US Elections (& Politics) :)

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.”
 
That's certainly the popular gaslighting. Or could it be that these three judges were the only ones who did their research and voted to uphold the 14th amendment as it was understood at the time it was passed?

The 14th amendment was introduced into the senate by senator Jacob Howard, who was also the senate manager for the amendment. At the time, citizenship was with the individual states and he co-authored an amendment to section 1 of the 14th amendment (the citizenship clause) for the purpose of insuring that one state couldn't deny constitutional protections to a citizen of a different state. According to him, a restriction on the states, and nothing more. In introducing his amendment to the senate, he said:

"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. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

This was followed by extensive debate, which wasn't about birthright citizenship at all. Birth tourism wasn't very feasible in 1866. The debate was over if this clause conferred citizenship to American Indians.

So here the man who co-authored the clause that supposedly created birthright citizenship, said very explicitly that it didn't. What are some possibilities?

1. He was simply careless, didn't write down what he meant, and convinced the senate that he didn't need to?
2. That it was perfectly clear at the time that birthright citizenship wasn't conferred, and that understanding has been conveniently forgotten to illegitimately change the meaning of the 14th amendment?
3. The ambiguity was an intentional deception to fool the legislators and public, similar to the "You can keep your insurance" lie that was needed to get obamacare passed?
4-.... ???

Here's the transcript of Howard introducing the "birthright citizenship" amendment to section 1 of the proposed 14th amendment. Seems pretty clear he said there was absolutely no birthright citizenship intended.
View attachment 245728

The full debate transcript begins on page 2890 of the Congressional Globe for the 39th congress, session 1, part 4 page 2890 (starts in center column).
Also in the Senate Journal

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:
  • Like
Reactions: SJGUSMC21
If you were born in America, you’re an American. You have a right to live here. Unless of course you’re American. In which case you’re living on stolen land. Satire - or Truth?
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:
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.
 
  • Like
  • Exclamation
Reactions: TonyR and Arjun
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.





 
Last edited:
Everything’s fine

 
Let’s check in and see how it’s going at TrumpFest 2026….




 
Last edited:
Ooopppsss


 
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....

 
This is a Republican.

They’re laughing at you

Must watch video

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bigredfish
 
Some folks need to learn to quit believing what they say, and start paying attention to what they do.

 
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".

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.
 
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...?

 
Last edited:
Two issues infinitely more important that seem to be lost on most...


1-

Congress Blocks Amendment To Stop Integration of U.S. And Israeli Militaries​


..."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: