Below is my column on Fox.com on the birthright citizenship case. Republicans in Congress have already submitted legislation for both a new constitutional amendment and specific bars on birth tourism. The legislation will obviously move more quickly and, if challenged, could give the Court another opportunity to address the issue. However, the most direct way of addressing the issue remains a 28th Amendment.
Here is the column:
Today, Folarin Balogun secured a spot on the American soccer team for the World Cup…for a second time.
That may be the most positive spin I can offer to those upset by today’s 5-4 decision in favor of birthright citizenship. Balogun, one of the stars on our team, was born to Nigerian parents visiting the United States and then raised in England.
According to the Supreme Court, he is — and was always intended to be — a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is a conclusion that divided the court 5-4, but, as in soccer, a one-point win is as good as a nine-point win.
Roberts wrote for the majority that “The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
The victory for birthright citizenship was due to the joining of Chief Justice John Roberts (who authored the decision) and Justice Amy Coney Barrett with the three liberal justices. They found the language and history of the amendment to be clear and, relying on prior rulings dating back decades, concluded that birth alone in this country is enough to confer citizenship — even if born to a tourist or someone briefly on our soil.
It is a view that is rejected by the vast majority of countries, which rightfully view birthright citizenship as bonkers, including some which followed the practice and then rescinded it. The United States remains one of the outliers in maintaining this ill-considered practice.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, effectively arguing that this is the invention of the Court, which refused to reconsider its lazy prior analysis. That included the Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which expanded birthright citizenship beyond what the Reconstruction Congress had ever “contemplated.” He noted that the Court could have resolved the case on narrower grounds consistent with the 14th Amendment: “Wong Kim Ark addressed only the citizenship of a child born to parents who were lawfully and permanently domiciled in the United States.”
The 5-4 decision unleashed another furious broadside on social media against Barrett, particularly after she authored the 5-4 decision on mail-in ballots again, this time with Roberts and her liberal colleagues.
Barrett hit a nerve as one of the three Trump appointees, whom many hoped would be more in the vein of Alito or Thomas. Instead, she often writes with Roberts.
The attacks on Barrett ignored that there are good-faith arguments on both sides of the birthright citizenship case. They also ignore that she regularly voted with the conservatives and for positions of the Administration. For example, she voted to support states in requiring transgender athletes to compete with their biological sex. She previously was the most vocal justice in rejecting transgender status as a protected class akin to race or religion.
President Trump has lashed out at his nominees over their adverse rulings. However, they remain one of his most impressive and positive legacies. President Trump said that he wanted independent and principled conservatives. He got them in Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. They are all extraordinary jurists who have dramatically elevated the Court’s intellectual discussions.
When I testified at Gorsuch’s confirmation in the Senate, I told the senators that they were wrong to pigeonhole the nominee: he would go wherever his convictions took him. That has proven to be the case, and it is a great credit to Trump that he selected such independent minds.
On birthright citizenship, the matter now rests not with the court but the country. We have never truly had a national debate over the practice. The basis and future of birthright citizenship have remained matters almost exclusively for the courts.
We must now decide whether to pursue such a debate as a constitutional amendment.
While Congress can pass legislation cracking down on birth tourism, there is only so much that such laws can do in questioning why particular births occurred in the United States, such as the birth of Balogun.
I can think of no more appropriate debate to have as we celebrate our 250th anniversary than what it means to be a citizen of this unique republic.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
*. Gorsuch moves the opinion back into the EO arena. That’s correctly done. The court could have only addressed the EO point by point in agreement or not or remained silent. They could have referred it back for legislation where it belonged.
It is derivation of either natural born or naturalized parents in fact. Ark is wrong as is DJT’s EO regarding this issue. The court overstepped and Chinese residents should have been legislated but what of treaties.
Let it move forward and a case for noncitizen parents will come up. The court has utterly rewritten immigration law.
It’s shock and more shock. The court utterly trashed an amendment. The reverberations are disbelief. What would have been impossible to change by 2/3 vote of each house and then passed again by 2/3 vote of States was bypassed.
It’s written as if children wrote it. Trembling, shockingly wrong. There is no law. Utter condolences USA. What a knife to heart on July 4, 2026. That’s not the court at all. It’s demonic.
Censor as you please.
^^^ It’s a children’s story- The Magic Dirt. 😂.
^^ It’s in the same category as men in women’s sports. 😂
Enough heavy thinking for 2day.
I’m going to market the magic dirt of North America. It’ll come with instructions for sprinkling, citizenship mail-in and a game of tag. No need for flights, walking, useless accouterments like passports and visas.
I don’t believe this hoax for a minute. Notice the hoaxers ran.
Over and out
* a knife to the heart
Why not do both- legislation and Constitution? The current decision currently opens the door to any and every one! There are serious flaws with this decision that placed in legislation- if challenged – back to the courts. 15 million came in 4 years under the last regime- that’s 4 million opening the door a year unscreened! 40 million at minimum a decade!
How were children of immigrants granted US Citizenships before the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868?
There must have been some process, right?….right???
This is a pivotal question encircles the history of 14A, the Wong Kim Ark 1898 decision, and now Trump v. Barbara. This question has been effectively BURIED by legal elites and media — it is taboo to even ask it. But it’s easy to answer.
The very 1st Congress in 1790, acting under its Constitutional powers to devise Naturalization rules (under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4) in the Nationality Act legislated the process for children of immigrants. On the same day their parents Naturalized, all resident children under 21 automatically became US Citizens. This is called Citizenship by Derivation. Note how Derivation DOES NOT split immigration status within the family — a mark of the Founding legislators’ common sense.
Jump to 1868. Citizenship by Derivation for immigrant children was not the slightest bit controversial. It continued to be practiced as if nothing had changed. If you want proof that 14A DID NOT establish a new process for babies of pre-Citizen immigrants, just ask: Did any immigrant parents begin demanding their baby be recognized as a Citizen before they themselves were? Go ahead, look at Naturalization logs from 1869….there you’ll find the names of children who were born on US soil.
There’s your historical proof that Citizenship by Derivation remained the standard before, during and after 1868.
Jump to 1898, Wong Kim Ark. Was Citizenship by Derivation in question? Yes, but only because a Treaty signed with China prohibited Kim Ark’s parents from becoming Naturalized. Did the Court rule Citizenship by Derivation unconstitutional?…..no. It simply left it on the law books, while inventing a competing “how and when” for immigrant children becoming US Citizens.
In the future, when Congress passes Birthright Citizenship Reform, babies who are ineligible for instant Citizenship under the new system will still be eligible for Citizenship by Derivation. That law never went away. It is still used when the Naturalizing parents’ child was born before moving to the US.
If you do a search of the Barbara case text — the briefs, oral arguments, and opinions — you won’t find ONE reference to Citizenship by Derivation.
And these Justices claim to have done a scholarly study of the history surrounding 14A!!! Do you see now how elastic is the “history and tradition” standard for deciding a case?
Citizenship by Derivation was not part of the Barbara case because it was designed primarily for children born abroad who immigrated to the US with their parents. For those children, jus soli (birthright) was not available. Derivation allowed them to bypass the individual naturalization process when they reached adulthood. It was never a mechanism for children born on US soil.
Please read Derivative Citizenship: Its History, Constitutional Foundation, and Constitutional Limitations by Michael G. McFarland on this topic.
The 14th Amendment did not create a “new” process because birthright citizenship was already the dominant common law rule. Long before 1868, anyone born on US soil (except for children of foreign diplomats, certain Native American tribes, children of invading armies, etc.) was automatically a citizen at birth. The 14th Amendment CODIFIED the existing rule into the Constitution to prevent future Congresses or racist court decisions (like Dred Scott) from overturning it.
It is ironic that you bring this up, given the news today that President Trump’s wants a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. Without the 14th Amendment, as affirmed by the Barbara case, he would not need a constitutional amendment.
