https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/31/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-john-eastman-00851127Long before John Eastman helped devise Donald Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 election, he had another pet cause: ending birthright citizenship.The idea was once relegated to obscure articles in right-wing journals and little-noticed debates before conservative groups. But Trump ushered it into the limelight on his first day back in office last year by issuing an executive order purporting to upend the well-established understanding that virtually everyone born on U.S. soil gets American citizenship.Now, Eastman is about to realize a decades-long dream: getting the Supreme Court to consider his radical theory that the Constitution doesn’t automatically confer citizenship on those born in the U.S. The justices are set to hear oral arguments Wednesday over the constitutionality of Trump’s policy.Yet, when Trump signed his order on the subject last year, he made no mention of the former law school dean and Supreme Court clerk’s long advocacy for the cause. And while the Justice Department’s public briefs closely track Eastman’s arguments, they don’t cite his writings or acknowledge his role as the theory’s leading evangelist.
“This is his issue,” said Linda Chavez, a longtime conservative activist and senior Reagan White House official who has sparred publicly with Eastman on the subject. “I’ve known John forever and this has been a bee in his bonnet for as long as I’ve known him.”For his part, Eastman says he has no hard feelings about his work not being cited in the Trump administration’s formal case.“That doesn’t trouble me,” Eastman said. “Remember, Ronald Reagan used to have a sign on his desk that there’s a lot you can get done in this town if you don’t care who gets credit for it.”‘The brain trust’Eastman has been advancing his fringe interpretation of the 14th Amendment since 2005, racking up more than 100 op-eds, interviews, law review articles, debates, speeches and legislative hearings.“John is probably the brain trust,” said Ediberto Roman, a Florida International University law professor who’s debated Eastman.The vast majority of constitutional scholars — and the weight of legal precedent — reject his view of the issue. The Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to “all persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that means a child born in the U.S. to foreign parents living in California acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.However, Eastman and the administration argue that precedent only covers children of foreigners living permanently in the U.S., and that broader interpretations over the past 128 years that it guaranteed citizenship to almost anyone born on U.S. soil were mistaken.Asked by POLITICO whether he’d helped craft Trump’s birthright-citizenship executive order or the arguments being made to defend it, Eastman demurred.“I don’t answer that question,” Eastman said. “I never disclose what kind of communications I have and I don’t deny that they existed.”
The Justice Department declined to comment on Eastman’s role. A spokesperson for the White House did not respond to a request for comment.However, Eastman wasn’t bashful about saying that he’s a big fan of Trump’s bold move on the issue.“I think the position that is reflected in Trump’s recent executive order is very solidly supported by the principles of the American founding and then the legislative history of the adoption of the 14th Amendment,” Eastman said.‘He learned a lesson’Eastman told POLITICO he recalls first digging into the birthright citizenship issue sometime in the 1990s, when there was bipartisan talk about reining in the practice. He dug into it in greater depth after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, when the Supreme Court ruled that a fighter captured in Afghanistan and later discovered to have been born in the U.S. must be able to challenge his detention. Eastman filed a brief urging the court to rule that the man wasn’t a citizen at all.For years after that, Eastman faced off in debates on the issue, arguing against some of the leading lights of the conservative legal movement, such as John Yoo, now a Berkeley law professor, and James Ho, whom Trump appointed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.“The Federalist Society … would basically pay us to go around the country and meet at different Federalist Society chapters and debate,” said Margaret Stock, an immigration lawyer and former society member who faced off with Eastman. “John Eastman was basically the point person on this whole theory.”Trump had floated the idea of an executive order on birthright citizenship in his first term, and former Attorney General William Barr testified to the House Jan. 6 Committee that Eastman was the driving force behind that push.
