…
Reply Quote
2
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PAC-10-BEAR • 4:50p, 4/3/26
PAC-10-BEAR said:
Rubio's parents were in the process of becoming U.S. citizens as they entered the country legally unlike others who are trying to game the system and produce anchor babies.

The Democrats need illegals to win elections.


Bingo.
Reply Quote
5
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PAC-10-BEAR • 6:10p, 4/3/26
PAC-10-BEAR said:
Rubio's parents were in the process of becoming U.S. citizens as they entered the country legally unlike others who are trying to game the system and produce anchor babies.

The Democrats need illegals to win elections.


Imagine if Ilhan Omar had those kinds of family situations...



"As a teen, Marco Rubio lived with his brother-in-law in the same house where his family member was storing and chopping down kilos of cocaine in a spare bedroom.

In 1989, the boss of Rubio's brother-in-law, Mario Tabraue, was sentenced to 100 years in jail on drug trafficking and racketeering charges. After his organization murdered a federal agent, witnesses testified that Tabraue tried to hack his corpse apart with a machete, then had his goons disembowel the body using a circular saw.

Tabraue's father, Guillermo, was among those captured by Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion. Though prosecutors insisted he was running the drug ring alongside his son, the charges against Guillermo were dropped after a witness testified that he was a CIA informant.

Tabraue's 100 year sentence was later reduced to just 12 years thanks to his "cooperation," as well."

And let's not even get into Marco's predilections for foam parties.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 6:29p, 4/3/26
Imagine if Omar wasn't a US hater and Somalian proxy
Reply Quote
5
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 7:31p, 4/3/26
Cal88 said:
PAC-10-BEAR said:
Rubio's parents were in the process of becoming U.S. citizens as they entered the country legally unlike others who are trying to game the system and produce anchor babies.

The Democrats need illegals to win elections.

Imagine if Ilhan Omar had those kinds of family situations...

"As a teen, Marco Rubio lived with his brother-in-law in the same house where his family member was storing and chopping down kilos of cocaine in a spare bedroom.

From humble and non-ideal beginnings to Secretary of State. What a story!

Did Rubio marry his brother-in-law?
Reply Quote
4
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:44p, 4/3/26
Here is how one impartial source viewed the case:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/04/what-oral-argument-told-us-in-the-birthright-citizenship-case/
Reply Quote
1
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:08a, 4/4/26
Reply Quote
3
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:22a, 4/4/26

Sauer: "the world has changed". He claimed that in the modern era, "8 billion people are one plane ride away"

Justice Roberts: "Well, its a new world. It's the same Constitution."

Sauer: "It is."




Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Aunburdened
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:33p, 4/4/26
The 14th Amendment addressed a very real problem with slavery and recently freed slaves due to the 13th Amendment. It was a very good amendment that addressed a very real problem that we brought over a race of people against their will to a country they didn't want to go to and enslaved them. Additionally, the United States at that time had more land than it knew what to do with, so it could very easily accommodate as many people as wanted to come here.

But the biggest thing is that there was no welfare state in the country at the time of those amendments, so the financial incentive to abuse birthright citizenship wasn't what it is now. You could come here for more freedom and economic opportunity than you had in the country you emigrated from, but there wasn't the economic incentives that there are now that are being clearly abused.

If we can pass one amendment to ban alcohol and another to reverse that ban when we realize it was a bad idea, we can certainly pass another amendment to refine how citizenship works in the country. The problem is that it's nearly impossible to pass a Constitutional amendment in a country where half the country is obsessed with Orange Man Bad and the other half seriously believe the other party wants communism.
Reply Quote
4
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aunburdened • 2:27p, 4/4/26
Aunburdened said:
The 14th Amendment addressed a very real problem with slavery and recently freed slaves due to the 13th Amendment. It was a very good amendment that addressed a very real problem that we brought over a race of people against their will to a country they didn't want to go to and enslaved them. Additionally, the United States at that time had more land than it knew what to do with, so it could very easily accommodate as many people as wanted to come here.

But the biggest thing is that there was no welfare state in the country at the time of those amendments, so the financial incentive to abuse birthright citizenship wasn't what it is now. You could come here for more freedom and economic opportunity than you had in the country you emigrated from, but there wasn't the economic incentives that there are now that are being clearly abused.

If we can pass one amendment to ban alcohol and another to reverse that ban when we realize it was a bad idea, we can certainly pass another amendment to refine how citizenship works in the country. The problem is that it's nearly impossible to pass a Constitutional amendment in a country where half the country is obsessed with Orange Man Bad and the other half seriously believe the other party wants communism.

Well said.


Democrats introduced a bill to amend in the 1990's but it got shut down by other Democrats.
Reply Quote
3
HawaiiBear33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:17a, 4/5/26


It's not new. 1-1.5 commies in China will be voting in unison to wreak havoc
Reply Quote
2
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HawaiiBear33 • 5:52a, 4/5/26
Choose kindness
Censorship has always been a tool of the fascist
Reply Quote
2
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HawaiiBear33 • 4:57p, 4/5/26
HawaiiBear33 said:


It's not new. 1-1.5 commies in China will be voting in unison to wreak havoc

Heh. He thinks teenagers are going to vote the way their parents tell them to do.
Reply Quote
2
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:51p, 4/5/26
What did the anchor fetus say to the birthing person prior to birth?

"I want to be an anchor-baby citizen. Choose kindness. Don't abort!"
Reply Quote
2
Aunburdened
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 12:18a, 4/6/26
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
HawaiiBear33 said:


It's not new. 1-1.5 commies in China will be voting in unison to wreak havoc

Heh. He thinks teenagers are going to vote the way their parents tell them to do.

Both my wife and daughter voted for Kamala. Fortunately, the rest of the country overruled them.
Reply Quote
2
Refresh
Page 2 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.