The paper you cited is concerned with Derivative Citizenships where the parents are US CITIZEN PARENTS giving birth to a newborn while outside the US territory (e.g., Ted Cruz / Canada).
My comment is about Derivative Citizenship where the parents are resident immigrant non-citizens who are going through Naturalization to become US Citizenship, and how their minor children are automatically included as US Citizens on the Day of Naturalization, NOT previously on the day of their birth somewhere in the US.
I will continue to research this matter. I see that Naturalization Records were not federalized and standardized until 1906, so I have to get access to County Court records kept before that. The specific thing I’m looking for are records showing that an immigrant’s child (born on US soil) was recorded as obtaining US Citizenship by Derivation at the moment of the parents being Naturalized. If found, that implies that jus solis was NOT applicable to such children of immigrants, but rather Citizenship by Derivation.
I’m open-minded, and will accept whatever the facts turn out to be.
BS
pbinca
Apparently you have no comprehension of the US Constitution and how it absolutely controls in the legal arena.
Citizenship by derivation was indeed the standard BEFORE the 14th Amendment.
However the 14th Amendment rendered the citizenship by derivation statute completely moot and irrelevant.
The 14th Amendment overrides the citizenship by derivation statute. Just because it is still on the books, so to speak, does not allow it to have any effect whatsoever. The 14th Amendment was not a “competing “how and when” for immigrant children becoming US Citizens” as you so absurdly claim. The Constitution does not COMPETE with statutory legislation. The Constitution absolutely overrides any existing statutes that are not in full compliance with it. You seem to think that the “citizenship by derivation” statute is still in effect because it has not been repealed or declared as unconstitutional.
That idea is a legal absurdity.
The 14th Amendment is the absolute controlling authority to define citizenship as it applies to any child born within the United States.
Not an absurdity. Citizenship by Derivation is still alive and kicking and used every day in these situations:
Resident alien parents on their day of Naturalization — any co-resident children under 21 who were NOT born in US territory are waved in as US Citizens by Derivation on that same day.
US Citizen parent (father or mother) becomes a parent while outside US territory — that child inherits US Citizenship from time of birth (jus sanguinis)
US Citizen parent(s) adopt a child having foreign Nationality — that child becomes a US Citizen by Derivation upon completion of the adoption.
The area of disagreement is, historically-legally, when was it first established (in US) that birthplace in the US conferred automatic US Citizenship at the time of birth? Established, meaning put into everyday practice.
Clearly, jus solis was denied to African American and Native American babies in the first 7 decades of the US.
Was it denied to non-citizen immigrant parents?
I spent about an hour researching “How did the children of immigrants (born on US soil) obtain US Citizenship BEFORE 1868?
It’s difficult to answer because record-keeping was not that systematic or detailed.
In NewYorkFamilySearch.org, I got this picture: Usually only the Father applied for Naturalization. His wife and children would not show up on any records. They were considered US Citizens by Derivation (again, no record). If the offspring son needed to prove US Citizenship, he would have to produce his Father’s Naturalization papers. The same for the wife.
By contrast, it’s a safe assumption that, for immigrant parents who were NOT Naturalized, their child would not be able to prove US Citizenship if asked, even if born on US soil.
This patriarchical concept of Citizenship by Derivation was still in effect in the 1860s.
And we know from the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898, that jus solis was still not applied universally, since
WKA was not recognized, who was clearly born on US soil and could prove it, was still not acknowledged as being a US Citizen.
My point stands. Children of resident non-citizen immigrants, though born on US soil, before, during and after passage of the 14th Amendment, had to establish their US Citizenship via a parent’s (father) Naturalization.
In other words, jus solis DID NOT confer automatic citizenship at birth in everyday practice. Rather the norm was establishing Citizenship by Derivation (through the recording of the parent’s Naturalization).
So, the interpretation of the 14th Amendment made by the Supreme Court majority in WKA 1898, was a novel meaning at the time in 1898 useful for the WKA case — an interpretation that was not widely understood nor put into practice at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.
