I think one Republican SCOTUS member will stand to defend the Constitution, but birthright citizenship, a core fundamental pillar of American democracy, will be struck down 5-4 in an egregious decision by the SCOTUS. Their reasoning and argument will beggar belief, it will be a decision of such convoluted twisted logic, catering exclusively to an elitistwhite racist fascist agenda, that in other countries it would engender an immediate uprising and revolution. But this is America, it won’t affect most of you, so you’ll wring your hands, say how awful, and wait for somebody else to do something, hoping for the cavalry to ride to the rescue.
Clarence Thomas might care to look in a mirror in a well lit room. The law he’ll vote for is just one step designed in a plan to rob him of every right he ever thought he possessed, and those of everyone else who isn’t rich and white.
Their reasoning ending of birthright citizenship only benefits the billionaires, nobody else, it will benefit 0.00027% of the population. The top 1% hold over 30% of the nation’s wealth, the bottom 50% which will includes many reading this, hold 2.5%. The America Dream isn’t meant for 99% of the US population, you’re there to keep rich white men rich, or you’re disposable, and taking your birthright, right to vote, ensures you stay poor and they stay rich. They’ve created the climate for a revolution, and you’ve as good an argument as you had for the first revolution, a mad king who doesn’t listen, iniquitous taxation, voting rights restrictions restricting representation, engaging in disastrous foreign wars against the will of the people, corruption among the elites, back in the 1770s that was more than enough for a revolution then, it should be now.
Instead of complaining about it, why not ty to get some of the wealth away from the pedo class? Taxes are an excellent way of reducuingtotal income, while benefitting the lower classes!
Power is not, nor ever was, about the use of bullets, bombs, blades, and/or clubs. These objects serve only one purpose: the misuse and abuse of power; that alone is all that trump knows.
Exactly, djt has always - since he was a child and a teenager in military academy - mistaken bullying, denigration, intimidation, threats, and brut force, for REAL power.
And clearly he’s remained in that adolescence state since then, and continued that behavior, his MO, until now, after being “taught” by his primary mentor, Roy Cohn, how to manipulate, control and remove every obstacle in his path. But now, has the self-defined, “boss”, “the king of everything”, finally, at long last, lost his mo-jo as “the walls come tumbling down” all around him? One can certainly HOPE.
“Childhood classmates, neighbors, and biographers have described Donald Trump as a disruptive and often aggressive child. In his early years, he was frequently sent to the principal's office for misbehavior, and his teachers and peers described him as a loudmouth who would throw tantrums and pick on other children.”
“Reports and historical accounts from those who knew him provide further context:
“School discipline: He misbehaved so often at school that friends nicknamed his frequent detentions "D.T." after his initials. By the second grade, he notably struck a music teacher because he felt the teacher did not know anything about music.
“Military School: Because of his unruly behavior, his parents sent him to the New York Military Academy at age 13. Biographers and classmates who were at the academy with him described the environment as reinforcing his competitive nature and aggressive tendencies.“
“Trump the ‘Bully’: How Childhood & Military School Shaped the Future President”
Melonis a very intelligent beautiful woman . She knows hes a self loathing narcissist with problems with real ladies. His insecurity shows when he thinks hes a studding . She shined him on so he said this . His remarks of her are degrading as usual when he can't get his attention he believes he solely deserves . The world is on to him like flies on shit
Respectfully, I have to take exception to your statement, "And as much as people around the world have made America the butt of their jokes for decades...". I am an American who has lived overseas for the past 22 years. Not once have I ever directly heard or heard about any instance of someone in a social gathering making Americans the "butt of their jokes". I'm afraid you (the writers) don't give the world enough credit for taking the higher road in regards to passing judgment about America. Perhaps keeping a chip on one's shoulder is not the best way to nurture global harmony. Let's try thinking in a more positive way, and trust that people around the world are our friends and are not out to get us.