Barr said Eastman ultimately agreed that an executive order on the subject “wouldn’t really work legally and practically.” Barr declined to comment for this story, but has told associates that Eastman agreed at the time that the Supreme Court was unlikely to uphold the plan.Eastman told POLITICO that Barr’s account was false, and said the 2018 effort was bogged down by “a very recalcitrant administrative state” and “typical bureaucratic delay tactics.”“What’s different now is [Trump] learned a lesson in that first term and said, ‘We’re not going to play those games any more,’” the conservative attorney said.A tough sellEastman’s theory of the 14th Amendment became impossible to ignore once Trump returned to the White House. But it has so far found no footing in the courts.Four federal judges blocked Trump’s order from taking effect. One said the Supreme Court has “resoundingly rejected” the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that Trump and Eastman have advanced. Another judge called it “blatantly unconstitutional.” Two federal appeals courts agreed.And just three years ago, Justice Clarence Thomas, unambiguously declared in a concurring opinion in the Harvard affirmative action case that the Constitution proclaims that “all persons born in the United States are citizens, entitled to the privileges or immunities of citizenship.”Eastman—who served as a law clerk to Thomas—dismisses such passing statements, noting that birthright citizenship arguments weren’t presented or contested in that case.Fraying alliances
While Eastman has appeared loyal to Trump in recent years, Trump and his advisers haven’t always reciprocated. He called himself an attorney for the Trump campaign, but the retainer agreement the campaign sent him after the 2020 election was unsigned. In addition, he never succeeded in getting paid by the campaign.And Eastman is still battling the fallout from the 2020 election. He helped concoct the theory that Trump could cling to power by having Vice President Mike Pence refuse to count some states’ electoral votes. That didn’t persuade Pence, but did score Eastman a speaking role at Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021 rally on the Ellipse, where Eastman aired unproven claims of election fraud.He subsequently lost his professorship at Chapman University and has been suspended from practicing law in California. He’s appealing a decision calling for his permanent disbarment in that state.A federal judge found it was likely that Eastman and Trump “dishonestly conspired to obstruct” Congress’ count of the electoral votes in 2021, and he was indicted in Georgia and Arizona. The Georgia case was eventually dropped; Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is seeking to revive the Arizona prosecution.Eastman sought a pardon in the days after Jan. 6, but did not receive one. Trump did, however, pardon Eastman and dozens of others last fall as part of a sweeping clemency aimed at those who aided his bid to overturn the 2020 election. And at Mar-a-Lago last year, Trump showed up when Eastman screened a documentary slamming the unfairness of the disbarment proceedings against him.“I’m a big fan of John Eastman,” Trump said as he introduced the film. “He was right.”
The fact that US policy allows birth tourism and is effectively the only country on Earth that does so seems counterproductive. Stop giving dual citizenships out like candy.
>>1502174By far not the only one. Many countries have ius soli.
>>1502177US and Canada are apparently the only first world countries. Nobody gives a shit about South America because nobody is going there to intentionally grant citizenship to their unborn baby.
>>1502182>US and Canada are apparently the only first world countriesA lot of the first world has conditional birthright citizenship. Most of Europe as well as Australia and New Zealand grant birthright citizenship to people who don't otherwise get other citizenship at birth to prevent the development of a stateless underclass which you see in countries that don't do that shit.That policy alone would still see most "anchor babies" getting citizenship (as a major example, Mexicans born abroad are not born with Mexican citizenship), so you're acting like there's a major difference where there isn't one.Fucking dipshit.
>>1502167Another example of Trump cowtowing to the eccentric agendas of right wing millionaires at the expense of the rest of the country.
>>1502184We just found out Peter Thiel was behind a super racist campaign to buy the election in his favor in Virginia too
>>1502167Trump apparently arrived very dramatically at the Supreme Court hearing today, listened and got pissed, then left before it even finished.
>>1502183Mexico not giving its own citizens citizenship is not our problem. If there's a stateless underclass, it needs to be shipped back where it came from to be ignored or allowed to die in accordance with nature or statesmanship, whomever you want to blame.But they should never be giving Mexicans citizenship in America. America is for Americans, not Mexicans. Simple as.
>>1502265>America is for AmericansWhere does it say that in the Constitution?
>>1502183The US isn't the rest of the world, as much as you would like it to be.
they are terrified that Obongo will run for a third term.
>>1502269https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0080>Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
>>1502265If someone doesn't have Mexican citizenship they're not Mexican you retard. Unless of course you mean something else, but considering you said "American" which is a country affiliation instead of an ethnic background...
>>1502273That's not the constitution.
>>1502273Not the constitution. Franklin was a creep who experimented on dead people and fucked a bunch of whores.
>>1502269Article 1, Section 9We had open immigration (although taxed) until 1808. After that, the country was considered established and immigration law came into effect.It's right there in the Constitution. Not the bill of rights. Not the amendments. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution.No idea why they chose 1808, but that's the year that it became required to enter America legally, or be deported.
