Another Trump loss at the Court where they struck down his executive order ending birthright citizenship. Not unexpected but still infuriating. 6-3 opinion with Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett joining the libs.

Our enemies are laughing at us as we hand them the means to destroy us.
Link

Well fuck

That’s a tough one to swallow. Looks like the Chinese tourist birth organizations can continue operating. They are huge here in Irvine. Color me mad.

Not the first time that SCOTUS got something wrong, and those “wrong” decisions usually lead to violence in the end. “Birthright tourism” will now really take off, along with “Turd World” invasions.

Prepare for the inflation that wiil come the next time a woke president lets millions more illegals in and their anchor babies prevent deportation. Competition for limited resources combined with runaway national debt…..

A very big mistake by SCOTUS. They totally misinterpreted the 14th, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

The interpretation of Ark is incorrect. The parents were not eligible to become citizens, but they were in the country legally. The issue of illegal residence was not part of the argument. Grey would later say if the issue of illegal immigration were before the court the ruling would have been the opposite.

Justice Kavanaugh provided the sixth vote against the order while explicitly rejecting the majority's constitutional theory, arguing the EO fails only because it conflicts with a 1940s immigration statute - leaving the door open for Congress, not the Constitution, to revisit the question.

If you want strict constructionists (which I believe we do) then this one is pretty hard to argue.

The only cover I possibly give the supremes is that they would like Congress to change the rules, not legislate from the bench.

I know the left is happy any way they can do things, court included. I at times look what other countries do. I think even recently the Dominican Republic got rid of birthright citizenship. Too many Haitians were taking advantage of it.

https://cis.org/Luna/Birthrigh...enship-Two-Countries

This one wasn't flimsy but, I thought more security and checks could've been applied rather than relying on a ruling. DHS and ICE are going to need more funding to screen and weed-out the opportunistic anchor births at all points of entry; EO's can only do so much, GOP needs to start passing appropriate laws to provide better guidance to DHS. We know the other side is gleefully encouraging an onslaught of pregnancy tourism, such adverts and advocacy need to be curtailed.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
A very big mistake by SCOTUS. They totally misinterpreted the 14th, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

The interpretation of Ark is incorrect.

I didn't follow the arguments. Was the Ark precedent cited in the arguments for birthright? If so, somebodies weren't prepared to effectively argue that Ark didn't apply.

With this decision, using a federal law to stop birthright citizenship is a non-starter. What a clusterfuck.

https://www.factcheck.org/2026...about-birth-tourism/



‘Birth Tourism’, it’s a thing.

quote:

I didn't follow the arguments. Was the Ark precedent cited in the arguments for birthright? If so, somebodies weren't prepared to effectively argue that Ark didn't apply.

During oral arguments held April 1, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the order - emphasizing historical sources, the role of "domicile" in Wong Kim Ark, and contemporary policy concerns. Plaintiffs' counsel Cecillia Wang urged the Court to reaffirm Wong Kim Ark as establishing a fixed, bright-line rule rooted in text, history, and longstanding practice.

Questioning from the justices spanned the ideological spectrum and focused heavily on Wong Kim Ark, the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and whether the government's proposed limitations could be squared with precedent and the amendment's text. Observers noted significant skepticism toward the administration's position, with several justices highlighting the breadth of the 1898 ruling and questioning efforts to distinguish it or limit its application based on parental status.

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...ht-citizenship-curbs

I listened to Sauer's oral argument. It was a masterclass in preparedness for battle and total understanding of the caselaw, their nuances and argument for his position. I found exactly the opposite from the other attorney it was remarkable contrast.

I hope Sauer doesn't consider this a personal loss he was exceedingly good.

I swear John Roberts is the worst decision of George Bushes Presidency, even worse than the WMD fiasco.

quote:

Originally posted by hooch:
I swear John Roberts is the worst decision of George Bushes Presidency, even worse than the WMD fiasco.

Sure was a bad decision for me and you. I believe GWB knew exactly what he was getting.

GWB is a member of the DC club, he wasn't that much of a friend of conservatism and those values.

None of the R's from that era are and congress is full of them, it's why we can't get everything important done...

This will take time IE voters taking the trash out and replacing them with enough representatives to move the needle.

BTW IYKYK LOL

https://x.com/GizmoMemes/status/2071972029344178539

I hate to say it but has there ever been a rock solid conservative female judge? If it involves kids they have a tough time putting emotion aside.

Ok so we just don’t let the pregnant fuckers into the country.

No one says we need to let them in. If they’re pregnant stay home.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
Ok so we just don’t let the pregnant fuckers into the country.

No one says we need to let them in. If they’re pregnant stay home.

While I won’t go so far as to say that SCOTUS got it wrong, I will say I’m not happy with decision. Having said that, I do believe we need to have some sort of pregnancy screening for those coming into the country. I’m not suggesting we make women pee on a stick but we can at least ask. If a woman is pregnant then they should not be allowed to enter the country. Birth tourism is a real problem and must be stopped. This would at least be a stop gap measure until some permanent clarifying legislation could be enacted.