There are a lot of foreign college students in my area, and it is not unusual when walking my dog to hear eruptions of joy at a victory. Some kids, sons of immigrants, were playing soccer in the Little League outfield and the ball accidentally came over the fence and hit near my dog and me. They apologized, but I asked if someone had just scored a goal by hooking that shot past the goalie and they all laughed. They were, of course, imagining themselves in the World Cup. As a rabid NCAA basketball fan, I am enjoying watching them celebrate. Been there.
Once home, I turned with a sigh to the news. With all the bad news coming out of the Iran War (including the proposed $300 billion gift) I really needed something to lift my spirits, and your post definitely achieved that. It made me think of not just our foreign guests, but also my neighbors celebrating games.
Okay here are four problems with the main premise:
Problems #1 counterfactual speculation:
So the article effectively says:
Without birthright citizenship, Team USA would not have achieved this success.
Problem #1: But nobody can prove that ofc. Just a biased assumption. Aka a speculative counterfactual.
I e., If person X had not existed, America would have lost.
We cannot know that.
Perhaps another player would emerge. In fact, a clear example in American football: Drew Bledsoe was the starter. Brady was a sixth-round draft pick. Bledsoe gets hurt. Brady enters the game. No one would have predicted that Brady would be one of the legacy greats. But he needed Bledsoe to step out of the way to shine. If we did not have Folarin Balogun there is no way of knowing who would step up.
Or
Perhaps the team just develops differently.
Or
Perhaps they perform better.
Or
Perhaps worse.
Nobody knows. That's the point.
And it is the parallel to the exact argument the left rejects when it comes to abortion:
The cure for cancer might have been aborted.
Possible?
Yes.
Provable?
No.
Substantive evidence?
No.
It relies on an unknowable alternate timeline.
So it's no rebuke of anchor baby immigration at all except in your dreams. Just lots of words and no meaning.
Brings me to my second point.
Problem #2 non-sequitur
Even if Balogun is great.
Even if birthright citizenship helped him become American.
It does not automatically follow that birthright citizenship should remain unchanged.
Why?
Because policy decisions require weighing:
benefits
costs
unintended consequences
abuse potential
constitutional interpretation
Problem #3 Otherwise this is just cherry picking.
A serious argument would examine:
economic effects
social effects
assimilation outcomes
fiscal impacts
constitutional issues
demographic impacts
But instead we get:
Birthright citizenship is good because look at Balogun.
Then by the same logic, birthright citizenship is bad because look at criminal X.
E.g. Florida MacDill Air Force Base bombing suspect case. According to DHS statements, the suspect is an anchor baby.
That's the mirror image. If you're going to accept the reasoning of one we need to accept a reason of the other.
Lastly, Problem #4:
"Birthright citizenship is a core pillar of the 14th Amendment." No it's not. It does carry historical precedent in the courts though, that's true.
The actual legal debate is:
What does: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" actually mean?
Historically, the amendment was intended primarily for former slaves.
It was not originally intended to create automatic citizenship for every child born to temporary visitors or illegal entrants.
Conclusion: So whether Balogun became a great soccer player is almost entirely irrelevant to the constitutional question. The 14th Amendment does not become more or less constitutional based on whether a particular citizen scores goals. Rights, citizenship, and constitutional interpretation are determined by legal principles, historical intent, text, precedent, and public policy considerations, not by whether a specific beneficiary turned out to be exceptionally talented.
"Birthright citizenship is a core pillar of the 14th Amendment." Yes, it is Corey.
Birthright citizenship—the concept that anyone born within a nation's territory is automatically a citizen—is a principle rooted in Roman and English common law, originally used to expand populations and build a diverse workforce. In the United States, it was formally codified by the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn the Dread Scott decision and ensure civil rights for formerly enslaved people.
In the 1898 landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that the children of Chinese immigrants born on U.S. soil were automatically citizens. The rationale was that excluding these children would create a permanent, marginalized "subclass" of individuals.
In simple text, if you are born in America, you are an American. What else is there to say?
Thank you again for offering a true account of what is going on.
I can only hope that T meets his end- sooner rather than later.
PS. Before the Reflecting Pool turns RED !!
How many Polymarket or Kalshi bets that Boss baby starts up with the low IQ, and nasty comments on Ms.Meloni. Triple up if he calls her "Piggy"!
