A majority of the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of President Trump’s efforts to limit birthright citizenship during arguments on Wednesday. Key conservative justices raised doubts about the constitutionality of the president’s executive order that would end automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign visitors.
But in an argument that lasted more than two hours, several of the court’s conservative justices also asked tough questions of a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the legal challenge, making the outcome of the legally complicated and hugely consequential case not fully clear....
Here's the live chat that happened on SCOTUSblog. Excerpt from the end:
Sarah Isgur: Here's my rundown giving each Justice a score 1-10 with 1 being highly in favor of the admin and 10 being wildly against the admin based on the questions so far: Chief: 7 Thomas: 4 Alito: 3 Sotomayor: 10 Kagan: 9 Gorsuch: 8 Kavanaugh: 6 Barrett: 5 Jackson: 10....
David Lat: I think I'm pretty close to your ratings, Sarah—but with low confidence. Which is why it is conceivable to me (even if unlikely) that admin ekes out a 5-4 win.... [Gorsuch] was surprisingly tough on [ACLU lawyer] Wang in questioning.... I feel that the only justices I'm confident on are the obvious ones: Alito and Thomas for the administration, the three liberal justices for the challengers, and everyone else up for grabs. A 2-3-4 Court?
Posts
88 comments:
I need someone to explain to me why a person here on a visitor visa does not get counted in the census, but they do "count" if they are born here.
The Chinese use our slave-era law to their advantage. Chinese Child birth arrivals for sale - on purpose.
The law is abused and should be retired. This is a no-brainer.
Remember- Justice Roberts hates Trump - perhaps Trump should not be there.
If someone breaks into your house and has a baby there are you responsible for a lifetime of financial responsibility for that baby?
The middle ground is to rule congress has the authority to legislate who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US for purposes of citizenship at birth.
"US Solicitor General John Sauer brought up the fact that China has 500 birth tourism companies that bring people to the US to have children. 'That has no impact on the legal analysis...it's a new world, it's the same Constitution,' said Roberts."
If anything, a better indictment of the disadvantages we put ourselves at trying to remain a nation of laws, not men.
Peachy said...
The Chinese use our slave-era law to their advantage. Chinese Child birth arrivals for sale - on purpose.
The law is abused and should be retired. This is a no-brainer.
I don't necessarily disagree but the proper way to fix it is through an amendment to the Constitution, not a 5-4 decision that could be overturned by another court in a few years.
So if Trump loses his court case, I guess the next step is to revoke dual citizenship with their home countries, of all naturalized Americans. That would at least provide some clarity to those holding such status. Choose the US, or choose your birthplace. Seems "common sensical" to me.
Oh no no Mikee...the rest of the world must have our cake and eat it too!
And the more Roberts hates Trump, the more important it is for Trump to watch at the Supreme Court, in the front row of the public gallery, which is designated the seating for Presidents to observe the Court. Oh, you didn't know the Court desgnated a seat (at least a front row seat) for Presidents to watch the oral arguments? Kinda implies they welcome the observation by the Executive Branch of the goings on of the Jucidial Branch's highest court.
The "Living Constitution" caused a lot of harm, but this was always one big reason why "originalism" was inadequate. People can argue about how much the thinking of 1787 applies in the Aviation Era but in this matter the thinking of 1868 is clearly out of place in the Jet Age for very literal reasons.
Still, the amendment's framers did give Congress the power to enforce the amendment, by appropriate legislation. Constitutionally, the question isn't whether Trump can change the policy, but whether Congress can. Practically though, if Trump can't do it, it won't be done.
Add a question to the visa application that forces the applicant to attest that they are not coming to the US in order to give birth, and that any child born in the US during their stay relinquishes any claim to US citizenship, in advance. Since there's already a way to renounce citizenship, just make it an advance commitment.
Not suprising. Even if you agree Birthright citizenship is wrong, there's the question as whether the POTUS can end it by executive order. Given that Roberts is an open borders globalist, and ACB is a quishy go-with-the-flow moderate, Trump will lose.