I guess we can all stand with the majority opinion in Barbara by this logic:
The 14th Amendment established Jus Solis with just a few exceptions starting in 1868, but nobody knew about it enough to begin widely practicing it until much later. The ratifiers weren’t thinking much about US Citizenships for newborns of immigrants, since there was already a process for them (Derivation from a Naturalized parent).
pbinca
Why are you tying yourself up in knots trying to conflate issues that are completely unrelated?
The 14th Amendment is very simple. It simply states that any child born within the US is by definition a citizen.
That’s it.
Very simple.
Nothing more, nothing less.
For some absurd reason you are trying to conflate the 14th Amendment with other completely unrelated issues regarding alien residency and naturalization and derivative naturalization. These are completely separate and unrelated issues that have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment simply says that all children born in the US are citizens, regardless of the status of the parents. Whatever criteria used to determine the citizenship of children born BEFORE the 14th Amendment were completely nullified by the Amendment.
You seem to be trying to justify an alternative interpretation of the 14th Amendment that is absurd, by conflating it with these other unrelated issues of residency and naturalization of the parents. These issues are of no relevance to the 14th Amendment and cannot in any way be used to say that the Amendment means something other than its plain unambiguous meaning.
You also ask an absurd question, “when was it first established (in US) that birthplace in the US conferred automatic US Citizenship at the time of birth?”, as if there is some dispute or disagreement or doubt about that.
The answer is very simple. The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. From that day forward all children born in the US were automatically citizens. No amount of wild speculation or interpretation can change that. No statute can override that. No ruling from SCOTUS can change that. No Presidential Executive Order can change that.
The 14th Amendment completely nullified all the statutory authorities previously used to determine the citizenship of children born in the US, and you simply cannot appeal to those older nullified authorities to come up with an alternative interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
The issues of residency and naturalization of the parents have no bearing on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
End of discussion.
“Nothing more, nothing less.” OMG. what else is he going to pick up from others here.
I immediately see the difference between our views on the 14th. You are stripping the words that appear there of their historical context, so that they can mean what you choose them to mean in the current context. Your’s is a “living Constitution” view.
My view of 14A is “original intent” — the meaning of the 14th is that which its Ratifiers believed they were approving at the time — that which was being intentionally CHANGED from the way things had been previously done. Stopping southern Courts and Juries from nullifying/disregarding the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (which gave the emancipated African Americans full US Citizenship status and rights) was the thing they were voting “aye” for…the thing they were intending to change.
Ratification is a rigorous requirement for any Amendment, obliging broad public consensus be mustered behind any momentous change. Ratification is the Founder’s check on activist-only quest for change.
“Living Constitution” believers think that the import of Ratification is agreement to add words, sentences and paragraphs to the Constitution, those passages to be freely reinterpreted later on in a different way that suits activists — with no need for a show of public majority support. It’s a way to change the meaning and impact of the Constitution — a simpler, faster way — only needing a Plaintiff, a lawyer and 5 robed Justices. This is perfect for activists who cannot convince the public of their preferred policy.
For example, I think we all agree that Birth Tourism as a standalone proposition could never gain a 2/3 vote in both Houses and majorities in 3/4 of State Legislatures. Polls going back 20 years consistently show >85-90% disapproval. And those 15% who hold their nose and accept it aren’t big supporters of Birth Tourism, they are big supporters of a “living Constitution” and political activism via the Courts as a force for good.
It’s really about who has the power to shape Citizenship policy in our era?….committed immigrant-rights activist lawyers and sympathetic Judges?…..or We The People?
I hope that explains why I’m interested in a historical question that gives context to the original intent of 14A, and you think the history is irrelevant, and all that matters are the words in the Citizenship Clause.
It’s the difference between a democracy where the legitimacy of public law and policy flow from “the consent of the governed” vs. an aristocracy of judicial activists who see no need for public support (for something like selling US Citizenships for $50-100K).
It’s a profound difference.
Unfortunately you have gone down a deep rabbit hole and become lost.
