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

1,140 Views | 38 Replies | Last: 11 hrs ago by wifeisafurd
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
2
1 edit
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.