You'll notice there's been almost no reining in of the leftwing district judges by the SCOTUS. Or their use of injunctions against everything the POTUS does. This means Roberts and ACB actually agree with what is going on. Not suprising. We all know Roberts hates Trump, and ACB wants to be loved by the uniparty Establishment.
Key justices is an interesting term from NYT. I suppose the key ones are the ones most likely to favor the preferred outcome of the ‘news’ room…
Airplanes exist, so screw having a country and borders and stuff. Uh oh Mavis, the letter of the law is stabbing the spirit with a knife! Call the cops!
The middle ground is to rule congress has the authority to legislate who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US for purposes of citizenship at birth.
The problem is, Congress did pass a law on the topic that simply parrots the "subject to the jurisdiction" language without explanation.
I mentioned this in an earlier post, but the whole "British common law" birthright citizenship was not set up to give prizes to the lucky infant - it was to establish duties and obligations that the infant would owe the Crown, such as allegiance, tax obligations, regulations on trade, etc., many of which were the very things America revolted over.
oh yea - that will never happen.
by that - I mean - congress changing the constitution.
Does the NYT explain which "key justices" seem skeptical. I listened to the whole thing, and I didn't hear a lot of skepticism. I think the NYT is reading into it what the NYT wants.
Besides, no on can read the tea leaves from an oral argument.
What did the NYT think was the likely outcome after the Colorado Therapist First Amendment case was argued?
I'd bet the farm they didn't think it'd be 8-1 against Colorado.
What's the argument that originalist would ideologically oppose removing birthright citizenship? It seems to me that if the 14th Amendment may have created it, then it wasn't originally in the Constitution and that there is a legal question as to whether the 14th Amendment created it.
Not a lawyer, but a lot of the work-arounds don't work. Dean Rusk tried to take the citizenship away from a dual citizen who had voted in a foreign election and the Supreme Court wouldn't let him do it. With all the Americans who got the decorative Irish or Polish passports and all the American children of British parents who never gave up their UK citizenship, dual citizenship isn't something we could get rid of.
One lesson of the Soetero-Obama years is that parents can't give up their child's American citizenship. Would the courts accept a non-citizen relinquishing the citizenship claims of her unborn child? Better perhaps: pregnancy tests and denial of visas to pregnant women. But who knows if the courts will go along with that?
I have no idea what is going to happen with this, but I did read an interesting 'original intent' argument with citations, that most of the congress at the time did not think it applied to anyone with an allegiance to another government. Dual citizenship was mentioned above and I agree that dual citizenship should not be allowed. You are an american citizen or you aren't. If you want to be an american citizen you must renounce all others. And the existence of birth 'tourism' means that however this case plays out, the rules need to change.
Wince makes a good point. Make Congress define what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. Then make that a campaign issue. That's kind of what SCOTUS did by sending abortion to the states.
If you think the ICE funding and voter ID debates were intense, the Dems would become unglued on birthright citizenship.
The Dems need birthright citizenship, illegal aliens and vote cheating to stay in power. The Dems hate Americans.
Peter Schweizer is a journalist with a commitment to factuality. His recent book, Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon, does a good job of explaining the nature of the problem.
Aggie at 12:05 has an excellent suggestion about the potential use of visa applications. Unfortunately, her suggestion doesn't apply to illegal aliens.
Here in Los Angeles, many people have a stronger emotional attachment to Mexico or El Salvador etc. than they do to the US. (That's why they are waving Mexican flags at their anti-ICE rallies) Citizenship for them is merely a convenience. In too many instances, there is no desire to assimilate. The US is a tool to be used. It isn't something with a meaning or destiny that they really care about.
It really is bizarre that one party hates Americans. It would be like there was a major faction in the Roman Senate that favored the Goths and Visigoths.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact." The Other Justice Jackson.
Normally, I don't like legislative history. However, the further back you go (before it was obviously being used by Congress making speeches to try and spin legislation because they knew the Court would look to it), the more reliable it would seem to get. Even there, I would be hesitant to (and wouldn't) say that the authors of the 14th Amendment necessarily control over any clear language.