You suggest that I believe in the concept of a “living Constitution” because I “strip the words of the citizenship clause of its historical context”. Quite the opposite is true. I do not strip the words of their original intent and meaning, and I believe that the plain language of the clause speaks for itself and requires no further interpretation in a modern context.
Apparently you do not understand the historical context. You seem to believe that the clause was intended to ONLY cover freed black slaves. That is unequivocally not true.
It is true that the original motivation for the citizenship clause came from the desire to declare that freed slaves born in the US were citizens, but Senator Jacob Howard, the chief architect of the clause, made it perfectly clear that it was meant to cover ALL persons born in the US.
When introducing it, Senator Howard explicitly stated on the Senate floor that the amendment was simply “declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States… is a citizen.”
The historical record proves that Howard and the other framers knew the language was broad and that skeptical senators explicitly objected to its wide reach. During the 1866 debates opponents complained that the phrase “all persons” would automatically grant citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants on the West Coast and Roma (Gypsy) immigrants in the East. Howard listened to these objections and refused to narrow the text, confirming that the children of those immigrants were meant to be included by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. There is absolutely no doubt that the framers of the citizenship clause absolutely intended it to cover ALL persons born in the US.
You are trying to invoke an historical context for the clause that simply is not there.
The intent was ALWAYS to declare ALL persons born in the US to be citizens, not just freed black slaves.
The meaning of the plain language of the amendment is crystal clear, and is exactly what the framers intended.
OK, Senator Howard may have had a clear idea as to how widely 14A should be applied, but I’m not convinced his conception was widely understood by the average citizen at the time, and the Ratifiers in the state legislatures.
One clear piece of evidence that 14A was NOT generally understood to cover everyone born on US soil: Wong Kim Ark was stopped from entering the US on his return from China. He was able to prove being born on US soil, yet Immigration authorities on the West Coast did not accept him as a US Citizen. Rather, they wanted him to show Citizenship by Derivation — which I argue was still the widely understood process for children of immigrants in the 1890s.
Yes, the Supreme Court took his case, and ruled that the Immigration authorities were mistaken about WKA not being a US Citizen based, based on a retrospective legal analysis of 14A and jus solis. If Immigration authorities in 1898 were still not aware of the meaning and impact of 14A, do you think the average citizen was? Not likely.
The point being, when the Constitution is Amended, you look at changes in govt. and public behavior immediately after ratification to find exactly what the Amendment was understood to mean.
In the case of 14A(1), there’s almost no evidence in the 30-year period following ratification that children of immigrants obtained US Citizenship by birthright. Rather, the evidence is that, in practice, those children had to prove US Citizenship by Derivation from a Naturalized parent.
To just say the history of what you would consider “non-compliance” with 14A over those years doesn’t matter to the present is an easy out. It just signals that you don’t care what “The People” in 1868 thought 14A meant, only how legal elites who drafted it intended it.
And that same legal-elitist attitude prevails in Trump v. Barbara. Those happy with the majority opinion don’t care whether Birth Tourism has a repugnant stench in the public’s mind. “The consent of the governed”, whether in 1868, or in 2026 must yield to elitist legalistic interpretation of Constitutional verbiage.
Common sense be damned.
“The consent of the governed” in regards to Birth Tourism (the lack of it!) contradicts the Founders’ vision for how great controversies were to be resolved peacefully through public debate and elections.
A healthy sign for our democracy would be for immigrant rights activists to at least say they could agree to an exception ending automatic citizenships where there is no pattern of domicile on the parent’s part, instead travelling for the purpose of geographic jus solis for their newborn.
That would be a healthy concession and show of candor.
As I said before, you have gone down a rabbit hole and become lost.
Your comments make it abundantly clear that you desperately want the 14A to mean something other than its plain meaning. The plain language of the 14A makes it meaning clear.
All persons born in the United States are citizens.
It says what it says.
It means what it means.
