US Elections (& Politics) :)
- Thread starter sdkid
- Start date
Oceanslider
Known around here
Justice Clarence Thomas torched the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday that birthright citizenship should apply to the children of illegal immigrants and people living temporarily in the United States.
Thomas said that he did not believe the decision would hold up to the test of time and argued that it devalued American citizenship. The case revolved around an executive order issued by President Donald Trump which argued that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of illegal immigrants or those temporarily in the United States.
“The court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens,” Thomas wrote in a dissent. “In doing so, the court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”
Thomas argued that the 14th Amendment was designed to apply to freed slaves and their children, who owed no allegiances to foreign countries.
“The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war. Americans, consistent with their settler ethos, believed that citizens were the people who called a place home,” he said.
“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship,’” Thomas added. “Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.”
In a separate dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said he thought the court made a “serious mistake.”
“As interpreted by the court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home,” Alito wrote. “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
Alito added that the court’s ruling would keep a key incentive for illegal immigration in place.
“The court’s interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally. Immigrants naturally prefer affluent countries where economic opportunities are available,” he said. “Other than Canada, the United States will be the only affluent nation where birth alone is enough to establish citizenship.”
Thomas said that he did not believe the decision would hold up to the test of time and argued that it devalued American citizenship. The case revolved around an executive order issued by President Donald Trump which argued that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of illegal immigrants or those temporarily in the United States.
“The court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens,” Thomas wrote in a dissent. “In doing so, the court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”
Thomas argued that the 14th Amendment was designed to apply to freed slaves and their children, who owed no allegiances to foreign countries.
“The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war. Americans, consistent with their settler ethos, believed that citizens were the people who called a place home,” he said.
“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship,’” Thomas added. “Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.”
In a separate dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said he thought the court made a “serious mistake.”
“As interpreted by the court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home,” Alito wrote. “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
Alito added that the court’s ruling would keep a key incentive for illegal immigration in place.
“The court’s interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally. Immigrants naturally prefer affluent countries where economic opportunities are available,” he said. “Other than Canada, the United States will be the only affluent nation where birth alone is enough to establish citizenship.”
iwanttosee
Getting comfortable
I think we can agree that there is a mechanism to update the Constitution. Executive order isn't it.
The 14th Amendment was ratification in 1868 and the text hasn't been updated since, it's too bad the co-author allowed the exclusion of his "intention" in the text of 14th Amendment at its time of creation.
I think you are fully aware the difference is between "intention" and "law" as one is enforceable, the other is a "what if".
Last edited:
iwanttosee
Getting comfortable
I got one better. "American" whose immigrated ancestry traced back at most a few hundred years calling "Native American" whose immigrated ancestry traced back tens of thousands of years "Indian" is ironic, isn't it?
Last edited:
iwanttosee
Getting comfortable
I've decided to ignore Oceanslider, there is no civil discussion with him.
iwanttosee
Getting comfortable
Are you not reading what you typed?
Your words gave US government no right to arrest any illegal alien within US soil.
To me it is simple: If you are here illegally, then you have no rights. If you are here illegally and you bear a child, that child is therefore illegally here, taken into protective custody until it and its mother can be returned to their original country. Key word here is 'illegally'
We do not have unlimited resources, tax money, housing, food, medical, education, to be squandered on those that come here illegally and take advantage of our system. That is a fact.
When was the last time any of you went to a ER? Its incredible the amount of people in there that DO NOT speak English. Why? They are tourists on a tourist visa visiting and got hurt? Pfffffft. Right.
Come here LEGALLY, assimilate into our WAY OF LIFE, and reap the benefits that every law abiding citizen should have.
But guess I'm just old and don't know a damn thing. We ARE our own worst enemy.
We do not have unlimited resources, tax money, housing, food, medical, education, to be squandered on those that come here illegally and take advantage of our system. That is a fact.
When was the last time any of you went to a ER? Its incredible the amount of people in there that DO NOT speak English. Why? They are tourists on a tourist visa visiting and got hurt? Pfffffft. Right.
Come here LEGALLY, assimilate into our WAY OF LIFE, and reap the benefits that every law abiding citizen should have.
But guess I'm just old and don't know a damn thing. We ARE our own worst enemy.
bigredfish
Known around here
At least our President is laser focused ..
The U.S. Office of Government Ethics released Donald Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure today. Here’s what a sitting U.S. President made in 2025:
$635 MILLION from the TRUMP memecoin, while retail investors watched it crash from $74 to $1.68
$594 MILLION from World Liberty Financial token and stablecoin sales, a crypto venture co-founded with his own sons
$65 MILLION from selling equity in that same company
$80+ MILLION in media settlements from ABC, CBS, Meta, and YouTube, paid to his own presidential library
Total crypto haul: over $1.4 BILLION. In one year. While serving as President of the United States.