There are two confounding issues, however. First, te language itself is not entirely clear. In that case, it may well be appropriate to look to the authors, and they obviously did not intend birthplace citizenship. Second, the legislation from Congress on this issue - using the very words of the 14th Amendment - was written with full knowledge of those statements of intent. That would seem to indicate that the law was written to use that interpretation. In addition to those point, we finally have that 1898 decision that went that was as a precedent.
The S. Ct. may well chicken out and hold that it will take Congressional action to clarify this, but Congress did pass a law on this - and the interpretation is a bit murky, as best.
Add a question to the visa application that forces the applicant to attest that they are not coming to the US in order to give birth, and that any child born in the US during their stay relinquishes any claim to US citizenship, in advance
Would a parent have the right to give up their child's right?
NVM, I see Lazarus has already answered my question.
How long does it take a mail-in ballot to arrive from China? Is ballot harvesting legal in China?
The Trump administration hates Europe, yet here they are in front of the Supreme Court arguing that the US constitution is wrong because Europeans have different laws.
That went down like a lead balloon.
Lefty media - "Trump will LOSE!!!". Reality - he dynamic shifted in the second half, when several key conservative justices—especially Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett—asked questions suggesting they weren’t convinced by the arguments from the challengers either.
"But an ACLU lawyer, arguing against Trump's executive order, faced some tough questions from key conservative justices, suggesting the outcome could be closer than some court watchers had predicted". - So, it will be 6-3 in Trump's favor or a close run thing the other way, even though the NYT is "skeptical"
Did Trump show up?
Whether Trump has the authority to end it or not, the policy is foolish and suicidal, and it might be too late.
The fact that it's even being argued at the SC puts some points on the board.
It should be a matter for Congress to address via legislation. This continued use of EOs, by any executive, D or R, is just not in the spirit of our intended Constiutional framework.
It would be like there was a major faction in the Roman Senate that favored the Goths and Visigoths.
That's not far from the reality.
The people at Georgetown dinner parties have long had much more in common with the people at dinner parties in Islington or the gauche caviar 7th arrondissement, while harboring nothing but disdain, scorn, and open detestation for the people at 4th of July parades and backyard barbecues in Middle America, who pay for every luxury enjoyed by the Georgetown sneerers.
And the phenomenon long predates America:
It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition.
--Aristotle, Politics
It's long past time we gave these Beltway vermin an actual good reason for the fear and hatred in their hearts. I want to see America made totally ungovernable by the enemy occupation government in DC.
If you want something not to get done leave it up to Congress.
I will mention that the Constitution is quite clear with no ambiguous language on many subjects. Including the 14th amendment, in words that are identical to the unamended Constitution. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. Virginia is engaged in a fight over the shape of it's 11 congressional districts, trying to gerrymander a super majority of Democrat districts. The population of Virginia divided by the population of Wyoming is 14.66, which under normal reasoning would be rounded up to 15. Virginia is not proportionally represented. Virginia would have more power in the house with 15. So why aren't the more populous states demanding the number of congressmen be allocated in accordance with THE PLAIN WORDS AND MEANING in the Constitution? Easy. The most populous states tend to be run by Democrats. It would be much harder to gerrymander 15 districts to create a lopsided majority. CA/WY =66.85, or 67- instead of the 52 they currently have. Imagine trying to gerrymander 15 additional districts...
In every case the states that gained seats by proper and constitutional seat allocation would gain power in the House compared to the current and unconstitutional 435 member limit. And the end result would be- it would be much harder to get Democrat control of the house since Democrats cluster together in cities that are overwhelmingly Democrat, and in the rest of the state Republicans outnumber Democrats, but by a lesser percentage then in the cities. Most states would gain power- yet the Democrats would lose power. Obviously that cannot be allowed.
https://x.com/TxRecon1/status/2039359813209952462
If the Supreme Court justices were honest (which they are not) and actually read the text of the 14th Amendment and other documents leading to its passage, the whole concept of birthright citizenship resulting in “anchor babies” would dissolve.
The applicable portion of the 14th Amendment is as follows:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The 14th Amendment was passed so that former slaves would become citizens and not be shipped to Liberia or have their rights as US citizens or citizens of the state where they were born infringed. It was NEVER INTENDED to give citizenship to babies born here while the mother was merely sojourning in the U.S.