>>1502276>>1502275Franklin was one of the founding fathers and literally fought to create it. He was an authoritative source on what America was originally intended to become.Cope, seethe, dialate, get in the ICE van.
>>1502277>Article 1, Section 9Is this bot broken? That's literally the section talking about the powers of congress lmao.
>>1502277>Eastman has been advancing his fringe interpretation of the 14th Amendment since 2005, racking up more than 100 op-eds, interviews, law review articles, debates, speeches and legislative hearings.You're doing it, too.
>>1502280>Franklin was one of the founding fathers and literally fought to create it. He was an authoritative source on what America was originally intended to become.One of, not all, and what his personal opinions were are absolutely irrelevant if they're not in written law. Post a segment of the constitution or get BTFOed
>>1502283They're smart enough to know they self BTFO'd if all they can provide is these notes
>>1502281>Anyone who proves me wrong is a botArticle 1 covers powers of the legislative (the branch that makes law including immigration law) and if you read it you will learn something. America truly is for the Americans. The beauty of that is, anyone can become American. If they do it the right way. Sneaking into our nation and having a child within our borders is not the right way, it never has been, and it never will be. The naturalization by birth process was for Americans born abroad, not for foreigners born domestically.
>>1502265After the Mexico-US war the Mexican people living on the territories Mexico had given up were offered the choice of US citizenship
>>1502285Anon literally the only thing in that Article that covers citizenship is that the first congress can't pass migration laws other than a sub-$10 migration tax until 1808. It literally means nothing for your argument against birthright citizenship.
>>1502288It looks like you're confused, the ESL shill is claiming that birthright citizenship intended for people not born in US soilProbably because they're dangerously retarded and don't understand English
>>1502288>Struggling to connect dotsWere any migration laws passed between 1808 and present day?If there were immigration laws passed, can we just ignore them?
>>1502290Are you literally implying that any migration law between 1808 and now is unconstitutional? Because I have bad news in the form of that itty bitty "prior to" bit on Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
>>1502265>If there's a stateless underclass, it needs to be shipped back where it came fromYou ever get jealous of root vegetables for their superior intellect?Where do you think stateless people come from? Spot the fucking problem, dipshit.
>>1502270>The US isn't the rest of the world, as much as you would like it to be.You're right. We have unconditional jus soli and should keep it that way. Your side were the dipshits arguing we should get rid of it to be like other countries.I was pointing out that argument was built around a nonsensical lie as a counterargument.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court_n_69cd5128e4b010aa5349907bLooks like ultra bigot John Eastman is about to get humiliated again by the republican supreme court since ruling directly against the Constitution is a bridge too fair for them.
>>1502305And to add salt on the wound trump thought he could directly pressure his judges and instead ran away early.https://www.thedailybeast.com/humiliated-trump-storms-out-of-catastrophic-scotus-hearing/
>>1502309He really rolled up thinking he could intimidate them by showing up like a mob boss, only to realize that not only did they not care, but they also could barely even see him while they were busy hearing arguments.
>>1502338I wonder how much Roberts regrets declaring trump is a king who's above the law? If the democrats elect enough people who put America first, that ruling is going to be what causes the supreme court to get rightfully reformed by adding actual legal guard rails against corruption and more representation.
>>1502244>listened and got pissed,More like got pooped.
>>1502349>actual legal guard rails against corruptionThere's no such thing. Or there is already such a thing.Judges can be prosecuted by the executive and removed from power by Congress already, but ultimately guard rails only work if the people in charge of enforcing them have any interest in doing so and are not themselves corrupt. Good governance requires the people in charge of government to not act in bad faith, no matter how many guard rails you throw up.And you could argue for making it easier for the "guard rails against corruption" to come into play, but then it just becomes easier for a corrupted branch of government to wield those guard rails against an uncorrupted branch in order to remove from power law abiding stewards and replace them with more corrupt ones. It's an unsolvable problem.At least from within government itself. The actual way you prevent corruption is for the people to vote for morally upstanding officials and to have enough guns to remove corrupt officials from power if those in power turn out to be corrupt. The problem in America is 1/3 the country gives zero fucks about corruption if not actively supports it and another 1/3 doesn't vote. At a societal level we need to spread better civics and ethics and for Republicans to continue to die faster than they can recruit people to their cult.