You are caught up in knots trying to convince me, and even yourself, that even though the meaning is very plain, somehow those who introduced and ratified 14A did not REALLY understand what it says and means, and that therefore it means something other than the plain meaning of the words themselves.
This is an absurd position.
The 14A was hotly debated at the time of its drafting and subsequent ratification. The historical record shows that Senator Howard and the other framers had extensive discussions with others who believed that the 14A went too far and should only apply to freed slaves. The politicians of the time were keenly aware of the meaning, and many challenged Howard regarding the scope of the Amendment. It is simply not possible that those who ratified the Amendment did not really understand it.
You are taking an absurd position. For whatever reason you have formed the belief that the people who ratified the 14A did not REALLY understand it. You seem to think that most of the average citizens also did not understand it.
This is an example of the False Consensus Effect. This is a psychological tendency of individuals to assume that most other people are just like them, thinking in the same way, and having the same opinions and beliefs. It is a tendency of individuals to believe that their own views are representative of the majority of the population.
You are convinced that the people of the time did not REALLY understand the 14A simply because that is what YOU think, and since you falsely believe that your views are representative of most people, then that is what the people of the time must also have thought.
This is the false reasoning of the False Consensus Effect.
The bottom line is that the historical record shows that the 14A was hotly debated and its meaning was crystal clear at the time of ratification, as it is at the present time.
No amount of wishful thinking or false reasoning can change the fact that the framers and ratifiers knew exactly what they were doing.
BS
Esquire and his 0h-so-shy counterpart “anonymous” REPEATEDLY kept referring to a “supreme constitutional right,” (I count four times, may have missed some) but when called out on it, he NOW CLAIMS it was a “rhetorical statement.” Talk about moving goalposts and playing mole, he REALLY is a clown.
Who wants to make a holiday bet that Esquire will reappear under a different name or ID after being shot down again?
China is crafting plans as we speak to deploy their preggo-squad of paratroopers to US magic soil.
Sure, sure pal.
We are told by many on the left that the Constitution is a “living document”, that it should be interpreted according to current political and popular trends. As such it is indeed ironic to see that these same folks are comfortable with the strict interpretation of the cast in stone text of the 14th to mean anybody who happens to be born on US soil is a citizen, period – end of story. What happened to that living document they so embrace?
Indeed
Great question. Did you ask the same one of Alito when he adopted a living constitutionalist jurisprudence in Louisiana v. Callais.
He had all the “great” hallmarks of a Brandeis-style opinion:
– appealed to shifting “social conditions” to sidestep binding precedent
– invented a pragmatic, non-textual test
– privileged recent precedent over original history
Alito substituted the 15th Amendment’s original historical purpose with modern political pragmatism.
I, for one, prefer sticking to formalist textualism, regardless of the political outcome.
Another Court Decision:
Postal Service Must Deliver Mail-In Ballots
A federal judge in Washington on Wednesday blocked the United States Postal Service from carrying out changes to its delivery of mail-in ballots, writing that recent policies directed by President Trump ran afoul of legal terms the agency accepted more than four years ago to ensure timely delivery of mail ballots.
In a brief opinion, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan pointed to a settlement agreement reached between the N.A.A.C.P. and the Postal Service in December 2021, after the group sued the government arguing that postal delays threatened to disenfranchise voters. At that time, the agency agreed to “prioritize monitoring and timely delivery of election mail.”
Judge Sullivan, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote that the Postal Service’s proposal, which includes not delivering mail-in ballots in states that decline to hand over voter data to the federal government, violated the settlement agreement, which the parties had agreed would run through the 2028 election cycle.
Judge Sullivan wrote that Mr. Trump’s order appeared “designed to exert federal control over who in the United States may be sent a mail-in or absentee ballot in federal elections by the Postal Service.” He wrote that the agency had previously agreed to outline plans before each national election and meet with the N.A.A.C.P. to explain how it would ensure efficient delivery of election-related mail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/01/us/politics/judge-trump-postal-service.html?smid=nytcore
Another Ruling Against Trump
Two federal judges on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from implementing new restrictions on a student loan forgiveness program that would have barred public service workers from receiving debt relief if their employers are deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose.”