There are two conditions that must be fulfilled. The first is that the person has to be BORN here (easy enough), AND, the person has to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. So, if a foreigner enters the U.S. and gives birth, both mother and child are subject to the jurisdiction of the country from whence they came, and not the U.S. It does not matter if that person is an illegal or here on a tourist visa, education visa, etc. If they are sojourning, they are not subject to US jurisdiction. [If you went on vacation to a foreign country, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The same is true for a child of yours born in that foreign country].
The only problem that I see that is worthy of debate is with the child of a permanent resident (Green Card holder). Green Card holders are subject to partial US jurisdiction. They cannot vote or serve on juries, but they can legally work here but otherwise have the basic rights of citizens.
Here's my rundown giving each SCOTUSBlogger a score 1-10 with 1 being a middle of the road SCOTUS analyst and 10 a nose pierced green hair hardcore radial leftie: Sarah: 7 David: 9
Sarah worked for ashcroft ages ago but then she joined tge dinghy
Interesting thought GoSpace. That suggests that Representatives that the number of cities in a state may play a part in apportionment as much as the population.
Wince said...The middle ground is to rule congress has the authority to legislate who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US for purposes of citizenship at birth.
Which may not require a ruling. Congress could just do it. This is a good compromise. Roberts makes a good argument, but amending the constitution is a years to decades long process. If China is manufacturing large numbers of CCP-loyal American citizens, then we may not have decades to address this.
The only worthwhile opinion about today's oral argument would be from constitutional law professor emertia Ann Althouse!
Old Yankees in Northern New England have a saying "Just because the cat had kittens in the oven, I wouldn't call 'em biscuits."
Could the leftist media hacks, and the usual leftist trolls here please explain what a "key justice" is?
Is that a justice that is not KBJ, who is guilty of crimes against humanity for killing brain cells everytime she opens her mouth?
If Trump loses, step one is mass deportation. Step two is mass denaturalization. Step three is jail the traitors in congress - give them the Special Council treatment (indict the ham sandwich).
What is the impact if the President who is specifically tasked with national security were to prove that China was deliberately using this to infiltrate and weaken or threaten the nation, which they could do without breaking any current laws. Can you plan an attack on the country if you stay within the law? Like when you put your finger half an inch from your your sister's nose and say "I'm not touching you."
Putting aside the legal issues, what are the problems with birthright citizenship? Population growth has pretty much stalled and probably in a few years will be going down. See https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026/2025-popest-metro-micro-counties.html.
Do you want to turn America into a Japan?
Is the concern that these people are more likely to vote Democrat (in 18 years)? Does that mean you would support birthright citizenship if the evidence showed the contrary?
Shes a token and not a smart one
Population growth in USA is one person every 45 seconds or 700k per year, https://www.census.gov/popclock/. That would be reduced by about 260k if Trump's EO were affirmed. That's 0.078% of the population. Seems like you are making a mountain of a molehill.
On only this point liberals dont care about process why is that?
Concern troll is concerned
"The middle ground is to rule congress has the authority to legislate who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US for purposes of citizenship at birth."
Like Wince, I think this likely to be where Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett to draw the line. They will overrule Trump's E.O. and simply say this is the province of Congress to work out or not. I expect Alito and Thomas to dissent and the three Democrats to concur with the majority in overturning the E.O. but to write a separate opinion saying the 14th Amendment means literally that anyone born on U.S. territory is a citizen unless their parents are diplomats
I think we can all agree we’re Originalist-Textualists when it favors our prejudices but also Living Constitutionalists if circumstances require.
This was a smart move by Trump. If he loses, then the eventual collapse of the US is on Presidents Reagan through Biden with the blessings of Roberts and his wingmen.
There will be a push to amend the Constitution to get rid of birth soil citizenship.
That push will be the start of the Guerilla Civil War.
Of course, I could be wrong.
...automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign visitors.
It's over for America. This reminds me of "Prima Nocta" (right of first night) in Braveheart. (almost the opposite, but same effect)
Longshanks says, “The trouble with Scotland… is that it’s full of Scots!