I think one Republican SCOTUS member will stand to defend the Constitution, but birthright citizenship, a core fundamental pillar of American democracy, will be struck down 5-4 in an egregious decision by the SCOTUS. Their reasoning and argument will beggar belief, it will be a decision of such convoluted twisted logic, catering exclusively to an elitistwhite racist fascist agenda, that in other countries it would engender an immediate uprising and revolution. But this is America, it won’t affect most of you, so you’ll wring your hands, say how awful, and wait for somebody else to do something, hoping for the cavalry to ride to the rescue.
Clarence Thomas might care to look in a mirror in a well lit room. The law he’ll vote for is just one step designed in a plan to rob him of every right he ever thought he possessed, and those of everyone else who isn’t rich and white.
Their reasoning ending of birthright citizenship only benefits the billionaires, nobody else, it will benefit 0.00027% of the population. The top 1% hold over 30% of the nation’s wealth, the bottom 50% which will includes many reading this, hold 2.5%. The America Dream isn’t meant for 99% of the US population, you’re there to keep rich white men rich, or you’re disposable, and taking your birthright, right to vote, ensures you stay poor and they stay rich. They’ve created the climate for a revolution, and you’ve as good an argument as you had for the first revolution, a mad king who doesn’t listen, iniquitous taxation, voting rights restrictions restricting representation, engaging in disastrous foreign wars against the will of the people, corruption among the elites, back in the 1770s that was more than enough for a revolution then, it should be now.
Instead of complaining about it, why not ty to get some of the wealth away from the pedo class? Taxes are an excellent way of reducuingtotal income, while benefitting the lower classes!
Power is not, nor ever was, about the use of bullets, bombs, blades, and/or clubs. These objects serve only one purpose: the misuse and abuse of power; that alone is all that trump knows.
Exactly, djt has always - since he was a child and a teenager in military academy - mistaken bullying, denigration, intimidation, threats, and brut force, for REAL power.
And clearly he’s remained in that adolescence state since then, and continued that behavior, his MO, until now, after being “taught” by his primary mentor, Roy Cohn, how to manipulate, control and remove every obstacle in his path. But now, has the self-defined, “boss”, “the king of everything”, finally, at long last, lost his mo-jo as “the walls come tumbling down” all around him? One can certainly HOPE.
“Childhood classmates, neighbors, and biographers have described Donald Trump as a disruptive and often aggressive child. In his early years, he was frequently sent to the principal's office for misbehavior, and his teachers and peers described him as a loudmouth who would throw tantrums and pick on other children.”
“Reports and historical accounts from those who knew him provide further context:
“School discipline: He misbehaved so often at school that friends nicknamed his frequent detentions "D.T." after his initials. By the second grade, he notably struck a music teacher because he felt the teacher did not know anything about music.
“Military School: Because of his unruly behavior, his parents sent him to the New York Military Academy at age 13. Biographers and classmates who were at the academy with him described the environment as reinforcing his competitive nature and aggressive tendencies.“
“Trump the ‘Bully’: How Childhood & Military School Shaped the Future President”
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/trump-the-bully-how-childhood-military-school-shaped-the-future-president/
I sure there are native Americans that feel the same about American birthright citizenship
Melonis a very intelligent beautiful woman . She knows hes a self loathing narcissist with problems with real ladies. His insecurity shows when he thinks hes a studding . She shined him on so he said this . His remarks of her are degrading as usual when he can't get his attention he believes he solely deserves . The world is on to him like flies on shit
Respectfully, I have to take exception to your statement, "And as much as people around the world have made America the butt of their jokes for decades...". I am an American who has lived overseas for the past 22 years. Not once have I ever directly heard or heard about any instance of someone in a social gathering making Americans the "butt of their jokes". I'm afraid you (the writers) don't give the world enough credit for taking the higher road in regards to passing judgment about America. Perhaps keeping a chip on one's shoulder is not the best way to nurture global harmony. Let's try thinking in a more positive way, and trust that people around the world are our friends and are not out to get us.