>>1502167>Now, Eastman is about to realize a decades-long dream: getting the Supreme Court to consider his radical theory that the Constitution doesn’t automatically confer citizenship on those born in the U.SIts not a radical theory.Look at a map of Europe. Look how many countries offer citizenship to everyone born on their soil. The answer might shock you.
>>1502506It's a radical theory, he's a radical republican, and you're a radical if you agree with him.>b-b-but EuropeWe already went through this earlier in the thread.
>>1502167Based Eastman. Not everyone is a terrible person, it seems.
>>1502506>>1502512It's not gonna work btw. Not even this Supreme Court wants to open the can of worms that "Well the constitution says X in plain direct text but it actually meant Y by historical context" brings. In addition to it basically amounting to "X actually says Y" already.
>>1502515The founders' sane answer is that if they found birthright citizenship was being a problem they would amend the Constitution to close loopholes and policies that were harmful to the People of the United States.However, Congress loves not doing their job and some may actually support loopholes that are harmful to the US People. So we end up arguing in court for something that Congress could easily solve.It should be very obvious that if a pregnant woman who enters the US on a tourist visa and has a child in the US, that child should not be considered a US citizen and instead inherit the citizenship of their parents.
>>1502167The general idea is sound: Birthright citizenship is untenable in the world where someone can get on a plane and be here in ~24 hours from almost anywhere in the world. The arguments for and against it have been a contest of seeing who is the world's biggest retard. >"If I steal a wallet in Japan I am subject to Japanese laws ... I am owing allegiance in that sense." -Justice Jackson - Referring to a country that does not have Birthright Citizenship Is it so wrong to just say "We have birthright citizenship and if this is a problem for you make a real amendment to change that"? This entire system breaks down when we ask the Supreme Court to write laws for us and they're unelected tyrants who get to act like retards and never get fired from their jobs. Eastman and Trump are right: The USA CAN'T keep having birthright citizenship if it doesn't want to fall within a generation or two in its current form. It would take any state actor pennies to simply fly over a couple, let them have a child while in-country, and then bring in an entire extended family of spies and fifth columnists, and legally there's nothing anyone could do about that. But quit asking the SCOTUS to write your fucking laws and do your fucking jobs.
>>1502527Congress seems to hate doing their job even in a perfect world like this one where they have majority control over it, the senate, and the presidency and could rally to get it changed. They don't because we live in a real life version of King Henry's court and most congressmen and senators owe their allegiances to foreign governments and are paid to backstab one another when inconvenient legislation comes to the table. Flat Birthright citizenship where anyone is American as long as they're puked on "American Soil" (so literally any military base or territory on planet earth) is literally the best arrangement for our enemies imaginable. Or even just wetbacks getting a greencard to come over so they can have a kid and be here forever. Even that system has created a new majority who only cares insofar as much money they can steal from the country. When it collapses they'll run screaming back home and never think twice about being a parasite.
>>1502515I'm glad they aren't doing that just yet but the fact some people are willing to play ball with "AcTualLy The woRds CoUlLD MeAN WhATEvER ThE FuCK I WANt"
>>1502349>If the democrats elect enough people who put America first,*Mexico first It's like the image going around, Mexico has representatives in blue states, Israel has representatives living in red states. Nobody represents anyone living or naturalized in the USA. They would be happier with all of us dead or fighting amongst ourselves.
>>1502530>Is it so wrong to just say "We have birthright citizenship and if this is a problem for you make a real amendment to change that"?That isn't what's happening and you know it. Trump thinks he's an emperor who can change the constitution through decree, and Eastman thinks he knows better than 250 years of legal precedent.>This entire system breaks down when we ask the Supreme Court to write laws for us and they're unelected tyrants who get to act like retards and never get fired from their jobs. Replace "Supreme Court" with "Trump's executive orders".>Eastman and Trump are rightNo they are not.>The USA CAN'T keep having birthright citizenship if it doesn't want to fall within a generation or two in its current form.The USA you think is going to "fall" never existed in the first place.>t would take any state actor pennies to simply fly over a couple, let them have a child while in-country, and then bring in an entire extended family of spies and fifth columnists, and legally there's nothing anyone could do about that.That has been happening for hundreds of years already. It's a feature not a bug. >But quit asking the SCOTUS to write your fucking laws and do your fucking jobs.On this case the system worked and the right wing Scotus rejected the fringe right interpretation of the Constitution.