Perhaps the time has come to reinstitute an old custom. Grant them prima noctes.
First night, when any common girl inhabiting their lands is married, our nobles shall have sexual rights to her on the night of her wedding.
IF WE CAN GET THEM OUT, WE'll BREED THEM OUT!"
I don't care who they will vote for. The issue is a law intended for former slaves being used by foreigners for whom it was never intended. It is now used by illegal immigrants to not just get citizenship for their children, but to also get access for themselves to rights and benefits and resources of American citizens that they should have no rights to. And yes, Democrats want to use that to eventually disenfranchise American voters. It's not that they may vote for Democrats, because that might change, but I still would not want the outdated law watering down anyone's vote. It's like a law outlawing buggy whips being used to take away 2nd Amendment rights. Get rid of it. It's only abused, never used.
We were told in 1965 that the Immigration and Nationality Act wouldn't change the country. It did, for better or for worse. Little changes in any one year add up over time --- indeed, they multiply up. For the love of God, haven't we already learned that by now? Given how many illegals Biden let into the country and how many the next Democrat administration will let in we can't just stick our heads in the sand.
Yay for SCOTUS!!!!!
Birthright-citizen kids of illegal aliens dilute the votes of slave-descended black citizens. If your argument against Trump is that the 14th is meant to protect former slaves and their descendants, then why is the amendment being used to hurt them? CC, JSM
They dont actually have an argujent
Jim5301 said…
“Do you want to turn America into a Japan?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJm9T1wPIns&list=RDWJm9T1wPIns&start_radio=1
Earnest Prole said...
“I think we can all agree we’re Originalist-Textualists when it favors our prejudices but also Living Constitutionalists if circumstances require.”
“The constitution is not a suicide pact.”
- A bunch of legal types over the years.
jim5301 said...
“Population growth has pretty much stalled and probably in a few years will be going down.”
So what?
I don’t care, but the left has told me for decades that having less people is a good thing.
I keep asking myself: why keep coming to a now retired Constitutional Law Professor's blog wherein she consistently refuses to opine on constitutional law issues?
"I don’t care, but the left has told me for decades that having less people is a good thing."
They've also said that driving is bad and anything that will encourage people to do less of it (like high gas prices) is a good thing- except, of course, when a Republican is in the White House. Then, it's all about affordability.
What a shocker, the NYTimes and the 3 Democrat judges think alike. The three Democrat judges don’t even need to waste time asking questions.
@Humperdink - Step 4. Refugee visas for all Ukrainian women and their children. Every last one of them. Let's throw in the Poles for good measure. Use Biden tactics to flood the United States with WHITE Eastern Europeans. Oh! Oh, dear!
And settle them in battleground states and setup sympathetic illegal voter registration JUST LIKE THE DEMOCRATS.
"But where will we get our population growth?!?!?" is just the latest version of "But who will pick the cotton?!?!?"
Low birthrate is a RESPONSE to economic and social conditions that are in great part created by flooding the country with immigrants (primarily illegal, but legal as well).
Turn off the immigration spigot, and compensation for labor will of necessity increase, while the cost of housing, medical care, education, law enforcement, and transportation will all go down, improving the standard of living for younger people and therefore allowing the birth rate to increase.
A 10-year moratorium on all immigration except for people who marry U.S. citizens would solve our birth-rate problem. Actually, make it 18 years, because it will take a little while for the changes in incentives to flow through the economy and culture.
P.S.: "But who will provide the medical care for all the Boomers in nursing homes?" is just another "Who will pick the cotton?" variant. Worse comes to worst, Musk's Humanoid Robot Nurses can neglect vulnerable people just as effectively as illiterate third-world orderlies do.
jim5301 said...
Putting aside the legal issues, what are the problems with birthright citizenship?
The main problem is Foreign born people hate the United States and vote for democrats.
We already have enough enemies trying to destroy the country from within. We know you hate the country and want to see it destroyed. All you want now is to import more foreign allies.
You are a traitor definition of.
To those saying they believe that Trump doesn't have the power to change the law by executive order are misunderstanding what the EO does. The EO doesn't purport to change the law - it purports to state what the correct interpretation of the law IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN. By inference, it implies that the assumption as to the existence of birthright citizenship is incorrect, and has always been incorrect.
