"I use Tamper Monkey to block Michale!!"
-Victoria

:D

{{cough, cough}}BULLSHIT{{cough, cough, cough}}

:D

Ahhh... So NOW you concede that you DON'T ignore the post, you just "ignore the content"..

No, "ignore the contents."

You need your nose rubbed in it? Yes, I ignored the "contents."

OK, that's a start.. I'll accept that concession of yours..

It's not a "concession."

But here's the thing.. The FACTS clearly prove that you read enough of my "content" to make a determination that you believed I was... how did you put it...??? .... "arguing with the SCOTUS"...

The fact is, I read enough of my content that you actually quoted and immediately knew it was taken from my post, and I obviously know that my post is solely a quote from the SCOTUS. Hence, you're arguing with the SCOTUS.

It's called "connecting the dots." You should try it and knock off the trolling.

Remainder of post ignored.

Ahhh... So NOW you concede that you DON'T ignore the post, you just "ignore the content"..

OK, that's a start.. I'll accept that concession of yours..

But here's the thing.. The FACTS clearly prove that you read enough of my "content" to make a determination that you believed I was... how did you put it...??? .... "arguing with the SCOTUS"...

So, the FACTS ALSO clearly show that you lied when you claimed that you "definitely ignore the contents"..

Because if you had, in fact, actually "definitely ignore the contents", you would not be able to claim I was "arguing with the SCOTUS..

Why the two claims, Victoria??

If you did, in fact "definitely ignore the contents" then you simply DON'T have any FACTS to back up the SECOND claim that I was "arguing with the SCOTUS"...

You see your problem??

BOTH claims cannot be factually accurate...

ONE of your claims is bullshit..

Either you simply CAN'T actually ignore ANYTHING I comment and you read every word I post voraciously...(most likely)

OR

Your claim that I was "arguing with the SCOTUS" is complete and utter BULLSHIT and is based on ZERO supporting facts.. ANOTHER likely fact...

Victoria, you really need to quit while yer behind..

You simply lack the intelligence and the stamina to actually provide me with a challenge at ANY level..

Give it up, sunshine.. You simply are not up to the task... :D

Have a nice day.

Oh I *ALWAYS* have a nice day in Weigantia.. :D

I posted a simple excerpt from the relevant opinion. I'm otherwise not interested in whatever you read into it.

Have a nice day. I always do. :)

Is this you "Ignoring" me again?? :^D

I am not arguing with the SCOTUS..

I simply affirmed what the SCOTUS said..

That ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS are entitled ONLY to the DUE PROCESS that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS are allowed under law..

Do you deny that "DUE PROCESS" for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS is a DIFFERENT "DUE PROCESS" that is afforded to American citizens??

Yes or no???

If YES, provide FACTS to back up your claim..

If NO, then I accept your concession..

Immigration law significantly limits judicial review of Executive actions, granting the Executive broad authority with minimal interference from the Judiciary when it comes to Immigration.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and Supreme Court precedents establish this framework. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018) the Court upheld the Executive’s travel ban, emphasizing that immigration decisions, rooted in national security, are “largely immune from judicial control” (138 S. Ct. 2392).

The INA’s § 1252(a)(2)(B) bars judicial review of discretionary decisions, like visa denials or deportations, except for constitutional claims or legal errors.

DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020) further clarified that aliens have limited due process rights in expedited removals... (wait.. this is important so it needs repeating for the cheap seats.. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS HAVE ***LIMITED*** "due process" RIGHTS IN EXPEDITED REMOVALS...) restricting courts to reviewing statutory compliance, not policy (591 U.S. ___).

Historical precedent supports this.

Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893) affirmed Congress’s plenary power over immigration, delegable to the Executive, with courts deferring unless clear constitutional violations exist (149 U.S. 698).

Mathews v. Diaz (1976) reinforced that IMMIGRATION POLICY is a **POLITICAL QUESTION**, where “the responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United States and aliens has been committed to the political branches, NOT THE JUDICIARY” (426 U.S. 67)

Recent actions, like Trump’s 2025 deportation sweeps {NY Times} faced judicial stays only on narrow procedural grounds, not substantive policy challenges.

While courts can review for abuse of discretion or legal errors, as in Biden v. Texas (2022) regarding MPP (142 S. Ct. 2528) the Judiciary cannot dictate immigration policy.

Again, this needs repeating for the cheap seats...

THE JUDICIARY CANNOT DICTATE IMMIGRATION POLICY

END TRANS....

The Executive’s dominance **REQUIRES** that the courts *stay out* of immigration enforcement, preserving national sovereignty.

CITES:

Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018)
DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)
Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976)
Biden v. Texas, 142 S. Ct. 2528 (2022)
INA § 1252(a)(2)(B)
NY Times

SILENCE GIVES ASSENT
-Democrats

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has clarified that illegal immigrants, particularly those with criminal records, do not receive the same due process protections as American citizens.

