Birthright Citizenship

I think people need to truly understand and comprehend. . . .the brokenness is INTENTIONAL

You see this is how it works
You make **** so complicated and bothersome
that
you can then selectivity pick and choose who you want to skip the line

Selective Enforcement of all the "rules and laws" is how the Rich run this country
It's called a multitiered rule of laws - You are at your level . .they are at theirs

Rocket River

 

Today, this was said by our President:

"We also have a lot of bad people that have been here for a long time ... many of them were born in our country. I think we ought to get them the hell out of here too, if you want to know the truth. So maybe that'll be the next job."

He also said this about the concentration camp built in the Florida Everglades:

"We'd like to see them in many states. And at some point they might morph into a system."

I'm wracking my brain for a presidential quote from our history that even approaches the betrayal of American ideas and the terror of what was said to the press today. There's nothing.

Here they all are having a good laugh in front of cages that will soon hold human beings.


Are you paying attention? Think what this might mean, where this may go--especially given passage of the bill today and recent SC decisions. It should scare the s*** out of every American.

 

That’s a concentration camp.

 

who was the father?

Spoiler

https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/i-am-the-child-of-a-us-citizen

 

Os is high energy tonight, I like it.

July 4 on the horizon got the patriots fired up

 

Supposedly a misguided crazy want to be dictator that is dividing America. I'm keep saying it because it's true WPE.

 

Trump wouldn't mind Melanie deported. He wants a new young girl anyways

 

In Jun 2025,

A class action suit against the ban on birthright citizenship was filed in NH,


Yesterday, 10 July, 2025.

Federal judge issues new nationwide block against Trump’s order seeking
to end birthright citizenship


US citizenship, Laplante, the judge added, “is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”

The judge, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said he would pause his order for several days to give the Trump administration time to appeal his decision.

Laplante issued a written 38-page order later Thursday as well.

Laplante wrote that he “has no difficulty concluding that the rapid adoption by executive order, without legislation and the attending national debate, of a new government policy of highly questionable constitutionality that would deny citizenship to many thousands of individuals previously granted citizenship under an indisputably longstanding policy, constitutes irreparable harm, and that all class representatives could suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.”​

 

First Circuit Rules Trump's Birthright Citizenship Executive Order is Unconstitutional
This is the second appellate court ruling against the order. So far, every court that has addressed this issue has ruled the same way.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/10/0...izenship-executive-order-is-unconstitutional/

 

Talk to us when this wackass SCOTUS rules correctly.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-birthright-citizenship-what-to-know/

The Supreme Court will weigh Trump's birthright citizenship order this week. Here's what to know about the case.
By


Washington — The Supreme Court is set to convene Wednesday to consider the legality of President Trump's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship.

The case is a major test of a key pillar of Mr. Trump's immigration agenda and is the first in which the high court will weigh the legal merits of one of the president's immigration policies.

…
​

 

The case is a major test of the SCOTUS justices ability to read the clear text of the Constitution. I expect at least two justices to fail the test.

 

They should be impeached too

Rocket River

 

And then another EO said persons who are born within the US in the past 100 years ...

Sounds reasonable on the surface, except we've already seen how this admin defines "illegal," and how they've tried to argue even legal immigrants are illegal. They have quite a bit of power to pick and choose.

This admin has been hostile to 14A (equal protection, due process). If SCOTUS decides to narrow the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" (which is the legal argument here - that illegal and temp legal aren't subject to US jurisdiction) OR worse, leave it up to the admin to define that, then all of 14A is weakened; due process and equal protection aren't for everyone on US soil anymore. Two different classes of people with two very different sets of 14A protections, with the control knot probably at the POTUS (Stephen Miller) fingertip.

 

I 100% expect Thomas to vote to trump`s liking..........Alito would be the other one

 

Not quite as racist and far fetched as the Haitians eating your cats and dogs story, but in the running....

Truth Social post today....

Birthright Citizenship has to do with the babies of slaves, not Chinese Billionaires who have 56 kids, all of whom “become” American Citizens. One of the many Great Scams of our time! President DONALD J. TRUMP

This guy is a piece of work. I'm not gonna lie, I laughed at how ridiculously racist that post was. He spews more nasty sh*t than a sewage pipe. All he does is lie, whine, cry, brag about himself, talk about his ballroom and repeat. Over and over and over. Sometimes he posts the same post 2 or 3 times back to back. He's a very odd old bird.