His net worth has nearly TRIPLED, from $2.4 billion to $6.3 billion, since taking office.
And while Trump pocketed $1.4 billion from crypto, the everyday Americans who bought his memecoin? They lost. 764,000 wallets ended up in the red.
This is the most corrupt presidency in American history. Period.
The U.S. Office of Government Ethics released Donald Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure today. Here’s what a sitting U.S. President made in 2025:
$635 MILLION from the TRUMP memecoin, while retail investors watched it crash from $74 to $1.68
$594 MILLION from World Liberty Financial token and stablecoin sales, a crypto venture co-founded with his own sons
$65 MILLION from selling equity in that same company
$80+ MILLION in media settlements from ABC, CBS, Meta, and YouTube, paid to his own presidential library
Total crypto haul: over $1.4 BILLION. In one year. While serving as President of the United States.
His net worth has nearly TRIPLED, from $2.4 billion to $6.3 billion, since taking office.
And while Trump pocketed $1.4 billion from crypto, the everyday Americans who bought his memecoin? They lost. 764,000 wallets ended up in the red.
This is the most corrupt presidency in American history. Period.
Last edited:
bigredfish
Known around here
bigredfish
Known around here
bigredfish
Known around here
bigredfish
Known around here
When the illusion finally shatters, what’s left isn’t just disappointment,it is total embarrassment.
The man you invested your faith in wasn’t a savior at all.
He is just an empty act stitched together with arrogance, noise, and relentless self-promotion.
All that confidence, all those grand promises, all the swagger, it all collapses into something painfully small the moment it is tested against reality.
There’s no hidden genius, no bold disruptor underneath it all.
Just a loud, impulsive figure flailing through responsibilities he clearly wasn’t equipped to handle, drowning incompetence in a flood of bluster.
In the end, what once looked like strength turns out to be nothing more than cheap theatrics.
Not leadership, just a gaudy performance.
-A caricature.
-A spectacle.
And the real sting isn’t that it was absurd,it’s realizing how long it took to admit you were taken in by all his bullshit....
The man you invested your faith in wasn’t a savior at all.
He is just an empty act stitched together with arrogance, noise, and relentless self-promotion.
All that confidence, all those grand promises, all the swagger, it all collapses into something painfully small the moment it is tested against reality.
There’s no hidden genius, no bold disruptor underneath it all.
Just a loud, impulsive figure flailing through responsibilities he clearly wasn’t equipped to handle, drowning incompetence in a flood of bluster.
In the end, what once looked like strength turns out to be nothing more than cheap theatrics.
Not leadership, just a gaudy performance.
-A caricature.
-A spectacle.
And the real sting isn’t that it was absurd,it’s realizing how long it took to admit you were taken in by all his bullshit....
bigredfish
Known around here
iwanttosee
Getting comfortable
You're right about that. What's Trump doing about it? Added another $3,121,697,642,236.17 debt since last year.
Debt Dashboard - U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee
www.jec.senate.gov
Last edited:
bigredfish
Known around here
bigredfish
Known around here
Not true at all. That is precisely the point of the Supreme Court; they determine the meaning AND intent of the law as it was written. Therefore, this decision is a huge miscarriage of justice.
Wow. You're going to pull a muscle, twisting things around like that. And what you said is patently false.
bigredfish
Known around here
Seems to me they have everyone chasing a rather insignificant ruling as I doubt the actual numbers of anchor babies are worth arguing over.
But the immigration boogeyman is one of those "us vs them" issues that stir up the base.
So Do trumps kids count? I mean his kids were all born to mothers who weren't citizens at the time? Just wondering...?
But the immigration boogeyman is one of those "us vs them" issues that stir up the base.
So Do trumps kids count? I mean his kids were all born to mothers who weren't citizens at the time? Just wondering...?
Last edited:
bigredfish
Known around here
Two issues infinitely more important that seem to be lost on most...
1-
www.zerohedge.com
..."With that being the status quo in Washington, D.C. on the eve of the 250th anniversary of the United States’ founding, Americans are left to reconcile how they can truly commemorate their independence when it has become clear their government continues to serve a foreign nation, making the nation’s semiquincentennial less of a celebration and more of an eulogy."
1-
Congress Blocks Amendment To Stop Integration of U.S. And Israeli Militaries
Congress Blocks Amendment To Stop Integration of U.S. And Israeli Militaries <!-- --> | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
..."With that being the status quo in Washington, D.C. on the eve of the 250th anniversary of the United States’ founding, Americans are left to reconcile how they can truly commemorate their independence when it has become clear their government continues to serve a foreign nation, making the nation’s semiquincentennial less of a celebration and more of an eulogy."
Last edited: