Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

Maternity tourism is very common.

But you go for it. Propose a new amendment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 hours ago — Judge blocks Trump’s “blatantly unconstitutional” executive order that aims to end birthright citizenship.

Not unexpected.

Trump wants this to go to the Supreme Court.

+1. I also think he doesn’t care if he succeeds or not. Either way he can say he fulfilled his promise and the rest was out of his hands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 hours ago — Judge blocks Trump’s “blatantly unconstitutional” executive order that aims to end birthright citizenship.

Not unexpected.

Trump wants this to go to the Supreme Court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 hours ago — Judge blocks Trump’s “blatantly unconstitutional” executive order that aims to end birthright citizenship.

Not unexpected.

Trump wants this to go to the Supreme Court.

Anonymous wrote:When virtually every other sane first world country doesn't have it? For starters, Spain, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France, Greece, Australia, Japan, Singapore, China, Colombia, nor the Czech Republic and any of the many other countries liberals say they're going to move to do not have birth right citizenship. What Trump is proposing isn't extreme at all, so why is there resistance to enacting common sense reform? It's also funny too, because as these elections showed, many coming over the border who eventually establish themselves aren't even Democratic voters either, so the Dems may actually seriously want to rethink they're immigration and citizenship policies before they blindly stand up for making it extremely easy for letting in millions of super catholic people who are now showing to be socially conservative and supporters of traditional family values. There was a time when the 14th amendment served a purpose, but it is the year 2024. Birthright citizenship is now much more of a security liability than anything. Why shouldn't we end it when most of the countries liberals espouse and hold up as role models don't even have it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least this got shut down quickly. I wonder if SCOTUS will stick to over 100 years of precedent or just toss that too.

Judge Enjoins EO Regarding Birthright Citizenship.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-23/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-birthright-citizenship-order?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-businessweek&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=businessweek

"I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," said Judge Coughenour

Did this judge consult with our resident expert here who recently discovered the words 'under the jurisdiction thereof'?

Pretend lawyer here. The wording is “subject to” — your attempt at sarcasm would be funnier if you got the wording right. Anyway, to find the EO constitutional, I think it will require overturning SCOTUS precedent. Obviously this cannot be done at this judge’s level. I am curious to see the ultimate outcome, as I’m sure it’ll get up to SCOTUS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When virtually every other sane first world country doesn't have it? For starters, Spain, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France, Greece, Australia, Japan, Singapore, China, Colombia, nor the Czech Republic and any of the many other countries liberals say they're going to move to do not have birth right citizenship. What Trump is proposing isn't extreme at all, so why is there resistance to enacting common sense reform? It's also funny too, because as these elections showed, many coming over the border who eventually establish themselves aren't even Democratic voters either, so the Dems may actually seriously want to rethink they're immigration and citizenship policies before they blindly stand up for making it extremely easy for letting in millions of super catholic people who are now showing to be socially conservative and supporters of traditional family values. There was a time when the 14th amendment served a purpose, but it is the year 2024. Birthright citizenship is now much more of a security liability than anything. Why shouldn't we end it when most of the countries liberals espouse and hold up as role models don't even have it?

I suggest that the real motive here is to reduce the percentage of residents that are not "white". In a prior century, the focus would be on Irish and Italian immigrants. The fact is that most of these non-"white" residents are far more American that the earlier Irish and Italian immigrants.

Anonymous wrote:2 hours ago — Judge blocks Trump’s “blatantly unconstitutional” executive order that aims to end birthright citizenship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least this got shut down quickly. I wonder if SCOTUS will stick to over 100 years of precedent or just toss that too.

Judge Enjoins EO Regarding Birthright Citizenship.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-23/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-birthright-citizenship-order?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-businessweek&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=businessweek

"I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," said Judge Coughenour

Did this judge consult with our resident expert here who recently discovered the words 'under the jurisdiction thereof'?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

Maternity tourism is very common.

But you go for it. Propose a new amendment.

Your so-called birth tourism is already illegal. No need to scrap an entire amendment for what 25-30,000 people who attempt it?

It isn't illegal.

DHS is free to turn anyone around who shows up heavily pregnant. And I have seen them do it.

The majority of offenders tend to be very wealthy oligarch types who own property here and show up when they are not visibly pregnant.

DHS is free to turn around anyone, pregnant or not.

Flying into the US to give birth is not, in and of itself, illegal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

Maternity tourism is very common.

But you go for it. Propose a new amendment.

Your so-called birth tourism is already illegal. No need to scrap an entire amendment for what 25-30,000 people who attempt it?

It isn't illegal.

DHS is free to turn anyone around who shows up heavily pregnant. And I have seen them do it.

The majority of offenders tend to be very wealthy oligarch types who own property here and show up when they are not visibly pregnant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where you can jump on a plane and land in the US, and have a baby a week later, and jump on a plane home, this just doesn't work. It has to be overhauled somehow.

In a world where you can kill a 100 people in a minute or so, this just doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be overhauled.

(Also my scenario actually happens yours never has)

Maternity tourism is very common.

But you go for it. Propose a new amendment.

Your so-called birth tourism is already illegal. No need to scrap an entire amendment for what 25-30,000 people who attempt it?

It isn't illegal.