>>1502527>Just amend the constitutionLol this loser has no idea how ratification works
>>1502533>uslol ok Ivan
>>1502534>That isn't what's happening and you know it. That is objectively what is happening. Trump wants to undo the 14th amendment with "Because I said so" rules and the only argument the Justices should be making is "We have birthright citizenship and if this is a problem for you make a real amendment to change that". This "I AM JAPANESE ONCE I SET FOOT IN JAPAN" even as an oral argument is damaging to the reputation of the SCOTUS even if the message is the same.>No they are not.They absolutely are, you cannot have birthright citizenship when walking across the border and having a kid makes you an American. >That has been happening for hundreds of years already. Oh you mean those hundreds of years when people couldn't get on a plane and fly over the border or make a phone call to come here on a tourist visa? You just outlined WHY it needs to change: The world isn't the same now as it was 250 years ago. Information is instant, people can relocate in a day. Trump and Eastman are right in that this needs to be patched if you want a working democracy unless you just like the idea of terror cells living in your country rent-free on work visas pumping out as many """"""""americans""""""""" as they can.
>>1502536I like how braindead shills are so stupid they don't realize they're agreeing with me. Even the politicians who represent Russia still don't represent the USA. Nobody represents us. There are two groups of fifth columnists in the white house, senate, congress and supreme court fighting each other for control over who gets to piss on the corpse of the place that elected them and burn it.
>>1502540you're projecting again, esl shill
>>1502535Oh okay you're an absolute fucking retard. We get it now. Ratifying doesn't mean it's in stone forever, otherwise we would still have institutionalized slavery. Congress and the Senate have the authority to change them. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2022/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2022-12.pdfI'm sorry you live in Mexico or China and post here as a fifth columnist shill and don't know how our system works, but I can give you this advice for free.
>>1502541you're projecting again, chang. Don't you have roasted dog to be preparing for your morning gutter oil?
>>1502534Legal precedent isn't the same as a constitutional amendment, the onus is on congress to change it if they don't like it. SCOTUS is just telling Trump to go through the right channels, they're not saying it's illegal to do what he's proposing. Again you know so little about our system it's obvious you live in some foreign shithole and just want to see us collapse as fast as possible. >That has been happening for hundreds of years already. Yeah those planes and cars that existed in 1776.
>>1502546To be fair his dog-eating hellhole is probably so uneducated that they may actually believe that they could just hop on a plane in 1776 and be here in 12 hours.
>>1502546>Onusesl shill exposes himself again
>>1502515js not all heroes wear capes.
>>15025271. The 14the Amendment wasn't written by the founders2. The US government can't dictate other countries grant citizenship to anyone and unrestricted jus sanguinis isn't a thing for a lot of countries.3. The 14th Amendment was explicitly written to settle the question of citizenship, no confusion or loopholes. You not liking an outcome doesn't make it a loophole. They discussed all this shit at the time in Congress. The case of people coming here and having kids while the parents were expected to return to their country EXPLICITLY CAME UP.>https://www.congress.gov/congressional-globe/page-headings/39th-congress/n-a/52566>The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.>Now, I will say, for the benefit of my friend, that he may know something about the Chinese in the future, that this portion of our population, namely, the children of Mongolian parentage, born in California, is very small indeed, and never promises to be large, notwithstanding our near neighborhood to the Celestial land. The habits of those people, and their religion, appear to demand they all return to their own country at some time or other, either alive or dead. There are, perhaps, in California today about forty thousand Chinese-from forty to forty-five thousand. These persons return invariably, while others take their places, and, as I before observed, if they do not return alive their bones are carefully gathered up and sent back to the Flowery Land.
>>1502548>ESL Shill doesn't know how to google basic first grader English wordshttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/onusyou're projecting again, chang. Don't you have roasted dog to be preparing for your morning gutter oil?
>>1502532>Guns are for militia use only!!!!Decades of this shit from the demoshits.
>>1502551Yeah they took into account those planes and cars that existed in 1861. This is the argument to a T. The world isn't the same as it was even 100 years ago. If it were possible to snap your finger and come from China to America in hours, then they entire debate they were having would be radically different. >Now, I will say, for the benefit of my friend, that he may know something about the Chinese in the future, that this portion of our population, namely, the children of Mongolian parentage, born in California, is very small indeed, and never promises to be largeWe're now 54% nonwhite latino origin. Even his argument about the populations being small no longer apply.