 

The point is birthright citizenship has no place in the 21st century, that's a common sense view. It's the leading incentive for illegals to make the perilous journey, pop out babies, then talk about their rights and what they're owed all day. it's the leading incentive for visa overstays and those dodging deportation orders.

Just the education and social services for the kids of illegals and visa overstays, whether they are born overseas or birthright, is tens of billions per year.

It obviously has to go for the times we're in.

 

This shouldn't matter- Jesus himself shouldn't matter.


Trump attends Supreme Court arguments over his executive order, a presidential first
Updated April 1, 202611:40 AM ET
By

Rachel Treisman


President Trump's car arrives at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday morning.

Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty Images
President Trump became the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, when he showed up to watch proceedings in a case challenging one of his executive orders.

Trump's motorcade arrived at the court just before 10 a.m. ET, as reflected on his public schedule for the day. He disappeared into a relative black box, as the Supreme Court strictly prohibits cameras and other electronic devices.

His motorcade departed around 11:20 a.m., as Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrapped up his opening argument in favor of the administration and the American Civil Liberties Union prepared to make its opposing case.

Barbara v. Trump revolves around an executive order that Trump signed on the first day of his second term, seeking to deny automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to parents who were in the country either illegally or temporarily. It hasn't gone into effect because multiple lower courts immediately ruled it unconstitutional.

The legal principle of birthright citizenship — which makes anyone born within the U.S. or its territories a citizen — has been widely interpreted as being enshrined in the Constitution since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Trump's order was immediately hit with lawsuits, including from immigrants' rights groups and states' attorneys general, and lower court rulings blocked it from taking effect.

The Trump administration, which argues that the amendment has been interpreted too broadly, appealed those rulings to the Supreme Court, which agreed to weigh in. It's expected to issue a decision at the end of its term in late June or early July.


Demonstrators rally in support of birthright citizenship outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments on Wednesday.

Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty Images
This is not the first time one of Trump's policies has come before the nation's highest court: The Supreme Court considered some two dozen emergency cases involving his administration's actions in 2025 alone (and most often ruled in his favor).

But this is the first time Trump — or any sitting president — has been in the audience for oral arguments.

Presidents have occasionally interacted with the court directly, including attending oath ceremonies or welcome events for justices they appointed, as Trump did for Neil Gorsuch in 2017. And at least eight presidents argued cases before the Supreme Court in their careers as lawyers, according to the American Bar Association. But, the historical record indicates, none have commuted in from the White House just to listen, until now.

Trump told reporters on Tuesday that he planned to go in person "because I have listened to this argument for so long."

While seating is open to the public, the president's presence is controversial, as it could be interpreted as an attempt to put pressure on justices. The court is designed to be an independent check on the White House, though it is currently made up of a 6-3 conservative supermajority.

Even Trump himself has acknowledged that his attendance could be distracting, as he explained his decision not to sit in on oral arguments in a different case last year.

Trump decided not to attend oral arguments last year
Trump publicly flirted with the idea of attending Supreme Court arguments in U.S. businesses' case against his global tariffs last November.

"If we don't win that case, we will be a weakened, troubled, financial mess for many, many years to come," he told reporters in the Oval Office in October. "That's why I think I'm going to go to the Supreme Court to watch."

That plan was criticized by some Democratic lawmakers and even one Trump ally, Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., who told Politico he thought it was a mistake: "Some may interpret it as an attempt to put pressure on the justices, and I think if the justices receive it that way, I'm not saying they will or they won't, but if they do perceive it that way, I think it will backfire."


Trump is sitting in on oral arguments in his administration's appeal of lower court rulings against his birthright citizenship order.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Trump reversed course days later, tucking the news midway through a lengthy Truth Social post about the case itself.

"I will not be going to the Court on Wednesday in that I do not want to distract from the importance of this Decision," he wrote.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent ended up attending oral arguments. The Supreme Court ruled against Trump's tariffs by a 6-3 vote in February.

Shortly after, Trump held a press conference excoriating the three conservative judges who sided against him — particularly Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom he appointed to the bench — calling them disloyal and unpatriotic.

When asked on Tuesday which justices he would be listening to most closely, Trump said "I love a few of them, I don't like some others."

He again characterized Republican-nominated justices who rule against him as stupid and disloyal, while alleging that justices chosen by Democratic presidents rule against him on principle.

"You could have the greatest case ever, they're gonna rule against you," he said. "They always do."