Like many of you I am profoundly angered by the Supreme Court decision that fractures our nation and conveys citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States. [PDF HERE] In fact, I was so angered to my core, I went for a long walk before doing any further commenting on the matter.
U.S. Citizenship is now determined by how good at violating our nation’s borders, by conniving, by scheming and by deception to create a qualified child where no adult qualification exists. This is the most detrimental decision by the Supreme Court in generations and will profoundly impact our nation.
There is no longer an apple, it’s all worms.
Today, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship status to everyone born in the United States.
In a decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, five supreme court justices agreed with the challengers saying Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
(6-3) Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.”
Roberts was joined in the majority by Justice SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, JACKSON and KAVANAUGH.
Justice THOMAS filed a dissenting opinion with GORSUCH and ALITO.
SCOTUS BLOG – In his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling, “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court” and “a serious mistake.” “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption,” Alito argued, “shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead,” he contended, “the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the result that the court reached – that the president’s executive order is invalid – but not its reasoning. In his view, Trump’s order “does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment” but does violate a federal law providing that children who are “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are U.S. citizens. Congress, Kavanaugh suggested, “could amend” that law “or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But,” he noted, “Congress has not yet done so.”
Justice Clarence Thomas penned a lengthy dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. He called the majority’s account “not historically accurate” and said that it “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.”
Gorsuch also wrote a separate brief dissent, in which he appeared to suggest that Trump’s executive order might violate the Constitution as it applies to the children of undocumented immigrants who intend to live in the United States permanently. “If those parents are not domiciled here,” Gorsuch queried, “then where are they domiciled? And if the answer is nowhere,” he continued, “how can we reconcile that conclusion with this Court’s longstanding recognition that every person is domiciled somewhere?” Because the challengers in this case have argued that Trump’s order is invalid in all circumstances, rather than just some, Gorsuch explained, “these questions may not be properly before us. But their answers are undeniably important to a Nation committed to a view of citizenship open to all children born here to parents who can call this country their home.” (SOURCE)
Consequences and possibilities to come in the next few articles on the matter.



These same great legal minds couldn’t understand the definition of a “day”, and at least one of them need the testimony of a biologist to know what a woman is.
It’s all just fake. And we are expected to accept it or else.
Well they don’t know what’s woman is. They certainly can’t determine what citizen is.
The decision is tantamount to repealing US citizenship in favor of CITIZENSHIP OF THE WORLD.
That’s exactly right. The people who view the United States as the national version of a state park, a place which anyone in the world who chooses should feel free to enter, take what he wants, and stay if he so desires.
These people truly don’t believe in America’s sovereignty, we’re just an idea to them.
If there is any way to challenge this from a different legal approach and win…please try it….
“Invading troops” could be interpreted as the mass invasions which we’ve endured for the last 40-60 years.
No mystery. Two Roman Catholics agree with the Pope.
Maybe Trump can do better with a nomination next time.
Matt Van Swol
@mattvanswol
I have just finished reading Justice Clarence Thomas’s 91-page dissent in the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
It’s incredible.
Here’s everything you need to know: 🧵
Cont reading thread…
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2072067721320182265.html
Justice Thomas is exactly right of course.
And all the other ‘Justices” look silly for not listening to him, for not knowing all this or worse- for ignoring it.
The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts has really fallen…
As a general rule, if the three twits are for it, it’s a terrible idea.
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson should be regarded as antithetical judges. Whatever they decide is de-facto incorrect.
In other news, this is about to get VERY ugly.
Domiciled means where your permanent legal lawful residence is. When you are traveling or not at your legal lawful residence it does not mean you are domiciled somewhere else…it simply means you are away from home. A child/minor shares the parents domicile…in essence he inherits it. Your legal lawful address is his address. That’s the way i see it anyway. This is a travesty and every member of SCOTUS knows…well maybe except Jackson.
Roberts Barrett Kavenauugh are all bought and paid for by Chairman XI. I hate them all with a burning passion. Rot in hell you losers.
The 14th Amendment is not about any newborn infant. It is about the status of adults. Adults who were born in the US, or naturalized in the US, are citizens of the US and the state in which they reside. That is what the amendment is saying. Babies born to transient aliens, legally here or not legally here, cannot have NATURALIZATION bestowed on them by way of being born. Babies cannot undergo the process of naturalization. That is impossible. Babies do not “reside in a state” by their own recognizance. Their parents have to supply the baby’s residence.
The amendment therefore addresses the citizenship status of ADULTS, not INFANTS.
Say what you will about the ruling. This goes on the lengthening list of things President Trump has introduced that almost no President before him dared to touch.
Save America Act, Fixing DC,
Iran,
Birthright citizenship 🤬
Etc, etc, etc.
The Man in the Arena. God willing mountains will move the change this travesty of a ruling. Spit
I wonder if this decision might help to bring people like MTG, Massie, Tucker etc back into the America First MAGA tent? Maybe the fight will bring unity. It isn’t that i care about them. I will never trust any of them again. But this issue is just that important, unless their hatred blinds them even through this. We need as many soldiers in the battlefield as possible.
Just wondering.