The rulings, issued by Biden-appointed judges in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., came just one day before the new eligibility rules were set to take effect.
The Trump administration had sought to add new rules to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program as part of its targeted overhaul of government programs that do not align with the administration’s priorities.
More than 20 states, along with a coalition of nonprofit groups, challenged the rule in a pair of lawsuits, arguing it would allow the Department of Education to target organizations that support causes considered disfavorable to the administration, including transgender healthcare and immigration advocacy.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5949409-judges-strike-down-trump-administration-student-loan-forgiveness-overhaul/
…………………………………
These restrictions would have suspended student loan forgiveness to public employees in so-called ‘sanctuary cities’. Teachers and cops, for instance, would have been told, “We can’t forgive your student loan because your city isn’t loyal to Trump”.
Alright, lets see him enforce it then
There is no such thing as an autonomous or semi-autonomous agency. There are three branches of government. The executive power is vested in a president of the United States.
Few seen to understand the issue. Birthright citizenship is NOT children born to illegal immigrants, who ARE under the jurisdiction of the United States. It’s children born to foreign women in the United States who then go back to their native countries taking their American-born child with them. As far as national debate, it was decided in 1866 when Republicans controlled everything and wanted to remain in control for perpetuity.
For anyone who was following my earlier comment about amending/compromising the 14th Amendment with a more provisional concept of automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, a friend just told me today that Congressman Andy Barr has just submitted something to Congress to end it entirely, similar to Rand Paul (no birthright unless at least one parent is legal or citizen, etc.)
So why X and Esquire (are they the same person?) jumped on me, I don’t know. My thoughts were more mild.
Lin – I appreciate your even-keeled way of expressing your ideas, and that your ideas are never extreme or wacky. I did see that Esquire’s response used the term “supreme constitutional right.” In fact, two of Esquire’s responses used that phrase.
To me this suggests Esquire may, in fact, be X. There is no such thing as a “supreme constitutional right.” That concept does not appear anywhere in the law. This would be consistent with X’s usual practice of making things up out of thin air and pretending they’re real. Like when X said Clive Johnston was using a megaphone, or when X said the Kelo dissenters believed it was constitutional to take private property for private use, or when X said the judicial branch does not declare the law, i.e., “say what the law is” per C.J. Marshall.
“To me this suggests Esquire may, in fact, be X. “
Both use AI to think, and both get things terribly wrong.
AI is an incredibly useful tool that I expect will change life as much as the industrial revolution.
It will massively improve human productivity – and that ALWAYS displaces jobs – if you are in a job that AI will make more productive – either learn AI – so that you get to keep your job or learn some job that AI is not going to effect.
But AI is NOT a substitute for Critical Thinking
AI will add machines to the long list of people who will tell you absolutely everything that you want to know.
But just like when people tell you things YOU still have to figure out what is right and what is wrong.
The AI capacities we have today – are going to take atleast a generation to fully realize – if not more.
There are capabilities unrelated to AI – that developed 30 years ago – that we STILL have not fully realized.
And AI will improve BUT absent breakthroughs in fundimental Physics that I do not see happening soon – we are not going to see and order of magnitude improvement in AI in decades – only in OUR ability to use it.
I am not certain whether Sentient machines are possible.
I am certain they are not happening in my lifetime or my childrens.
Absent AI actually learning to think – which is not happening – Humans are still going to have to do the actual Thinking.
In the meantime AI is just an amplifier for OUR skills
And those who refuse to learn how to use it properly and effectively are doomed to be left behind.
X treats AI as a ventriloquist instead of a sparring partner. That is why his parrot sounds so stupid.
Oldman, if you followed the conversation, I’d love to see your response to the below. Which is the correct reading of Lin’s proposal, is it merely exposure as she tried to later argue, or a test?
It’s a rhetorical statement. It’s not meant to be literal. A “supreme constitutional right” seems to be rhetorical.
Not sure who X is but i believe you mean me.