In Demore v. Kim (2003) the Court upheld mandatory detention of deportable aliens without bond hearings, stating that Congress’s broad immigration authority allows limited due process in civil deportation proceedings, unlike citizens’ robust criminal protections.

Similarly, DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020) held that illegal immigrants facing expedited removal have "minimal due process" treated as “applicants for admission” with "NO RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW" unlike and AMERICAN citizens’ Fifth Amendment guarantees.

Mathews v. Diaz (1976) affirmed Congress’s power to set distinct rules for non-citizens, noting that due process for aliens is what statutes provide, not equivalent to citizens’ rights.

In INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984) the Court ruled that deportation hearings, being civil, exclude criminal protections like the exclusionary rule, further distinguishing the due process that is afforded ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS.

These cases establish THE FACT that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS receive only statutory procedural fairness—notice and a hearing—far less than the jury trials, counsel, and proof beyond reasonable doubt afforded citizens in criminal courts.

So... Can we PLEASE quit whining hysterically about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS' "due process".. It is NOT the same as an American citizen's "due process"..

CITES:
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003)
DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)
Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976)
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984)

Once again...

"Don't cross brains with Spock. He will cut you to pieces every time!"
-Ensign Sulu, STAR TREK

Yes.. The law entitles DUE PROCESS to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS the due process that is allowed to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS..

But the WELL ESTABLISHED FACT is that the DUE PROCESS that is afforded ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS is **NOT** the same DUE PROCESS that is afforded AMERICAN CITIZENS...

What part of this WELL ESTABLISHED FACT is too confusing for ya'all to comprehend???

DUE PROCESS FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS != DUE PROCESS FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS

I can't dumb it down any more, people.. :eyeroll:

"[T]he Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings." Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Procedural due process rules are meant to protect" against "the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property." Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 259 (1978). We have long held that "no person shall be" removed from the United States "without opportunity, at some time, to be heard." The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 101 (1903). Due process requires notice that is "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties" and that "afford[s] a reasonable time... to make [an] appearance." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950).

605 U. S. ____ (2025)

When are you going to follow your own link? It doesn't say what you want it to...

Feels like old times around here!! :D

My time now belongs to my lovely wife....

See ya'all in the AM... :D

And yet, Headboard Harris LOST to him in a free fair and legal election!!

What does that say about YOUR America hating woke progressive Democrats, eh??

:eyeroll:

BBBWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive?utm_source=SourcePage&utm_medium=OnPageLink

When ya gonna come up with some RELIABLE news sources???

:eyeroll:

I know, and as usual, he wasn't very FACTUAL. He's a criminal and he was probably outside the country counting his bribes when he posted the news of his DEFEAT at the hands of those treacherous scum bags he put on the court.

Par for the course with Trump...

This is the forth change in conditions on this issue, you really don't want to read that article do you? heh...

Er.... Waiting for you to provide me a name of an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINAL who DOES fit that description...

DOH!!!!

Waiting for you to provide me a name of an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINAL who doesn't fit that description...

"WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD

:D

Sasha LOVES to swim!!

I wanted to get Raven & Rajah in, but my lovely wife talked me out of it... :D

"That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me."
-Egon, GHOSTBUSTERS

:D

Ya, Trump has been on a truth social posting spree today. Attacking courts, GOP in congress, Taylor Swift, The Boss. Someone needs to take his phone away and send him to bed with out a big mac...

What about illegal immigrants who do not have a criminal record? A lack of equal protection does not mean no protections at all...

THERE IS NO "equal" protection under the laws for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS vs American citizens..

This is the LAW OF THE LAND...

Deal with it...

It's important to note....

"To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18 2025"
SCOTUS

PRESIDENT Trump's efforts to get rid of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS is still very much alive....

The SCOTUS refused to rule that getting rid of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS under the ALIEN ENEMIES ACT was not appropriate...

ALL the SCOTUS is saying is that the scumbags need to have more notice...

Just so we're clear...

Heh.

Not factually accurate..

By RESPONDING to the comment, you concede that you DID, in fact, NOT ignore it, as 'ignored' is defined..

ig·nore
verb
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.

Since you seem to have a comprehension issue, I will elaborate with smaller words and I'll type slower...

You.... READ... the.... comment..

You.... RESPONDED (big word, I know.. TRY...)... to... the.... comment...

Therefore (another big word).... you... did... NOT.... "IGNORE"... the... comment... as... "IGNORED"... is.... defined...

Of course, you being a woke progressive Democrat, you can always change the definition of "IGNORE" to fit your hysterical Trump/America hate agenda...

But everyone will ALWAYS know that you simple CAN'T ignore my comments..

Thank you for playing the game.. :D

The remainder of the comment was disregarded intentionally, also known as IGNORED.

