Well, it looks like SCOTUS just agreed that mail in ballots can be counted after election day and that Trump nominee ACB wrote the majority opinion.
The record of Trump SCOTUS nominees has not be what conservatives thought it would be. They provided the margin to overturn Roe, and not the margin to overturn elections.
We need a massive overhaul of how we conduct elections.
https://x.com/zarathustra5150/status/2072126350761070773?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/geiger_capital/status/2071975015403212955?s=12&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/westernlensman/status/2072096347608547379?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"2020. CBS NY reports on Turkish anchor baby ring busted operating in Long Island, NY — not only did their babies get US citizenship, they were getting taxpayer funded healthcare in the process. These are the type of insane birth tourism schemes that are incentivized by birthright citizenship, and have to be stamped out: "Prosecutors say more than 100 pregnant women from Turkey came here to give birth, so their children were instantly granted US citizenship." "Investigators say the women then used benefits like Medicaid." "The defendants fraudulently facilitated the births in the United States of approximately 119 Turkish children. And those children now hold birthright US citizenship." "Alleged lies to obtain travel visas. Fraudulent Medicaid claims for babies and moms who stayed at seven birth houses across Suffolk County." "Women paid up to $10,000 each for accommodations and free health care paid by U.S. taxpayers." "Six people arrested, charged with money laundering and $2 million in Medicaid fraud." "The mothers who participated were not charged. Investigators say many of them have returned to Turkey with their babies, who will remain U.S. citizens.""
https://x.com/nmlinguaphile/status/2071974727464501655?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"As a Native American I’m a little offended that the 14th Amendment didn’t grant us citizenship until Congress passed an exception for us. Meanwhile, a CCP spy can fly to Guam, drop a baby and fly home with the baby who qualifies to run for president 35 years later."
"Read the Kavanaugh concurrence “In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 USC 1401(a). Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amenedment — amend 1401(a) or other use enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.”"
https://x.com/tomselliott/status/2072009686467953137?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Justice Thomas notes that ratifiers of the 14th Amendment's stated it was merely emphasizing the recently passed Civil Rights Act, which likewise confirmed citizenship for babies of those permanently domiciled in the United States (specifically babies of slaves), while expressly excluding babies of temporary foreign residents. "The evidence from the decades following ratification confirms that the Citizenship Clause was understood to exclude the children of temporary visitors. There was frequently expressed, enduring, and widespread agreement, from the Reconstruction Congress through the end of the 19th century (and even into the 20th), that the Citizenship Clause did not guarantee citizenship to persons not domiciled here.""
https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/2072035823768441249?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"JUST IN: Senate Republicans are facing massive pressure to RE-FILE *DEMOCRAT* Sen. Harry Reid's ban on birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, from 1993
FILE IT NOW!
REID: "If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a REWARD for being an illegal immigrant? No same country would do that, right?!"
"Guess again. If you break our laws, by entering this country without permission to give birth to a child, we reward that child with US citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that's a lot of services."
"Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in country, county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?!""
Back when democrats were sane.
x .com/sethdillon/status/2071997175605665990?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Now that the Supreme Court has given its blessing to birth tourism, it's probably worth revisiting this story from 2019. A Chinese national named Dongyuan Li ran a company called You Win USA Vacation Services that helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the U.S. to give birth so their children would get citizenship. She advertised having served more than 500 customers, charged each between $40,000 and $80,000, used 20 apartments in Irvine to house the mothers, and took in $3 million in wire transfers from China in two years. Customers were coached to lie on their visa applications and at the U.S. consulate interview in China, claiming they'd stay only two weeks when they actually planned to stay up to three months to give birth. They were told to come early in pregnancy and were coached on how to conceal their pregnancies from customs. You Win's marketing pitch was that giving birth in the U.S. meant "13 years of free education," "less pollution," "an easier way for the whole family to immigrate to the United States," and "priority for jobs in U.S. government, public companies, and large corporations." What could possibly go wrong by constitutionalizing the incentive driving these schemes?"
33 comments:
We need better voters...those who are educated in our history and Constitutional principles...those who convicted in sound Christian principles. Such are near impossible to find among the center left, as is so clearly affirmed by every visit to our blogs by Dan Trabue.
Better, wiser voters elect Better, wiser leaders and representatives who appoint better and wiser judges and department heads. That's really what rights the wrongs imposed upon our nation and its culture by the center-left and RINOs of the right...those clearly NOT better and proven to be without wisdom.
---Art
Indeed. You all expected to pack the court and get all of your president's most diabolical plans heeded to without question and the Trump appointees haven't proven THAT far gone (although they are still giving him unprecedented power and immunity, so they're pretty far gone).
What that should tell you is that even amongst today's magaconservatives, even not all of you all are willing to go as far as the rest of reasoned citizenry.
Once this is all over and the GOP has (God and reasonable humanity, willing) collapsed under the weight of its arrogance and hypocrisy, reasonable citizens - left and right - will need to unite to fix some of the cracks in our free Republic that this administration has illuminated by its wreckless power grabs and abuses of power.
Voters elected Trump who appointed Barret, that's how the system works.