It might be a technical difference, but technicalities are what makes the law the law.
"Putting aside the legal issues, what are the problems with birthright citizenship? Population growth has pretty much stalled and probably in a few years will be going down. "
With AI and robotics we are fast reaching a world where you no longer need a pool of low skill workers - those jobs will be automated and not exist, and those former workers will then require government support to survive as they are not capable of higher duties. Ideally they would breed out, but typically they are the people that have more children, not less - so you labour underclass will grow, not shrink.
“The constitution is not a suicide pact.”
I think we can all agree that legal opinions that differ from our own are, by definition, a suicide pact.
Liz Wheeler
@Liz_Wheeler
·
14h
In the next decade, over 1M Chinese communists will be able to vote in American elections.
You heard me.
Thanks to birth tourism, Chinese billionaires are paying surrogates to birth their children on U.S. soil so the babies are American citizens.
The children are taken back to China after birth, raised as communists, then when they’re 18, they’re allowed to vote in U.S. elections.
THAT is why birthright citizenship must end.
1M votes swings any election.
Soon the Chinese communists will “legally” control our elections.
Unless we end birthright citizenship.
https://x.com/Liz_Wheeler/status/2039407537196257449?s=20
Sean Davis
@seanmdav
·
15h
A lot of people missed this earlier today, but Justice Jumanji heavily implied during oral arguments that if you sneak into her office and steal her robe, that makes you a Supreme Court Justice.
https://x.com/seanmdav/status/2039398622928732398?s=20
C3
@C_3C_3
·
18h
In just 45 years…
The % of US births to foreign born mothers went from 6.5% to 23.5%
A 261% increase in 45 years.
This is how you lose a country and its culture.
End birthright citizenship now.
https://x.com/C_3C_3/status/2039368442680090861?s=20
"Thanks to birth tourism, Chinese billionaires are paying"
You must have missed the story about how Trump opened up buying citizenship ... your rage here is hypocritical at best.
The Trump Gold Card is a 2025 U.S. immigration initiative offering expedited permanent residency and a pathway to citizenship for wealthy foreigners, usually requiring a $1 million direct donation/gift to the U.S. government ($2M for corporations) and a $15,000 processing fee.
"The only worthwhile opinion about today's oral argument would be from constitutional law professor emertia Ann Althouse!"
Here's an opinion: My opinion is worthless.
Mark, instead, we should follow the fine example of everybody's favorite country, New Zealand. A range of long-term / permanent visas, starting around $300,000 and going at least as high as $6,000,000.
A paltry $1,000,000 for the US? Gonna attract riff-raff.
I disagree with Althouse. Her opinion is not worthless. It merely needs to be taken in context, like any offering from an independent intelligence.
has she figured out the woman thing yet?
Still scared?
Wince said...
The middle ground is to rule congress has the authority to legislate who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US for purposes of citizenship at birth.
And they did, for "Native Americans", in 1924, with the Indian Citizenship Act.
Before then, children of tribe members were not born US citizens, even if they were born off the Reservation.
If someone will show me the law passed by Congress that says "children go illegal aliens and people on visas are US citizens if born in the US", then until that law is repealed, that citizenship is granted.
But if you can't show us that law, then since those illegals / visa holders are far less "under the jurisdiction of the US" than were tribal Indians who were temporarily off the Reservation, they're not covered by the 14th Amendment
Mark said...
"Thanks to birth tourism, Chinese billionaires are paying"
You must have missed the story about how Trump opened up buying citizenship ... your rage here is hypocritical at best.
The Trump Gold Card is a 2025 U.S. immigration initiative offering expedited permanent residency and a pathway to citizenship for wealthy foreigners, usually requiring a $1 million direct donation/gift to the U.S. government ($2M for corporations) and a $15,000 processing fee.
It must suck being that stupid, Mark. "Chinese billionaires are paying", NOT the US gov't, not the US taxpayers, but random other people.
The Biden Admin let in millions for free, and your'e bitching about Trump letting in people who pay America for the privilege.
Because you suck as a human being
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.