Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Lightbeamrider

Lightbeamrider

Well-known member
May 10, 2026
472
308
63
Think it was a 5 to 4 decision. Being born on our dirt means citizenship and, by extension, family, practically guaranteeing their offspring will be slaves. That means you, Amy Coney Barrett, ... screwing up the country more than it already is. The results may fall on your offspring
https://twitter.com/x/status/2072063475019341827
MarK Levin

We come back to the word "jurisdiction," where Roberts makes the same argument as those who've always supported birthright citizenship make -- that is, jurisdiction means physical jurisdiction. If a pregnant mother is in our country illegally and has her baby in our country, the baby is granted immediate citizenship according to this argument. As a practical matter, does that make sense? So, a foreigner can unilaterally confer jurisdiction on their soon-to-be born baby by coming into the United States illegally? Think about that as a matter of simple logic. Does that make sense? Moreover, the country from where the parent comes continues to treat that baby as a citizen of their country. And why are there exceptions for babies born of diplomats? Does the 14th amendment, if interpreted as Roberts insist, create exceptions of any kind? The language states: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. Notice, the authors did not leave it at "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," which would have been enough if the purpose was to confer citizenship to a baby born in the United States. So, why did they add superfluous language?

Because the rest of the sentence is KEY to what they intended and did. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means something more. It means subject to the political allegiance to our country. What does that mean? A fundamental duty of loyalty to our country (patriotism), part of the civil society, a legal bond and societal ties, in exchange for which you receive the legal rights and protections afforded all citizens.
 
Birthright citizenship is explicitly guaranteed to anyone born under the legal "jurisdiction" of the U.S.
federal government by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution (adopted July 9, 1868), which states:

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.

Were some hoping to overturn this?
 
As much as Donald would like to think he has the power to rewrite the Constitution, only Congress and the states can do that. He hasn't figured that out yet.
 
The real scary part is that six were against him.

You can cross the border illegally, have a baby who is now a citizen, and you're in.

May as well open the borders and let everyone in.

It will take a convention of states under article V to fix this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lightbeamrider
This decision is kinda messed up in a lot of ways.

Scalia and Barret voting against the clear intent of the Author of the ammendment because of the precise language of the ammendment. The others voting with them for political reasons....no other reason
The dissenters including Thomas and Alito being furious and claiming they are changing the shape if the country by doing so.
(He is not wrong)
Because the framers of the constitution had an intent when they wrote what they wrote. They tried to convey that meaning by writing briefly....and then in side notes and writings clarified themselves even further with all sorts of exposition...where brevity was no longer an issue.

However....
What Scalia and Barret did was apply a new standard. One made of whole cloth. Intent of the law drafters is now ignored for whatever it is determined that was written and modern language usage is now employed. ...
And this is scary.....
Because now anything can become anything.

The constitution had a home for centuries of predetermined meanings contained within language written 250 years ago.
Had
Used to
Once upon a time....
Our Constitution is now homeless and wandering around looking for a home.

The USA has existed 250 years with the exact same government.....
This is the first time in history that has ever happened. Longest running government.....
Became an institutionalized oddity in 1886.....(civil war era)

Gone now....
It's not the foreigners....or the birthright citizenship. It's the legal precedence of redefining intent or "spirit" of the law.
It's the very opposite of conservative justice and the precise definition of judicial activism.

Why?
Dunno....but anything can mean anything you want it to anymore.
 
Magenta said:
Birthright citizenship is explicitly guaranteed to anyone born under the legal "jurisdiction" of the U.S.
federal government by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution (adopted July 9, 1868), which states:

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.

Were some hoping to overturn this?
Click to expand...
It was never applied to native american infants born here, meaning if it did not apply to them back in the day, it does not apply to foreigners who drop babies here today.
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: pinebeach and Magenta
Yeah, back in 1868, from what little I know about those people. Yeah, nobody but a white had any life under the US law.

Keep in mind that the people who are alive today, had nothing to do with any of it.
And, they are not the same people.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: pinebeach
If I get a cup of dirt....
Place the wheels of a hospital bed on the dirt....
No matter where that hospital bed is......any babies born in that bed are now US Citizens....

Because dirt means citizenship now...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lightbeamrider
Clarence Thomas is admitting what we already knew: He's a political activist, not a judge; along with the other conservative justices. If my heart is breaking over anything, it's for our democracy.
 
What I find a bit humorous about this is first Donald tried to do this on his own by executive order instead of going through Congress. Now, only after the SC didn't give him what he wanted, he's talking about trying to get it done through legislation. If he would've just done that to begin with instead of trying to look like Mr. Big he might already have legislation on this.
 
imagine the billions of dollars taxpayers paid for pregnant women to enter the u.s.a. illegally a bare a baby! & to mention, we taxpayers pay for law enforcement, immigration processing, schooling, medical care & who knows what else. emergency housing & return flights are also paid by taxpayers. for your protection, if you can establish a network of influential contacts, executives, lawyers & such, with all that being proper, do so immediately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magenta
Imagine the billions of tax dollars going for ridiculous things like a ballroom, the money wasted on the reflecting pool because the Donald has no clue what he's doing, or a UFC fight for his birthday. At least if a pregnant woman has a child in the US, it will have a chance at a better life. I'd say that's a far better use of our tax dollars than some stupid vanity projects for the president.
 
Jude
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back