Not sure what it means but I can guess and hope.

A much smaller shark.

in fact some of them fought against a fucking king and we won.............also had relatives that fought for the North against traitors to the Constitution and we won............or did you miss that subject matter while in your preppy school ..............or did you cheat on the finals.............I think you cheated............ your reality is based on lies..........

“ NONE of his family of "illegals" were here when that happened (my ancestors were very much here however).”

The entire lot ot Drumphs, to be precise. Unless his grandfather was a slave, of course. 😉

always have to drive the racist angle in everything they do to rally their un-educated, racist, MAGAot Voters.....

Notice how they NEVER bring up Melania and her path to citizenship for her and her parents being totally illegal?????????
And having an "Anchor" child to cement her place here in the U.S.

His projections are getting very tiresome,

The hypocrisy never stops

Countries with Unrestricted Birthright Citizenship


The following countries generally grant automatic citizenship at birth to children of foreign nationals:
Region Countries
North America Canada, Mexico, United States
Central America Belize, Costa Rica (requires registration), El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama
South America Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile (opt-in/out), Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru (registration at 18), Uruguay, Venezuela
Caribbean Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent
and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago
Other Regions Africa: Lesotho, Tanzania, Chad (opt-in at 18)
Asia: Pakistan
Oceania: Fiji, Tuvalu

I know someone who had a baby there. They are a US couple. She has residency in MX. I don't believe they're married. They had to get proof from the US which took quite awhile. They needed to trace back to grandparents etc.
Then they had to prove that the parents "would not be a charge".

Hey, Mediaite! Is it too much to ask for some clarity in headlines? A quick read (on a word-wrapped headline) makes it sound like he abandoned the idea (dropped it). In reality, he just hit the "send" button.

Pardon my pedantry... but words actually matter, even if Mediaite thinks "drops" sounds cooler than "posts." Headline writers are nothing if not vague and ambiguous, are they?

Oh well.

Isn’t he selling gold immigration cards?

as well as the legislatures of the 28 states that ratified it? We are to believe they couldn't understand what the words, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ..." mean? Are we to believe this was never debated?

If Trump doesn't like the Constitution, then there are ways to add amendments.

THEY get to define who "persons" are. Right before that went into effect, some were considered 3/5 of a person.

Just the opposite. He is saying "slave children" are the only ones entitled to birthright citizenship.

But it will be up to the SCOTUS to define that and given their past historical flip-flops, who knows how they will rule.

Selected quotes from that debate in the NYTimes editorial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/30/opinion/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1.XVA.I5dq.OoO3Jhzj4MMA&smid=url-share

Over two hundred years before Dumpy's slimy pimp of a grandfather oozed his way onto these shores.

The “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” qualifier was placed to exclude tribal Indians who were seen as primarily subject to the jurisdiction of their respective tribes. I agree that it was most likely worded to exclude only tribal Indians, but they did choose this wording instead of the “excluding Indians not taxed” language of section 2 of the amendment, which means it might have been intended to be broader, narrower, or more ambiguous. Legislative records are persuasive but not controlling in Constitutional law, partially because it’s pretty hard to pin down the precise intent from the debates. If the administration can win the argument that some babies born here are primarily under the jurisdiction of the non-citizen mother’s sovereign nation as is their mother, they might unfortunately get a foot in the door. I think it’s very much a long shot, but I also think that we cannot wholly rely on precedential interpretations for what we think is a an easy plain language or legislative record understanding of an act of Congress. I believe the legal arguments put forth by TheNYT and others are undeniably strong, but what I believe is not determinative. That decision will be made by at least 5 of the members of the USSC.

John Eastman has been advancing his fringe interpretation of the 14th Amendment for decades.

The man behind Donald Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship www.politico.com/news/2026/03...

— Timothy McBride (@mcbridetd.bsky.social) 2026-03-31T14:08:51.193Z

... Section 1, Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". the Orange Shitgibbon has ZERO authority to unilaterally alter the Constitution in any way shape of form, and even the SCOTUS has some pretty high hurdles to contend with before they can declare an Amendment null and void, no matter how much ketchup stains the walls of the White House.
And Trump's arguments , "ABOUT THE BABIES OF SLAVES!" is about as blatantly racist as anything we've seen from a president since Andrew Johnson. Why is this evil fuck not in prison, or at least on an involuntary hold in a psych ward for the criminally insane?