What a bizarre twisting of reality. The constitution specifies the process for filling vacancies on SCOTUS, Trump followed that process and clearly picked judges who were less conservative that most of his voters wanted. The very fact that there have been multiple rulings against Trump indicates that your fevered ranting is not representative of reality.
Strangely enough when we look at the historical record the only ones who have ever supported artificially packing the court are democrats. FDR wanted to do in back in the day because he wanted unchecked power to screw things up even worse than he did, and the current DFL is advocating expanding to 12 and packing the three new seats with hyper partisan liberals.
That you apparently consider yourself the spokesperson for the "reasoned citizenry" doesn't speak well for them.
FYI, the "reasoned citizenry" OVERWHELMINGLY and across all partisan and demographic lines want voter ID, yet the extremists you support refuse to even allow it .
I've seen the plans that the DFL has to "fix things", abrogate the constitution by unilaterally eliminating the Electoral College, cram through statehood for DC and PR to guarantee 4 more DFL senators, pack SCOTUS, gerrymander anywhere that hasn't been gerrymandered already, and play fast and ballot harvest.
Wiser people voted for Trump who is clearly wiser than most all of his opponents of either party, even if he's not wiser than some other GOP nominees might have been in selecting ACB. Yet, I would posit that she's clearly wiser than the three other broads on the court, and certainly more so than Merrick Garland, AKA "the Bullet Dodged".
My comment stands as the path to a better USA.
---Art
Sure, in a perfect world, you may have a point. However, we don't live in a perfect world, we live in a world where Trump's SCOTUS nominees have been underwhelming when it comes to supporting the more conservative positions.
Which, strangely enough, is actually pretty effective proof that the whole "Trump is a dictator" BS is actually BS. When his own SCOTUS picks go against the result he'd prefer, that kind of demonstrates that things are kind of working the way they were envisioned.
Wiser than "the other broads" is an incredibly low bar.
My larger point stands as well. Trump's SCOTUS picks were not (so far) the home runs that Trainers insisted that they were.
I don't disagree that his picks leave much to be desired. It would make for a good study to rate each of their rulings to see how far astray they actually are in the aggregate...though I won't bet on how happy I'd be with the results, that's for sure. I may have to settle for "not as bad as many seem to believe", which is also a low bar.
What "diabolical" plans would those be, pervert? Be specific.
---Art
Well, at first glance it looks like SCOTUS just legalized birth tourism. Nice job.
That is to say, SCOTUS upheld the Constitution as it is written and has long been understood. The SCOTUS chose NOT to create a brand new reading/reinterpretation of the Constitution, which is a relief to all except those who don't want no immigrants coming around here and having babies and living their lives and whatnot.
...in other words, they didn't JUST legalize anything. They recognized what the Constitution says and how it's always been understood.
If anti-immigrant people don't like the Constitution defending the rights of immigrant citizens (ie, people who live here), then they need to take that up with Congress and the US citizenry, not complain that the SCOTUS didn't just make law from the bench.
At least in this case.
Well, that’s one way to look at it.
But yeah, they’ve just opened the door to more birth tourism.
Please continue to lie about me, it makes me laugh.
FWIW, the authors of the 14th Amendment made it pretty clear that they weren’t throwing the doors wide open for anyone. But why pay attention to the authors. They didn’t know anything.
You are correct that congress has absolutely zero willingness to actually legislate and they absolutely should legislate this.
However, this is literally a question of how to interpret the language of the Constitution, which is under the purview of SCOTUS. They absolutely could have settled this without legislating from the bench.
Unfortunately I can’t keep track of when you think legislating from the bench is wrong.
https://x.com/geiger_capital/status/2071975015403212955?s=12&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Yeah, who cares that the original intent was to apply to freed slaves.
Well be sure to tell your extremist, activist little court that you've understood the problem correctly so they can adjust their ruling. No doubts they'll be forever in your debt.
Good grief.
Dan
Yeah, because ignoring the clearly stated intent of the writer of the 14th and opening the door for even more birth tourism and CCCP infiltration is a great plan.
Strangely enough, I’m quoting/referring to the original intent. You’re just doing what you accuse me of doing.
It’s strange how you view SCOTUS rulings you agree with as holy writ, but use the ones you don’t like as an excuse to expand and pack the court to lean permanently left.
You keep saying that.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...
All means ALL.
"Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. THEY forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
For
EVERYTHING God created is good,
and NOTHING is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."
1 Tim. 4
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants
all people
to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
1 Tim 2
All means ALL.
Everything means EVERYTHING.,/I>
The text of the 14th amendment is not unclear:
ALL.
The intent of the founders is not hard to understand:
https://19thnews.org/2026/03/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-14th-amendment/
And it's settled law. This case was decided again in the 1890s.
"in the 1890s, when Wong Kim Ark, a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, sued the government after being denied reentry into the United States following a visit to China to see his family. That case resulted in a landmark Supreme Court decision affirming that Ark had acquired citizenship by being born on U.S. soil"
This is settled law and that used to mean something. At least for now, it still does with this activist SCOTUS.
Craig:
because ignoring the clearly stated intent of the writer of the 14th
Craig is no doubt reading the highlighted words in his post...