Which simply proves that my claim that *I* am not the problem here is factually accurate.. :D

And, once again, Kick CONCEDES that my comments are NOT being ignored..

By glancing at my comment, she (and aparrently everyone else) are DECIDEDLY *NOT* IGNORING it, as IGNORING is defined...

ig·nore
verb
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.

She, AND they are NOT "refusing to take notice".. She (and they) are, in fact ARE "taking notice"..

And, in Kick's case, she is actually RESPONDING to the comment..

Which is ironic because I could have sworn that Kick had stated she uses the Tamper Monkey malware to "ignore" me..

:D

It's all a moot point...

CW has made TWO things perfectly clear..

#1... I am a little shithead...

#2... I am staying here...

So, the ONLY way that Kick et al can get rid of me is to so defeat me in a debate so badly, that I would be simply unable to show my face..

Given the fact that Kick (and everyone else) is simply intellectually incapable of accomplishing that...

Their only recourse is to learn to live with it.. :D

"So Say We All..."

If you are responding to the comment then you are not ignoring it nor are you disregarding it. In fact you are acknowledging the comment.

So you're saying you need your nose rubbed in it?

I am definitely okay with you doubling down on your ignorance and proving you can neither understand simple English words nor read a self-provided dictionary entry wherein it contains multiple meanings.

There is no one on this forum who cannot glance at one of your comments and then intentionally ignore the contents contained therein; those two things are not mutually exclusive.

But once again thank you for playing

Thank you for doubling down on your ignorance.

Good thing we are only arguing with Harcourt Fenton Mudd...

Harry!

His name is Mudd. Heh.

Very well said, sir... every single word... totally dead-on accurate.

It's at THIS time of kicking yer arse all up one side of Weigantia and down the other side of Weigantia, you start whining and crying and stamping your feet hysterically at my excessive posting..

Have at it... :D

I'm too busy using your self-provided definition to hoist you by your own petard, cut you to pieces, and expose you're "intellectually challenged" (your term).

When you waste bandwidth with your redundant TDS chatbot repetitive spam-spam-spam, I'll just "ignore" it, which has multiple meanings which you would obviously know if you knew how to read a simple word definition.

If you are responding to the comment then you are not ignoring it nor are you disregarding it. In fact you are acknowledging the comment.

But once again thank you for playing

By TAKING NOTICE of the comment and ACKNOWLEDGING the comment, you are NOT BY DEFINITION "ignoring" the comment...

You should learn to read a definition entry. If you're going to provide them, the least you could do is learn to read them.

This reminds me of how Bashi takes your self-provided links and uses the contents contained therein to refute your own posted comments. Since Bashi cuts you to pieces every time with your own links, it has made you chicken out and stop providing them. This is referred to as possessing critical thinking skills. You should try it.

Not factually accurate..

You seem to never tire of being incorrect.

ig·nore
verb
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.

So what part of "disregard intentionally" is confusing for you or is it that you're so "intellectually challenged" (your term) that you cannot read a simple self-provided dictionary entry? Rhetorical question. Here, let me help you (again).

The "definitions" portion of a dictionary entry for a word will provide one or more meanings of that word and will generally contain words like "or" and "and" and can include punctuation like a semicolon (;) used to divide the different meanings, and sometimes meanings numbered. Not every usage of a word will fit all of the provided meanings.

So when I comment to you that I "ignored" your comment, you should allow yourself to accept the fact that I chose to "intentionally disregard" it.

Reading a dictionary entry ain't rocket science.

I always appreciate you stepping up and volunteering to provide the petard with which I hoist you and cut you to pieces. You are a legend in your own mind but definitely not in mine.

:D

Good thing we are only arguing with Harcourt Fenton Mudd...

I really am trying to approach this from a perspective of empathy, and am aware that you are unable to see it that way. I've noticed that since you asked me to stop arguing with you and i complied, your comments directed toward me have become increasingly outrageous and insulting. that's not great (and might reasonably be considered trolling), but i'm past being sad about it. I think you're wrong about where CW is at regarding your permissions here, and i was really hoping to help you improve to the point where he decides to let you stay.

the volume issue has improved, and the language is cleaned up a bit, but practically nothing else is any different from last month. based on my understanding of CW's criteria, you're still being an unrepentant jerk, and because you've asked me not to, i'm no longer trying to help. it's up to you dude, grow some contrition or take the Don Harris path.

Chump don't want no help, chump don't get da help
~Barbara Billingsley (Jive Lady), Airplane!

Have at it... :D

DUH... :eyeroll:

Not factually accurate..

And, for those who are intellectually challenged.....

ig·nore
verb
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.

Once again...

"Don't cross brains with Spock. He will cut you to pieces every time!"
-Ensign Sulu, STAR TREK

And by "GLANCING AT IT" you are NOT "ignoring" it..