There are a lot of foreign college students in my area, and it is not unusual when walking my dog to hear eruptions of joy at a victory. Some kids, sons of immigrants, were playing soccer in the Little League outfield and the ball accidentally came over the fence and hit near my dog and me. They apologized, but I asked if someone had just scored a goal by hooking that shot past the goalie and they all laughed. They were, of course, imagining themselves in the World Cup. As a rabid NCAA basketball fan, I am enjoying watching them celebrate. Been there.
Once home, I turned with a sigh to the news. With all the bad news coming out of the Iran War (including the proposed $300 billion gift) I really needed something to lift my spirits, and your post definitely achieved that. It made me think of not just our foreign guests, but also my neighbors celebrating games.
Thank you. There IS hope.
Okay here are four problems with the main premise:
Problems #1 counterfactual speculation:
So the article effectively says:
Without birthright citizenship, Team USA would not have achieved this success.
Problem #1: But nobody can prove that ofc. Just a biased assumption. Aka a speculative counterfactual.
I e., If person X had not existed, America would have lost.
We cannot know that.
Perhaps another player would emerge. In fact, a clear example in American football: Drew Bledsoe was the starter. Brady was a sixth-round draft pick. Bledsoe gets hurt. Brady enters the game. No one would have predicted that Brady would be one of the legacy greats. But he needed Bledsoe to step out of the way to shine. If we did not have Folarin Balogun there is no way of knowing who would step up.
Or
Perhaps the team just develops differently.
Or
Perhaps they perform better.
Or
Perhaps worse.
Nobody knows. That's the point.
And it is the parallel to the exact argument the left rejects when it comes to abortion:
The cure for cancer might have been aborted.
Possible?
Yes.
Provable?
No.
Substantive evidence?
No.
It relies on an unknowable alternate timeline.
So it's no rebuke of anchor baby immigration at all except in your dreams. Just lots of words and no meaning.
Brings me to my second point.
Problem #2 non-sequitur
Even if Balogun is great.
Even if birthright citizenship helped him become American.
It does not automatically follow that birthright citizenship should remain unchanged.
Why?
Because policy decisions require weighing:
benefits
costs
unintended consequences
abuse potential
constitutional interpretation
Problem #3 Otherwise this is just cherry picking.
A serious argument would examine:
economic effects
social effects
assimilation outcomes
fiscal impacts
constitutional issues
demographic impacts
But instead we get:
Birthright citizenship is good because look at Balogun.
Then by the same logic, birthright citizenship is bad because look at criminal X.
E.g. Florida MacDill Air Force Base bombing suspect case. According to DHS statements, the suspect is an anchor baby.
That's the mirror image. If you're going to accept the reasoning of one we need to accept a reason of the other.
Lastly, Problem #4:
"Birthright citizenship is a core pillar of the 14th Amendment." No it's not. It does carry historical precedent in the courts though, that's true.
The actual legal debate is:
What does: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" actually mean?
Historically, the amendment was intended primarily for former slaves.
It was not originally intended to create automatic citizenship for every child born to temporary visitors or illegal entrants.
Conclusion: So whether Balogun became a great soccer player is almost entirely irrelevant to the constitutional question. The 14th Amendment does not become more or less constitutional based on whether a particular citizen scores goals. Rights, citizenship, and constitutional interpretation are determined by legal principles, historical intent, text, precedent, and public policy considerations, not by whether a specific beneficiary turned out to be exceptionally talented.
"Birthright citizenship is a core pillar of the 14th Amendment." Yes, it is Corey.
Birthright citizenship—the concept that anyone born within a nation's territory is automatically a citizen—is a principle rooted in Roman and English common law, originally used to expand populations and build a diverse workforce. In the United States, it was formally codified by the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn the Dread Scott decision and ensure civil rights for formerly enslaved people.
In the 1898 landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that the children of Chinese immigrants born on U.S. soil were automatically citizens. The rationale was that excluding these children would create a permanent, marginalized "subclass" of individuals.
In simple text, if you are born in America, you are an American. What else is there to say?