For all that want to read the conversation, Lin proposed a citizenship test, which is what I responded to.
Lin’s proposal:
“So, in the same light as media and progressives refusing to use the words “illegal aliens,” but instead preferring the term “undocumented,” maybe we can imagine a parallel initiative for children of illegal aliens, who can enjoy a presumed, undocumented “citizenship” under the 14th Amendment, along with its attendant protections, BUT upon reaching a certain age, must pass language and civics test for “documented” citizenship?”
Let’s try to use basic reading comprehension here. Is her suggestion based on the above that a language and civics test is required for certain children to have the same citizenship status as other children?
Or, does that mean, as Lin later tried to argue, that all she cares about is exposure to civics, no test needed?!
Perhaps anyone who thinks the latter is accurate would fail said language test.
you lie. I read it again. your distortion of “exposure” to civics learning has NOTHING to do with what you said. You came in swinging with a goal of defeating anything she said. You failed miserably and you fool no one, either in substance or motive. And this “later tried to argue” is nonsense. Looks like she was responding to your whackamole antics. If I were Lin, I would consider writing a lengthy Johnsay-style grand slam which would force you to create yet another ID on this blog.
“Exposure” is literally the word Lin used to suggest that the above “test” is not a test
Apparently you did not read the original conversation, where she said, following my question regarding how many Americans would actually fail such a test:
“You are gauging and comparing a retention rate of learning vs. an exposure rate. No go.”
In other words, “Above when I said “test” I meant “exposure” to civics education” which is as you can see above not at all what she said. Then, when I responded with the fact that even exposure rates to civics among children of immigrants are not universal (i.e, most private schools and homeschooling programs do not have to teach it), she demurred.
After rehashing this discussion here, Lin has of course been silent. That’s fine, but I’m only responding because she wanted to bring it up again.
(And to respond to some of the other comments, I am neither “X” nor “Esquire”. Just someone who understands doxxing is real and would prefer to remain anonymous.)
It is really sad to think that folks on this blog will not call a spade a spade. Lin often makes very intelligent and poignant comments here, but that does not mean that everything she says is correct. To see the usual suspects back her up – not based on substance but by somehow conflating my words to AI or someone else, is a real indictment as to the inability for rational thinking to prevail.
I read it. I presumed it was for the sake of the child at turning 18. The US is not so presumptuous as to think a child of foreign nationals can be claimed as a US citizen without consent.
Your reading isn’t what she presents.
What are you talking about?!
What is “it”? The “initiative” involving inferior citizenship status for minor children of illegal aliens until they pass a test at a “certain age” for full citizenship status?
Are you trying to say that adding this new test for citizenship is “for the sake of the child”?!
And how on Earth does the above have anything to do with “claiming” children “without consent”?!
Is a “test” a test requirement or an exposure requirement? That is literally the whole question. Jesus.
give it up, bad loser.
I think it goes to consent. Illegally present parents cannot consent for a child. The 18 year old consents.
The US does not claim the children of foreign nationals. The US would not knowingly take children from their parents as if they are now property. It would saddle children with such in good conscience.
I’m very close to insulting you people. I won’t.
Lin,
It seems X, Esquire and a few of the annonys are all one in the same person.
They use AI as if it is a end all be all and try to dress up the AI responses as their own.
If anyone has done any kind of computer coding, garbage in, garbage out. S. Meyer has noted it more than a few times X own AI responses counterdict its self.
But what is not being disputed is the facts presented are not being rebutted. Even if they use AI they are not wrong. That is the issue.
It can be a very useful tool to research facts and find the evidence needed to prove a point and that is being done very effectively.
This could not have happened if not for the courts. SCOTUS delivered the haymaker. 💪
^^^ Another haymaker at mail-in ballots. It was a right, then a left, another upper cut and down for the count.
Hear ye, hear ye, it could not have been done without the court.
The DSA consists of direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
And… so what. Fight them at the polls – where it counts. Beat them back at every level. Above all, at the school district level. I do. You?