Hysterically incorrect; it's actually both. Allow yourself to grasp the concept that most issues aren't limited to being either a zero sum game or mutually exclusive.

Believe me when I tell you that people who read this comments section can easily glance at a post while choosing to ignore it. It's not complicated and very easily accomplished and definitely a feature and not a bug. Heh.

~ Justice Kagan

Yea???

And how many times did the courts rule in favor of black segregation before they got it right in BROWN v BOARD OF EDUCATION??

:eyeroll:

Nope. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to glance at a post and determine it's TDS chatbot redundancy and easily scrolled through and ignored. Clue in

And by "GLANCING AT IT" you are NOT "ignoring" it..

Thank you for your concession...

Just a hint, Kick...

You posting that the comment is ignored is, in fact, ACKNOWLEDGING the comment and proving for all to read, that you are NOT ignoring it..

Nope. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to glance at a post and determine it's TDS chatbot redundancy and easily scrolled through and ignored. Clue in.

CW's point (and my corollary) is that in this case SCOTUS really could create such a class, thereby triggering slave-hunters redux.

Yes, sir, and would we put it past this SCOTUS? Absolutely not.

I found it particularly interesting the exchange between Justice Kagan and Trump's Solicitor General wherein she reminded him:

This is not a hypothetical. This is happening out there, right? Every Court has ruled against you. These aren't hypotheticals; you have lost in court four times.

~ Justice Kagan

*
The Trump team obviously doesn't want this case to land in the SCOTUS. They'd rather de facto remove the power of the lower courts that perform their constitutional mandate outlined in Article III to interpret laws, resolve disputes, and determine whether actions taken by the Legislative and Executive branches are constitutional in order to protect persons and (not just) citizens in exercising their rights as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

Appeals courts simply review the opinions of the lower courts; they do not hear new evidence or retry cases but examine the record of the proceedings of the lower courts. So, you remove (or reduce) the power of the lower courts, and the only court remaining to protect persons and (not just) citizens from whatever edit any POTUS puts on paper is the SCOTUS -- and I know I'm (beyond) teaching to the choir at this point -- you dismantle the Constitution.

Woke progressive Democrats support for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS as exemplified by their leniency in cases like the Kaitlyn Weaver tragedy, is a complete and utter betrayal of justice and public safety.

In July 2024, a 15-year-old Colombian ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINAL, driving an uninsured Jeep at 90 mph in a 45-mph zone in Aurora, Colorado, killed 24-year-old Kaitlyn Weaver, a dedicated drug rehab worker.
CITE: CBS NEWS

Despite initial promises of a “no plea offer” case, Arapahoe County DA Amy Padden who has been endorsed by Bernie Sanders and Gov. Jared Polis, offered the teen a plea deal.

TWO YEARS PROBATION!!!
100 HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE!!!
NO JAIL TIME!!!

This “abhorrent” deal, as Weaver’s attorney Matthew Durkin called it, underscores woke progressive Democrats’ soft-on-crime stance, prioritizing ideology over accountability.

Padden’s focus on “speeding” in a May 2025 Facebook post trivializes the crime, ignoring the teen’s illegal status and lack of remorse
CITE: CBS News

Woke progressive Democrats’ pattern of defending ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS, seen in their support for scumbags like Kilmar Abrego Garcia despite his alleged MS-13 ties fuels a broken system.
CITE: THE HILL

ICE’s 2025 Houston sweep arrested 422 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS, 262 with convictions like murder and assault, highlighting the threat. It should be noted that NO BORDER PATROL STAFFING ISSUES arose due to the ICE raids, as ICE and BORDER PATROL are two completely separate agencies.. :eyeroll:

Woke progressive Democrats’ refusal to demand stricter penalties, as Weaver’s father John lamented, ensures absolutely NO DETERRENCE exists for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS which, in turns, endangers Americans while excusing criminality under the bullshit guise of "compassion".

In other words, woke progress Democrats have ALL of their "COMPASSION" for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS and absolutely ZERO "compassion" for the VICTIMS that are brutally killed and murdered by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS and the families of those victims..

This is another one of those 80-20 issues where the woke progressive Democrat Party is on the 20% side of the issue..

Although, in THIS particular case, it's not wrong to say that this is a 99-1 issue where woke progressive Democrats are on the 1% side of this particular issue...

CITES INCLUDED

You posting that the comment is ignored is, in fact, ACKNOWLEDGING the comment and proving for all to read, that you are NOT ignoring it..

If you were actually ignoring it, you would simply ignore it. Without TELLING everyone you are "ignoring" it..

In other words, I'll tell you the same exact thing I told Kevin all those many many decades ago...

"QUIT TRYING TO {IGNORE} ME AND {IGNORE} ME!!!"
-Morpheus

:D

IE Remainder of the post NOT ignored, simply conceded..

And ONCE AGAIN, I accept the concession...