>>1502548Get a dictionary, dickface.
>>1502551>The case of people coming here and having kids while the parents were expected to return to their country EXPLICITLY CAME UP.I like how you post the passage but you didn't actually read it: None of what he is talking about is applicable or has been applicable for the last 100 years. Even his statement about them being "relatively small never promising to be large" doesn't apply anymore. The founders made the constitution to change with the times, and this is one such example. It's still on Congress to be the one to change those laws, but stop being a disingenuous prick. It's obviously a loophole caused by legislation on it being over 150 years old.>>1502548That's a real word you illiterate pajeet vermin.>>1502555That would cost him half this year's salary.
>>1502554Pretty sure we shared our border with other countries even back then. It's not like the dude talking about China didn't know you could fucking walk to California from Mexico.Land borders are not a new fucking phenomenon.Oh, also the Congressman quoted was born in fucking Ireland and came here at 15, lmao.
>>1502557>None of what he is talking about is applicable or has been applicable for the last 100 years.Their expectations for consequences of what they intended to do being wrong don't change what they intended to do any more than the internet or nukes change the 1st or 2nd Amendment.
>>1502557>It's obviously a loopholeIt's an explicitly intended feature, as cited. Unless you can explain how a migrant Chinese worker having kids here in the 19th century is different from one having kids here in the 21st.
>>1502558>Pretty sure we shared our border with other countries even back then.The border that wasn't capable of being crossed easily because the first trans-continental railroad was made eight years after that was written?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_transcontinental_railroad>1869The reason they specifically mention Chinese migrants is because it was easier to get in a boat and sail here from China than it was to cross the deserts of Mexico or the northern plains of Canada during the winter. Mass human transportation changed that. This is why applying an age where we have cars and planes to the era where the Steam Engine was still experimental technology is silly.
>>1502560>It's an explicitly intended feature, as cited. Cited by people who never thought humans could fly, yes. The ignorance of the times created a loophole. >Unless you can explain how a migrant Chinese worker having kids here in the 19th century is different from one having kids here in the 21st.That migrant in the 19th century can't come here within 12 hours of leaving China. Nor could they plan for a pregnant woman in China to come here safely by boat.
>>1502561>The border that wasn't capable of being crossed easily because the first trans-continental railroad was made eight years after that was written?Who the fuck do you think California belonged to before the US? Beyond that, how the fuck do you think the USA got California?The idea that a representative of California (who, again, was from Ireland) wouldn't understand the concept of crossing borders, in the fucking 1860s, is literally FUCKING INSANE.You're mentally fucking ill.Also who do you think was building that railroad, lmao? It was migrant Chinese workers.Also, what the fuck does an intranational railroad have to do with international immigration?
>>1502562>The ignorance of the times created a loophole.That's not what a loophole is. Loopholes are exploitable ambiguities in rules or laws. This is an explicit feature that you don't like.>That migrant in the 19th century can't come here within 12 hours of leaving China. Nor could they plan for a pregnant woman in China to come here safely by boat.And so fucking what? Mexico existed. Canada existed. Chinese migrants still had kids after they fucking got here. What are you even fucking arguing?
>>1502564Edit: Technically Canada didn't exist, but you know what I mean.
>>1502563>>1502559>>1502560>mankind will never speak through smoke signal, says cavemanwell shit, Rajeesh, I guess you better get off the American internet because the founders never intended for shit-slinging monkeys to communicate with actual humans through magic boxes, either.
>>1502561You're using a bot to write your replies, aren't you? That transcontinental railroad gaff is like the dumbest thing you could have brought up both because of how involved Chinese migrants were in its construction and because it doesn't cross or even approach a transnational border. Nobody that knew the second thing about mid 1800s US history or had bothered to even look at that wikipedia page would have posted that nonsense.It's time to stop posting.
>>1502564this reads gay af
>>1502563>The idea that a representative of California (who, again, was from Ireland) wouldn't understand the concept of crossing bordersThis took years of his life to do. >You're mentally fucking ill.You're having a melty. If the tech existed for people to arrive here within a day, he wouldn't have posed the possibility that these populations could remain small with no significant change. Don't get upset because you're trying to make the argument that they should have seen human powered flight coming because some guy spent years crossing the country is stupid. The problem is: You're trying to make the "why didn't we just nuke the British" argument but with immigration. Rightfully, everyone realizes you're full of shit.
