Now that the SCt has put to bed the constitutional challenge to birthright citizenship, does anyone want to defend the notion on policy grounds in today's day and age?
Doesn't seem to make much sense. The birth tourism issue, especially, is nuts. Might be able to curtail it by passing a law outlawing pregnant women from visiting US or territories:
thats Victor Davis Hanson’s suggestion.
Divorce BEFORE you make any money! Do it quickly, do it often!
are you really arguing the border was a mess under trump and not biden? and you have the temerity to call me stupid? i'm not giving you opinions. i'm telling you facts. the numbers speak for themselves. what happened speaks for itself. the left opened the border becaues they want desperate people to vote for them because desperate people combined with very low iq people like yourself give dems the best chance of winning. how did they open the border? title 42, remain in mexico, asylum agreemetns, rhetoric, funding, and the numbers speak for themselves. so if you are going to just come on teh board and lie you lose all credibility. you are the worst poster in the history of all of the boards hickory
I’ll loan you this;
To paraphrase my brother John Kennedy, I’m not saying that you’re the stupidest poster on the board, but you better hope shooter doesn’t die.
None of us has much to worry about there as long a probert is here
Now that the SCt has put to bed the constitutional challenge to birthright citizenship, does anyone want to defend the notion on policy grounds in today's day and age?
Doesn't seem to make much sense. The birth tourism issue, especially, is nuts. Might be able to curtail it by passing a law outlawing pregnant women from visiting US or territories:
It has been a major problem with Chinese, Russian and Nigerians (largest groups per ChatGPT).
This is what ChatGPT says are options:
He doesn’t understand how SCOTUS, the constitution and the law work. However, he’s not a lawyer - what’s your excuse?🔥 🔥 🔥
He doesn’t understand how SCOTUS, the constitution and the law work. However, he’s not a lawyer - what’s your excuse?🔥 🔥 🔥
So the SC cannot rehear a case?
He doesn’t understand how SCOTUS, the constitution and the law work. However, he’s not a lawyer - what’s your excuse?🔥 🔥 🔥
So the SC cannot rehear a case?
He clearly doesn't understand why the Dems want to pack the court.
He doesn’t understand how SCOTUS, the constitution and the law work. However, he’s not a lawyer - what’s your excuse?🔥 🔥 🔥
So the SC cannot rehear a case?
The decision wasn't based on policy considerations. It was based on a plain reading of the constitution. His grounds for rehearing are irrelevant. They will reject his request quickly.
They made a decision based on the law and constitution. There have been no changes. They will reject Trump’s request.He doesn’t understand how SCOTUS, the constitution and the law work. However, he’s not a lawyer - what’s your excuse?🔥 🔥 🔥
So the SC cannot rehear a case?
The government will target ACB. I think there is a reasonable argument, they made it made it and lost. ACB won’t change her mind.
There are ways to outlaw birther tourism, which all of us agree should be done.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
There are ways to outlaw birther tourism, which all of us agree should be done.
Yet another solution looking for a problem.