:D

I am having a computer networking issue that is simply mind boggling..

A little bit about my setup...

I have a computer workstation that is hardwired into a dumb hub which, in turn, is hooked into an AT&T DSL internet modem...

My wife's workstation is hardwired to a STARLINK Router and is the sole device connected to STARLINK..

The mind boggling part is that she sometimes gets massive slowdowns in data transfer when my computer is on..

When I shut down my computer??? Her slowdowns completely disappear..

What I can't figure out is why???

Her computer and connection is completely separated from mine.. As far as computer connections go, I might as well be in another state...

And yet, when my computer is on, she gets data xfer issues..

What could be causing this???

Thanx in advance for any ideas...

Reread the 14th Amendment and try again.

Remainder of the post ignored.

AND another Grammar Lame... :eyeroll:

I would address any of Kick's other facts or points...

Had she made any... :eyeroll:

Ignored.

And yet.... It wasn't... You HAD to respond to it.. Even with a concession that you COULDN'T respond to ANY of the facts, there by conceding the facts...

I accept your concession.. :D

The majority of this post appearing to be spam-like redundant TDS chatbot redundancy and therefore wasted bandwith. #SSDD

Ignored.

Not factually accurate... The etymology of the 14th Amendment being formed from the 13th Amendment proves beyond ANY doubt that the original intent of the 14th was to have TWO requirements for birthright citizenship..

You do not appear in any way whatsoever to understand the meaning of the term "etymology," which is the study of the origins of words (e.g., Latin, Greek, etc.) The 14th Amendment wasn't "formed from" the 13th Amendment but rather built upon it in order to address issues left unresolved by it. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery but failed to define citizenship issues or to address the rights and protections of people that were formerly enslaved. The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted shortly after, addressed the gaps by defining citizenship, guaranteeing equal protection under the law to all persons (as opposed to all citizens), among other things.

The fact that the courts have been, for the most part, ruling incorrectly all these decades does not change the overriding FACT...

That's not a fact, it's an opinion. Opinions aren't facts, up to and including judicial opinions, including the SCOTUS; that's why they're referred to as "opinions."

Birthright citizenship requires TWO components, not just the one locational-based component...

Opinions: EGO.

You have been relegated to Punctuation/Grammar Lames???

Your omission of a word from an Amendment to the Constitution has nothing to do with either punctuation or grammar; it's an omission and therefore an incorrect quotation and misrepresentation of a fact.

"Oh how the mighty have fallen..."
-Guinan, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION

Now that meets the definition of "lame."

It did...

Nope. Editorial opinions aren't SCOTUS opinions.

And yet, here we are... :D

That's your rebuttal? *laughs*

I stopped reading where you began the asinine assignation of quotes to me. That's beneath anyone with an IQ of 40.

The current process of birthright citizenship in the here and now is NEVER what Congress intented..

The FACTS prove this beyond ANY doubt..

If Congress had intended that simply being born in the United States automagically conferred citizenship on a child, they would have written any child born on US soil is a US citizen PERIOD and stopped right there..

But Congress NEVER intended that which is why they added the subsequent requirement about being under the jurisdiction of the United States blaa blaa blaa...

PRESIDENT Trump is simply the first POTUS who actually has the balls to call a spade a spade and set things right... To set things they way they were MEANT to be as Congress had intended..

Woke progressive Democrats need to give up on their Trump/America hate and quit putting their hate and their Party BEFORE the welfare of the country..

They would be a lot happier and America would be a lot better off..

CW's point (and my corollary) is that in this case SCOTUS really could create such a class, thereby triggering slave-hunters redux.

I can definitely imagine an Executive Order that would attempt to make an entire class of persons into a second class of persons that could be thence deported easily.

JL

Except the FACT is, there IS NO "equal" protection under the laws for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS..

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS are NOT afforded the same Constitutional protections that American citizens are afforded..

THIS is **SETTLED** law...

What part of this FACT are you not able to comprehend??

the fugitive slave issue is a pretty solid parallel.

Great point because under the Fugitive Slave Acts regardless of state of residence, slaves were still considered property of their owners even if they had managed to escape to a state where they were considered free.

That issue was rooted in the United States Constitution via the right to protection of property.

Problem solved by (among other things) amending the U.S. Constitution:

13th Amendment

Section 1

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

14th Amendment

Section 1

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.

can you imagine a whole class of children kidnapped and moved to a different state so they can be deported "legally?"

I can definitely imagine an Executive Order that would attempt to make an entire class of persons into a second class of persons that could be thence deported easily.

The cruelty is the point with Trump and his ilk; he keeps claiming that judges are interfering with his ability to enact his agenda, but the fact of the matter is that Trump is attempting to interfere with the judges' oaths and sworn obligations to uphold the law and Constitution without denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.