>>1502569stop being gay please
>>1502567I'm probably the only real flesh and blood human in this thread, all of the rest of the Chat GPT LLMS are hallucinating shit like "Why didn't the Irish Senator just fly to America in 1861??" arguments. Which yknow, real humans wouldn't make. Time to just admit you lost.
>>1502564>>1502565>Canada existe-oh wait no it didn't but uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh having to take a wagon train across dangerous borders is just like flying here by planeThe reason this argument is silly is because you have no idea how treacherous travel was back then. Crossing even one border could take weeks and that's with even the best technology available.
>>1502566Read posts before replying to them, dipshit. I'm not arguing that we should change the rules for what is allowed based on what people in the past thought would be possible or come to pass. I'm doing the opposite.No matter how they thought shit would develop, their rules stand.
>>1502569>You're having a melty. If the tech existed for people to arrive here within a dayWe share a land border with 2 countries and have since before the 14th amendment was passed. That tech existed. It's called feet.
>>1502567>That transcontinental railroad gaff is like the dumbest thing you could have brought up both because of how involved Chinese migrants were in its constructionNTA but what does Chinese Migrants have to do with the fact they didn't come here en masse because their travel was dangerous?You read like you're grasping at straws, nobody is saying migrants didn't exist, they're saying their barrier to entry is so low that none of their arguments apply anymore.
>>1502572>Crossing even one border could take weeks and that's with even the best technology available.My brother in Christ, have you seen illegal traffic across the southern border?
>>1502573>We share a land border with 2 countries Why do you keep repeating this shit? Are you stuck in some kind of loop? Sailing here from China or Britain was easier than crossing those borders and remained so until decades after that opinion was stated. >I-it's called feetagain I think I'm talking with someone having the melty of a century or chatGPT because no one would suggest somebody will casually cross the Mexican desert on their feet.
>>1502575>en masseThe 14th doesn't cap how many children of immigrants are allowed to get citizenship.You're effectively arguing it impacted more people than they thought it would so it shouldn't count. This is a fucking nonsense take.
>>1502576The one that requires cars, trucks, massive supply lines and huge, huge operations that require modern tech like cell phones and perishable food?https://researchmagazine.gwu.edu/mapping-migrant-journeyEven on horseback it's dangerous if you don't have a source of water.
>>1502577>because no one would suggest somebody will casually cross the Mexican desert on their feet.See>>1502576
>>1502578Oh cool now you've stopped grasping at those straws and are now grasping at "How come 19th century migrants couldn't have 40 kids?">You're effectively arguing it impacted more people than they thought it would so it shouldn't count.Isn't this why we update any law? We don't let citizens own tanks with full bore cannons even in full 2A states for the same reason.
>>1502579>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_American_migrant_caravansAlso the idea there were no supply lines back then is silly
>>1502580see >>1502579Again you're making the "Why didn't we just nuke Britain?" argument. Stay in social studies, kid. There's still hope for you to learn that this country didn't exist on magic soil where everything came pre-built, yet.
>>1502581>You're effectively arguing it impacted more people than they thought it would so it shouldn't count. This is a fucking nonsense take.You get nothing. You lose. Good day, ma'am.>Isn't this why we update any law?I'm not aware of any law being repealed cause it gave civil rights to too many people, no. Would you have an example?
>>1502582>supply lines>on foot in the 19th centuryYou can't even keep your half-muddled non-sequiturs straight. This is exactly how I would picture an argument with ChatGPT would go if I told it to pretend to be an idiot who thinks we had cell phones and planes in the 1800s.
>>1502584>I'm going to have a melty and declare victory when I get defeatedYou lost, tranny. > I'm not aware of any law being repealed cause it gave civil rights to too many people, nohttps://govfacts.org/rights-freedoms/constitutional-rights/right-to-bear-arms/how-three-supreme-court-cases-transformed-americas-gun-rights/You just learned of one, you stupid fucking poopjeet
>>1502584>Lose argument>declare victory and leave The problem is that I wouldn't have any exception to arguing with people who are clearly using chatGPT and not checking it if they were at least humble about the fact that their AI talking points got a bunch of shit wrong. The civil rights to too many people thing is exactly why we have half of the voting laws we do, for instance.It's why I hate this board.