"This will not include, of course, persons born in the United States
who are foreigners, aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or board members..."
Craig reads that and appears to be leaping on WHO ARE FOREIGNERS..." without reading the whole line. The writers of the language of this Amendment were excluding foreigners who were born of AMBASSADORS and invading armies, for example.
Having a little bit of knowledge but lacking the depth of understanding of the whole context is always a bad idea. Educate yourself.
This IS settled law. The language IS clear and unambiguous. All DOES mean All.
Yes, there have been nativists and xenophobes since early days who tried to get the "ALL" language changed or ignored, but it's always been accepted to mean ALL by everyone else, including the authors of the amendment.
Educate yourself:
Congressional records indicate that the 14th Amendment’s broad guarantee of birthright citizenship was always intended to include the children of immigrants, regardless of their parents’ legal status.
When Congress debated the language of the Citizenship Clause in 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard explained that the clause was “simply declaratory of . . . the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.” Several lawmakers expressed concerns that such a broad guarantee would extend citizenship to the children of immigrants. Sen. John Conness affirmed that the proposed language “declare[s] that the children of all parentage . . . should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.”
In line with Howard and Conness’s understandings, the final text of the Citizenship Clause featured no language barring the children of immigrants from citizenship. The Supreme Court affirmed this understanding in Wong Kim Ark, where it rejected claims that children born in the United States to noncitizen parents were not themselves citizens.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/birthright-citizenship-under-us-constitution
Sure, ignore the clearly stated intent and the fact that the 14th did not confer citizenship to members of native tribes.
I do love how your application for activist courts and legislating from the bench is entirely determined by whether or not you like the outcome. Not to mention how quickly the “packed court” to rubber-stamp Trump's kingship magically becomes fine jurists when they do what you want. Simultaneously undermining the myth that they’re a rubber stamp for Trump.
FYI, Kavanaugh did provide the roadmap to fix this.
But those who want to make bank facilitating birth tourism are thrilled.
Dan is a copy/paste warrior in his quest to enrich coyotes and traffickers who’ll jump on the birth tourism bandwagon.
Take it up with John Roberts. It's settled law.
I'm assuming that this is Dan, posting anonymously, if it's not It'll go away.
1. The difference between myself and the ASPL is that my response to this ruling is to look for ways to accomplish the goal of trivializing US citizenship in a world where temporarily dashing across the border during labor gets US citizenship for the child and a free pass for dozens of family members, as opposed to coming up with ways to pack the court and get the result I want.
2. The difference in responses is interesting. Before announcing Dobbs, there was heightened security and temporary barriers to control the response. Before this, none of that. Not even any protests.
3. Roe was "settled law", Dred Scott was "settled law". many things are "settled law" until they aren't.
4. The fact that it is "settled law" doesn't mean that it was the absolutely correct decision. Nor does it mean that I have to ignore the potential negative consequences. At least until y'all take my free speech right away.
The Brennan Center was never a font of accurate info. It's always been a leftist apologist.
That's how Dan and his kind rolls. If Dan wants to dine on roasted babies and have sex with barnyard animals, and law allows both, he's good with the law regardless of how it came to be ratified, and it's somehow wrong to push for its reversal.
The last thing he cited was also a left leaning organization. Not surprising..
Please ID or get deleted.
Anon, ID of be deleted. It sounds like Art, but I want to be sure.
Me again.
---Art
BTW, I didn't submit the stupid "settled law" comment.
---Art
I assumed so, but after Dan bitched about you posting anonymously and not leaving your name, and after regular anonymous posts of stupid crap, I wanted to confirm my suspicion.
I'm currently under the impression that it was Dan doing what he bitched about elsewhere, and treating it as such. If he doesn't claim it, then infanticide.
Thanks for clarifying.
"Craig reads that and appears to be leaping on WHO ARE FOREIGNERS..." without reading the whole line. The writers of the language of this Amendment were excluding foreigners who were born of AMBASSADORS and invading armies, for example."
Somehow, to Dan, examples of foreigners somehow doesn't include those who sneak into our country contrary to our immigration law. The very fact that illegal aliens enter in such a manner is clearly akin to an invading army, and given their numbers, the only thing differentiating them is the lack of uniforms and military weaponry. Yet they are invaders as they consciously ignored our immigration laws to enter.
And if the children born of "LEGAL" visitors (foreign ambassadors, for example) are not granted citizenship by virtue of having been born here while their parents were here temporarily but legally, how can anyone suppose illegals...or any visiting with the purposeful intention of giving birth to take advantage of the leftist corruption of the 14th...be in any way deserving of citizenship? Even the chuckleheaded leftists who approve of this perversion of the 14th can't explain how that makes any sense at all.
But Dan...being especially stupid and dismissive of the best interests of his own countrymen...pretend there's some God-ordained duty to allow this abject and blatant violation of our national sovereignty on the mere claim of alleged but unproven hardship or the nonsensical claim of a "right" to self-determination....never mind the self-determination of our own nation.
(The comment from July 1, 2026 at 8:13 AM was mine.)
Post a Comment