I've often wondered what the United Federation Of Planets does about the mass nihilism that surely must fester in the bulk of populations' less inherently talented individuals given that currency and therefore paychecks don't exist. Which in turn has the effect of the most 'non-exceptional' people, IE those without high IQ or drive to succeed and lacking in any obvious natural talent in a celebrated or needed field on the outside looking in and feeling like a square peg in a round hole.
Would these individuals be medicated?? Maybe offered (or even FORCED) to take part in some sort of 24th century self-improvement regime??

Say that Ensign Harry Kim will never ever get a promotion without saying Ensign Harry Kim will never ever get a promotion..

:D

The courts’ previous rulings on birthright citizenship, particularly United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) have been criticized for misinterpreting the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, diverging from its etymological roots in the 13th Amendment and the original intent of Congress.

So, this is not a new or radical interpretation.. It's simply PRESIDENT Trump having the cajones to do the right thing...

The 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, was a cornerstone of Reconstruction, aiming to secure citizenship for freed slaves following the 13th Amendment’s abolition of slavery in December 1865.

The Citizenship Clause states: “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.” This clause was informed by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared citizenship for those born in the U.S. “not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,” as detailed in Senate debates (Senate Records, 1866)

The etymology of the Citizenship Clause is deeply tied to the 13th Amendment’s legacy, addressing the post-slavery status of black Americans.

Congressional intent, as articulated during the 1866 debates, was to ensure freed slaves were recognized as citizens, not to create a universal birthright for all born on U.S. soil, particularly those with foreign allegiances.

The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to limit citizenship to those fully under U.S. law, excluding categories like children of foreign diplomats and Native Americans not fully integrated, as seen in Elk v. Wilkins (112 U.S. 94, 1884) which denied citizenship to a Native American born on U.S. soil but not subject to U.S. jurisdiction due to tribal allegiance.

There is simply NO VIABLE LEGAL PRECEDENT that would allow the interpretation that children of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS are automagically American citizens.

The ONLY one that Trump/America haters can point to is Wong Kim Ark that extended citizenship to a child of Chinese permanent residents, assuming they were fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction without adequately addressing the clause’s limitations.

This ruling, criticized by legal scholars, deviated from earlier decisions like Slaughter-House Cases (83 U.S. 36, 1873), which noted the clause excluded “citizens or subjects of foreign States” without permanent ties.

The case of Siavash Sobhani, whose U.S. citizenship was revoked in 2023 due to his father’s diplomatic status at birth (Washington Post, 2023), exemplifies the confusion caused by courts’ broad interpretations.

Sobhani’s initial grant of citizenship, later corrected, highlights bureaucratic errors stemming from misapplying the clause, as his father, an Iranian diplomat, was not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, aligning with the amendment’s intent to exclude such cases.

Legal opinions, such as Judge Richard Posner’s in Oforji v. Ashcroft (2003), suggest Congress could constitutionally limit birthright citizenship for children of temporary aliens, indicating the current interpretation is not immutable. Posner argued, “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense,” supporting a narrower reading.

This aligns with the amendment’s historical context, where Congressional debates (Congressional Globe, 1866) emphasized citizenship for those without foreign allegiance, not tourists, students, or illegal immigrants.

The courts’ failure to adhere to this etymology has diluted the 14th Amendment’s purpose, originally rooted in the 13th Amendment’s emancipation efforts.

By expanding citizenship beyond freed slaves to include children of non-residents, courts have created a legal framework that does not reflect Congressional intent, as PROVEN as factual by the ongoing debates and the State Department’s inconsistent application, such as in Sobhani’s case.

This misinterpretation underscores the need for legislative clarity to realign with the amendment’s historical and constitutional roots.

We will see an end of birthright citizenship as we know it by the end of PRESIDENT Trump's second term...

I know this as certain and as factually accurate as I knew that Headboard Harris didn't stand a single solitary chance of winning the 2024 election..

The credibility and the facts are on my side...

Not factually accurate... The etymology of the 14th Amendment being formed from the 13th Amendment proves beyond ANY doubt that the original intent of the 14th was to have TWO requirements for birthright citizenship..

The fact that the courts have been, for the most part, ruling incorrectly all these decades does not change the overriding FACT...

Birthright citizenship requires TWO components, not just the one locational-based component...

Incorrect. The "Citizenship Clause," the first clause of the first section of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." However, you were oh so close but not factually accurate.

You have been relegated to Punctuation/Grammar Lames???

"Oh how the mighty have fallen..."
-Guinan, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION

Oh, if only an editorial opinion (regardless whatever date) had any bearing whatsoever on the opinions of the United States judiciary regarding the Constitution.

It did...

Opinions like that are likely why Judge Richard Posner never became a Justice on the Supreme Court. The idea that Congress could limit birthright citizenship despite the longstanding opinion of the SCOTUS based on the unambiguous words of the Constitution is laughable.