>>1502585>supply lines>on foot in the 19th centuryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_TrailYou've now reached sub 2nd grader intelligence.>>1502586>You just learned of one, you stupid fucking poopjeetlearn2read
I like how demoshits poop all over the board about Weapons Bans for YEARS because the founders couldn't conceive of automatic weapons but when it comes to immigration it immediately becomes "STAWP TRYING TO BRING TECHNOLOGY INTO THIS, IT DOESN'T MATTER, ALL LIVES ARE PEOPLE!!!" does being a disingenuous piece of human shit come with the territory of being a blue state retard
>>1502588>They had cars, planes, trucks on the Oregon trailAgain I'm talking to chat GPT. There is no way you are seriously so stupid that you're going to compare border crossing in 2026 to a literal life-or-death struggle that was traveling halfway across the roughest terrain in America by oxen. I'm actually talking to someone dumber than a second grader.
>>1502588>Oregon trail >supply linesI like how you're such a nonamerican brownoid that you don't even know that this wasn't on foot.
>>1502588This travel, if you could read that article and not ask your supervisor, took 5-6 months during the best of times. By contrast it took 1-2 months to get here by ship from China. It takes the same person 6 hours by plane to cover the same distance. That's what people are attempting to tell you but you're too dumb to get it.
>>1502585fauxgenue
>>1502589I like how retarded republican faggots like to pretend immigrants are bad for the country when they make the economy function and have funded social security by paying taxes they won't be able to claim returns on.I fucking love how your retarded religious base selectively turns off their morals when you're fucking tricked that you're being fucked over by brown people, when you're actually being fucked by the old white people that own everything. And they do it right in front of you, you're just too fucking stupid to understand, and don't even bother to read the effects of their legislation.It's great how you're literally following the nazi playbook, blaming and othering a scapegoat as your leader threatens broadcast licenses of critics.Fuck you fascist pedo supporting scumfuck. Go fantasize about ladyboy cock.
>>1502504Actually with the Republican Supreme Court, they're almost entirely self regulating, which is why it's so corrupt, I.E. there's nothing that says they can't take a case that financially conflicts with their interests, or in the case of Thomas and Alito, openly taking bribes.
>>15025921. Forts, outposts, and trading posts were set up along the Oregon Trail to help supply travelers2. Not everyone that traveled the trail did so in their wagons the whole way. Foot travel was no small part of it often alongside wagons, to say nothing of the trappers and traders in the area that operated by foot.3. Read a fucking book.>>1502594>This travel, if you could read that article and not ask your supervisor, took 5-6 months during the best of times. By contrast it took 1-2 months to get here by ship from China.Meanwhile travel from Mexico took a few seconds. What the fuck is your point? How long do you think a pregnancy is and why do you think international travelers can't fuck in the USA?
>>1502599You're retarded. Immigrants are a net tax loss. You already know this though and you're just being a bad faith ESL jeet shill
>>1502606You're projecting again
>>1502606>You're retarded. Immigrants are a net tax lossNTA but this is literally statistically proven to be untrue.>https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20250122/117827/HHRG-119-JU01-20250122-SD003.pdf
>>1502606You argue against easily verifiable data because you're in a cult.
>>1502507https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli0 European countries offer Unconditional birthright citizenship for persons born in the country
>>1502184>to the benefit of the rest of the countryFTFY
>>1502708>>1502721weird late damage control
>>1502708See>>1502183
>>1502708It should be noted the US doesn't have unconditional birthright citizenship, it's very narrow, but there are two conditions that can render you ineligible.
>>1502964>it's very narrow, but there are two conditions that can render you ineligible.4 conditions>Born in US territory outside the Union which Congress has not conferred birthright citizenship to (currently just American Samoa)>Born with diplomatic immunity>Born in occupied territory (currently not applicable)>Born as a member of an internal protectorate/quasi-independent nation whom we deal with through treaties and whom Congress has not conferred birthright citizenship to (currently not applicable)Also 2 of those exceptions are highly specific to the USA and I'm pretty sure at least the diplomatic immunity exception exists in other countries with "unconditional birthright citizenship"