And yet, here we are... :D

Ya'all ALSO thought that the idea that the SCOTUS would rule that the POTUS is completely immune from criminal prosecution for ALL OFFICIAL ACTS was "laughable"...

But then woke progressive Democrats pushed the issue and then, lo' and behold, the SCOTUS ruled EXACTLY that.. :D

Do you REALLY want to be put in ANOTHER position like that, for the THIRD TIME, claiming something is "laughable" and then, when it comes to pass, ya'all have to watch me gloat for months on end??

REALLY!!?? :D

Of course immigrants (illegal or otherwise) do not confer citizenship to their children born in the United States; however, the United States Constitution actually does according to the longstanding interpretation of said Constitution by the SCOTUS.

Interpretations change.. ROE v WADE comes to mind..

The simple fact is, ya'all are going to lose.. AGAIN...

Birthright Citizenship is going to go the way of the dodo, moderate Democrats, Headboard Harris and ROE v WADE...

Peon activist woke progressive judges are going to get their pee pees whacked and be put in their place...

And America will just keep getting greater and greater!!!

And woke progressive Democrats will keep being pushed further and further into the wilderness....

SO SAY WE ALL

The claim that the 14th Amendment automagically confers U.S. citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil is a misinterpretation that ignores the amendment’s nuanced requirements and oprigins.

Incorrect... of course, assuming by "automagically" you mean "automatically," unless and until the Supreme Court of the United States determines otherwise, that is exactly what the 14th Amendment actually means as upheld by multiple courts for centuries, of course, including the SCOTUS.

The Citizenship Clause, enacted in 1868, states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

Incorrect. The "Citizenship Clause," the first clause of the first section of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." However, you were oh so close but not factually accurate.

This clause, as detailed in a December 6, 2023 editorial, establishes two prerequisites: birth within U.S. territory and being ALSO “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Oh, if only an editorial opinion (regardless whatever date) had any bearing whatsoever on the opinions of the United States judiciary regarding the Constitution.

The latter condition explicitly limits automatic citizenship, refuting the notion of universal birthright based SOLELY on location of birth.

So says an editorial opinion of December 6, 2023, which in no way whatsoever does a single thing to negate the current opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, but thank whichever chatbot who provided that opinion to you for that editorial.

Judge Richard Posner’s opinion in Oforji v. Ashcroft (2003) suggested Congress CAN limit birthright citizenship for children of temporary (OR ILLEGAL) aliens without violating the Constitution.

Opinions like that are likely why Judge Richard Posner never became a Justice on the Supreme Court. The idea that Congress could limit birthright citizenship despite the longstanding opinion of the SCOTUS based on the unambiguous words of the Constitution is laughable. Anyone who believes otherwise should try actually reading the longstanding opinion of the SCOTUS. There has never been a case that has gone against the decision of the SCOTUS, including four recent decisions in 2025 alone.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS, often retaining foreign allegiance, do not automatically confer citizenship to their children, as their jurisdictional status is ambiguous (Heritage Foundation, 2018).

Of course immigrants (illegal or otherwise) do not confer citizenship to their children born in the United States; however, the United States Constitution actually does according to the longstanding interpretation of said Constitution by the SCOTUS.

Congress has NEVER extended the clause to tourists, students, or illegal immigrants, unlike its 1920s clarification for Native Americans.

Congress has had no need to extend the 14th Amendment to the children of those you list because there's obviously no need. Should Congress wish to change the unambiguous language of the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS, they need to TYA and propose an Amendment to the Constitution because an Executive Order of the President that attempts to rewrite the longstanding meaning of the Constitution ain't going to cut it.

The 14th Amendment’s intent and judicial interpretations clearly REJECTS automatic citizenship based solely on birthplace.

You know what they say about opinions, right? EGO: Everybody's Got One, and the only one that matters in this country is that of the Supreme Court, and the longstanding current opinion of the Supreme Court absolutely states otherwise.

Interesting side note...

Ya'all laugh and sneer at the MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN slogan...

“I believe that together we can Make America Great Again!!”
-Bill Clinton, 1991

Once again....

Hypocrisy. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature

SILENCE GIVES ASSENT
-Woke Progressive Democrats

Kinda like killing the filibuster, eh?? :D

I seem to recall reading an article at the beginning of all this that one of the woke progressive Justices (Kagan or Sotomayer, not Justice Jackson Browne) was dead set against having peon judges issue nationwide injunctions..

But, of course NOW that those nationwide injunctions are HELPING the woke progressive agenda, NOW that justice LOVES nationwide injunctions..

Which simply proves the point... Even with a Justice of the Supreme Court of the US...

Hypocrisy. It's not a bug in woke progressive Democrat programing. It's a feature.

I am not really worried about it...

Considering the line of questioning from all the Justices that supports PRESIDENT Trump and considering the legislation that's been approved in the House that will neuter peon activist woke progressive Democrat judges, PRESIDENT Trump's MAKE AMERICA GREAT agenda will be back on track soon enough..

But the detrimental effects on the woke progressive Democrat Party of Democrats actually going to court to protect scumbag terrorists and wife-beaters and gang-bangers and illegal immigrant criminals!!!

THOSE effects are going to continue to grow and grow and push the woke progressive Democrats deeper and deeper into the political wilderness that they'll never see the light of day for another hundred years!!! :D

Isn't it just a GREAT time to be an American, eh!!?? :D

Lower court judges? We don't need those stinking judges. If you can't beat these rogues with your lawless prima facie unconstitutional Executive Orders, you've got to find another way to rein them in... whip them, beat them, take away their charge cards. The Republicans in the Legislative Branch have relinquished their power to the Executive so why can't these buggers in the Judicial Branch just roll over and play dead like the Castrated Caucus? How's a wannabe dictator supposed to rule a country with all these pesky inconvenient constitutional rights? *whispers* Except Texas, you know? Don't mess with Texas. /sarcasm

Kid Rock’s Big Ass Honky Tonk Rock N’ Roll Steakhouse's undocumented workforce fled the scene leaving no one in the kitchen to cook the food. Thanks Trump.

And I admit, I just can't keep up. I can't process the intricate legal details that Chriss lays out as clearly as he can. If this happens, then that happens. But if the other thing happens, the original party wishes it had never been born, so to speak.

I particularly loved the one where, if I understood it, the Feds under Trump DON'T appeal a case they lose, because that would give the Supreme Court an opportunity to issue a national-scale ruling. By NOT appealing, the Trumpsters retain the ability to violate the Constitution in every federal district in which they DIDN'T lose their case!

My head spins. Thanks for trying, Chris!

the fugitive slave issue is a pretty solid parallel.

Only if you actually MAKE an argument.. :^/

can you imagine a whole class of children kidnapped and moved to a different state so they can be deported "legally?"

Can you explain the relevance???

WITHOUT being a jerk, I mean.... :D

I am going to answer it specifically in the morning..

But I wanted to share with you some interesting information along the same lines..

The claim that the 14th Amendment automagically confers U.S. citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil is a misinterpretation that ignores the amendment’s nuanced requirements and oprigins.

The Citizenship Clause, enacted in 1868, states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

This clause, as detailed in a December 6, 2023 editorial, establishes two prerequisites: birth within U.S. territory and being ALSO “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

The latter condition explicitly limits automatic citizenship, refuting the notion of universal birthright based SOLELY on location of birth.

The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was rooted in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted citizenship to those born in the U.S. “not subject to any foreign power,” excluding Native Americans not taxed.

The 14th Amendment reframed this positively (as opposed to the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, which framed it NEGATIVELY) but its intent, as debated in Congress in 1866, was to secure citizenship for freed slaves, not to extend it to all born on U.S. soil, particularly those with foreign allegiances.

For example, children of foreign diplomats, who owe allegiance to their home countries, are UNIVERSALLY agreed to be excluded from automatic citizenship due to their parents’ diplomatic immunity, as clarified in the case of Siavash Sobhani. By having DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY, Sobhani's Parents were NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the United States.

Sobhani’s U.S. citizenship, granted at his 1961 birth, was revoked in 2023 because his father, an Iranian diplomat, was not subject to U.S. jurisdiction (Washington Post, 2023).

Supreme Court precedent further supports this restrictive interpretation.

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Court upheld citizenship for a child of Chinese permanent residents, emphasizing their full subjection to U.S. law, unlike temporary visitors or illegal immigrants.

Conversely, Elk v. Wilkins (1884) denied citizenship to a Native American born on U.S. soil but not fully under U.S. jurisdiction, reinforcing that birth alone is "NOT SUFFICIENT".

The Court in Slaughter-House Cases (1873) noted the clause was not meant to include children of “citizens or subjects of foreign States” without permanent ties. Which OBVIOUSLY means ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS...

The State Department’s misapplication, as seen in Sobhani’s case, where passports were issued to children of non-residents, stems from bureaucratic errors, NOT a constitutional mandate.

Judge Richard Posner’s opinion in Oforji v. Ashcroft (2003) suggested Congress CAN limit birthright citizenship for children of temporary (OR ILLEGAL) aliens without violating the Constitution.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS, often retaining foreign allegiance, do not automatically confer citizenship to their children, as their jurisdictional status is ambiguous (Heritage Foundation, 2018).

Congress has NEVER extended the clause to tourists, students, or illegal immigrants, unlike its 1920s clarification for Native Americans.

The 14th Amendment’s intent and judicial interpretations clearly REJECTS automatic citizenship based solely on birthplace.

"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN