NewStats: 3,264,072 , 8,182,499 topics. Date: Monday, 09 June 2025 at 02:38 PM 384v6k

PigTormentor:
Zionist genocide. A day will come when Zionist children will pay for the crimes of their fathers.
Nothing lasts forever.

It's not genocide, it's payback for Oct 7. Slowly, everyone is getting tired of placating Muslims.

Jihadists had this coming. Too bad.

lalaH96:
Hello, any mamas who did their baby’s hearing test independently in Houston? Was offered one by the Pediatrix Group at the hospital and I declined because I once saw posts here about how they bill you ridiculous amounts/hidden bills so I didn’t want to take a chance

I would have taken the audio tests at the hospital. Shouldn't that be part of the routine pediatric exams once the baby is born?

He said many of the courses pursued abroad under the scheme were readily available in Nigerian universities.

So let me guess: Will his children also study in Nigeria?

Luckysbab:


They took a stand (side with their government). The Swiss boys have the right to take their own stand too.

That is not the Swiss government's stance. That is the stance of leftists with a white savior complex.

Luckysbab:


Is the fencing team in charge of the country's finance?

Was that Israeli team in charge of the government?

TruthU87:

Why is Israel in a European fencing championship? I thought they were indigenous to the Middle East. They're middle-easterns Only if they want to steal lands.

If you think they are not indigenous to the ME, why are you asking this question?

They are in the EU precisely because in many ME countries, as an American, i am denied entry if I have an Israeli visa stamp in my port. Now, imagine what that means if I carry an Israeli port.

So, when next you want to ask this foolish question, research.

Eriokanmi:
Na so baba God dey run tinz. Psalm 113 sayst it all. I the day I was inside same hall with barak Obama inside the DAR Hall near the White house in Washington DC. The moment this man was invited to the podium to give us his speech, i was like them that dreamed. Don't limit yourself,believe! I was the only one invited from the whole of subsaharan africa

What of the white people who were in that hall? They viewed it as just another day... You viewed it as "baba God". This is how much religion (not Christianity) has paralyzed the Nigerian psyche.

xpressionx:
Just like Dunsin,He doesn't charge to minister in programmes.
He once travelled with his team to another country,he was not given honourarium nor their air fare paid for.
Yet God has so much honour him.

You wouldn't need to charge if you had the same number of YouTube views. We need to view issues in context.

He had a DUI case... expungement does not go away when it comes to immigration.

This is why these Christian artists don't charge when they "minister." They already make hundreds of thousands of dollars streaming their minstrations on YouTube.

The religion of peace kills again. Allahu Akbar

ScamDemicEra:
..... I just wish the embassies visa refusals target government officials and their families more while approving more visas for the average Nigerian.

The average Nigerian is no better.

Debbieeeeeee:


While Wong Kim Ark mentioned the parents’ status, the Court made it clear that birthright citizenship depends on being born on U.S. soil and under its jurisdiction not the parents’ permanent domicile. The parents’ allegiance to China didn’t matter because they were subject to U.S. laws while living here. The 14th Amendment doesn’t limit citizenship to children of permanent residents; it applies to nearly everyone born in the U.S., except for narrow exceptions like children of diplomats.

As for Trump’s legal team, they may be skilled or supposedly the best, but no amount of legal drafting can by the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent. Writing an EO that directly contradicts over 100 years of settled law isn’t a masterstroke, it’s a gamble. The courts have already started pushing back, and history shows they won’t ignore the Constitution to accommodate political strategies.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[6] This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.[4]

Partially agree with you but i think the case hinges on the last part. They had "permanent domicile and residence" in the United States. You could argue this does not apply to anyone here illegally or on temporary student/visitor visa. That's exactly how the EO is frame. I think SCOTUS keeps the 14th amendment but narrows its applicability to only those who have permanent residence visas in the US only.

wirinet:


Why not post exerpts from the Senate records so we can understand what you are talking about.

Did the bill (or the eventual amendment itself) differentiate between children after foreigners and children of citizens when granting birthright citizenship?
Children of Diplomats born outside of the US was not mentioned in the 14th amendment, those were later additions or interpretations.

Always referring to the original intent of the constitution writers instead of the texts and substance of the constitution itself is disingenuous. How can you determine the intent of 13 men that died over two and a half centuries ago, unless expressly written down. This means the constitution is very fluid and therefore useless.

Not true. Courts do this all the time. Antonin Scalia was a key proponent of this.

I have also seen it in business cases where lawyers rely on congressional records to show intent, where the law is rather vague.

Debbieeeeeee:


Your argument misses a key point: United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) made it clear that birthright citizenship applies to anyone born in the U.S., except for rare cases like children of diplomats. The 14th Amendment’s words are straightforward “subject to jurisdiction” applies broadly, and courts have upheld this for over a century. The president cannot rewrite the Constitution with an executive order; only an amendment can change this, and that’s not happening. Courts don’t rely on speculation about what the framers “didn’t foresee” they rely on what the law says and established precedent. This EO directly contradicts the Constitution and cases like Plyler v. Doe. Calling it a “master stroke” ignores the fact that it will be struck down for violating the law.

I directly quoted from the opinion in Wong Kim Ark. As you can see, the court highlights the status of his parents at the time of his birth. The court agrees that the parents owe their allegiance to china... but have a permanent domicile in the US. The Trump EO states exactly that, it reserves birthright citizenship for those who have permanent domicile in the US. Those left out are visitors, illegal immigrants, temporary workers... all of whom are not permanently domiciled in the US.

This will be a big test but i strongly believe SCOTUS will preserve the EO. Trump's team did not write that EO for fun.

I stopped reading at "muslim school". What did you expect? Kind and loving children?

HealthCas:
Updates

Application: November 2024

Interview appointment date: January 2025

Location: American embassy, London


Interview:
V.O: what's the purpose of your visit?
Me: 5 days vacation to a city in the USA

V.O: what do you do?
Me: XYZ Engineering

V.O: tell me about it
Me: blah blah blah (majorly job summary)

V.O: How long have you been in the UK?
Me: 2yrs +

V.O: you travelled to a city in Europe last year?
Me: yes, I spent 4 days on vacation, Although i also travelled Naija to see family aw well.

V.O: When is your UK visa expiring?
Me: later this year 2025; but I shall be renewing soon.

V.O: I shall be approving your visa
Me: Thank you.

NB: No request for proof of employment, no proof of finance, no request for any document.
Tip: just be as honest as possible and prove home ties and financial capacity; don't wait till you are asked about family till you prove your home ties.

Awaiting port collection. Best of luck y'all.
A silent reader

I read your summary at least 3 times. Where did you prove home ties and financial capacity, which you claim is a tip?

Please do not confuse others... you had an advantage - you live and work in the UK and are far less likely to want to stay in the US. That is not the case for someone applying from Nigeria.

Debbieeeeeee:
The 14th Amendment is a complex piece of legislation, and any constitutional conflicts surrounding it can only be resolved through a ruling from the Supreme Court. Currently, the executive order signed by President Donald Trump is facing challenges in court, and we’re all waiting to see how that plays out. If you're already in the U.S., it's best to just take a deep breath and relax. Since the introduction of this executive order on the 20th of January, I've reviewed and contributed to various legal opinions. The 14th Amendment has been tested since 1884 and has stood firm despite challenges. The executive order overlooks established judicial precedents and the overarching authority of the Constitution.

It doesn't. SCOTUS will keep the 1898 decision, but will uphold the EO on a narrow interpretation. Those who drafted the EO for Trump aren't dumb. The framers of the amendment and the 1898 court did not foresee the issue of anchor babies and birth tourism. The 14th Amendment was written precisely to reverse the Dred Scott decision, not to grant mass citizenship to offspring of Chinese mothers. This case will turn on the original intent, not the words of the amendment.

Here is the main problem from a wiki text of the pivotal Wong Kim Ark case:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[6] This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.[4]

While it is true that Wong Kim Ark's parents were not US citizens, it is clear from the court that they were permanent residents. The Trump EO SPECIFICALLY its that children of permanent residents ARE US citizens if born here. It only eliminates children of temporary, non-immigrant visas. The 1989 case did not cover these folks.

Note that SCOTUS at the time itted that while his parents were permanent residents, they were still regarded as subjects of the Emperor of China. Birthright citizenship for non-citizens/permanent residents is gone for good. This was a master stroke by Trump.

Adebubler:
Hello everyone,

It is good to see that this trend is still up and running.
Unfortunately from this month it will be slow due to the executive order Trump signed.

Mamas currently in US, I dont think this new law will affect you, it is those who scale through interview here in Nigeria and gets into US (if they are not returned from POE) that will have to face the hurdles of getting citizenship by birth for their babies.

In 2019, Trump was the President and most mothers who had given birth before his istration were denied Visas. I know a friend who was lucky to get visa for her second child during Biden istration after a denied visa during Trumps istration.

This new sheriff will follow his intentions to the T hence i will advice prospective mothers who want their child to have another citizenship to look at other countries for now ( for another 4 years) because it will be tough to get birth citizenship using visiting visa by non immigrant mothers.

If you currently have an interview with the Embassy, it is up to you to decide if you will like for a blue paper or faith it and see just maybe you will get a visa.
I wish you all success.

It will. After 30 days, no child born to anyone on a non-immigrant visa will be permitted to obtain US citizenship.

Bossman:
Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Now that he has just signed the executive order, I would expect the probability of getting visa for birthing purposes to be very low right now, even as this goes to the courts.

Even if the EO is stayed in the lower courts, obtaining a birthing visa will be close to impossible.

wirinet:

The 14th ammendments never talked about aliens or parents, it expressly mentioned birth, and naturalisation. The 14th ammendment only recognised citizenship through birth or naturalisation. Naturalisation is under the control of the executive, birth is not.

Spend more time reading the Senate records when the bill was being ed. It does mention foreigners. In fact, those records are where we learn that children of diplomats do not obtain birthright citizenship. This case will turn on the original intent of the writers of the amendment, not the amendment itself.

wirinet:

Roe V Wade was not a constitutional issue, abortion rights is not stated in the constitution. In fact the main reason the Supreme Court overturned Roe V Wade was that it was not backed up by any legislative law, and advised that it should be taking to Congress to make it law.

Neither is the child of an illegal alien in the constitution. At stake is whether the 14th amendment should be applied to them or not. The court has argued the case before... it isn't new.

Ankakh:
The EO banning birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. But with a right-leaning SCOTUS, it can be dragged for a while. But to be effective, it will have to be codified in the US constitution, which won't be easy.

Does he know how much the US economy will be losing by stopping this? And this is the man that knows business... Lol!

It is not. Arguments that the 14th amendment did not apply to non-citizen children born here have been an issue for over 100 years. The Wong Kim Ark ruling is what gave us the liberal interpretation we have today. A conservative SCOTUS can certainly overturn it... and that essentially becomes law for another 100 years.

free2ryhme:


Why not view it as moderates opposing the executive order

This court overturned Roe v. Wade (after Kavanaugh swore it was settled law) and made the presidency a monarchy. The moderates must be in hiding.

wirinet:

I honestly do not know any other way the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can be interpreted in the statement "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", other than the jurisdiction of the United States.
As I said the 6 - 3 republican majority supreme court will have to employ legal gymnastics of Olympic proportions to reinterpre that section of the 14th amendment.

You're viewing this from the lens of 2024. It's not the first time this case has come to the Supreme Court and in fact, the 1899 Wong Art Kim ruling is how we understand the 14th amendment today. If the court could overturn Roe v. Wade, they can overturn Wong's ruling.

free2ryhme:

The U.S. Supreme Court justices can be analyzed on a liberal-to-conservative spectrum based on their judicial philosophies, voting patterns, and opinions on key issues:

Liberal Justices:
1. Ketanji Brown Jackson – Consistently liberal, advocating for progressive stances on issues like civil rights, voting rights, and equity.
2. Sonia Sotomayor – The most liberal justice, frequently championing individual rights, social justice, and government ability.
3. Elena Kagan – Liberal but pragmatic, often building coalitions and writing moderate opinions to influence broader decisions.

Swing or Moderate Lean:
1. John Roberts (Chief Justice) – Though conservative, Roberts occasionally sides with liberals in pivotal cases to maintain institutional integrity, especially on matters like healthcare or voting rights.
2. Brett Kavanaugh – A conservative with moderate tendencies, occasionally siding with liberals on cases involving individual rights or regulatory matters.

Conservative Justices:
1. Amy Coney Barrett – Strongly conservative, often siding with religious liberty and originalist interpretations of the Constitution.
2. Neil Gorsuch – Conservative with libertarian streaks, particularly on criminal justice and Native American sovereignty issues.
3. Samuel Alito – Among the most conservative, focusing on issues like religious freedom and opposing expansive interpretations of rights.
4. Clarence Thomas – The most conservative justice, advocating for strict originalism and limited government.

Spectrum Summary:
Liberal Wing: Jackson, Sotomayor, Kagan.
Moderates: Roberts, occasionally Kavanaugh.
Conservative Wing: Gorsuch, Barrett, Alito, Thomas.

In other words, you have 4 reliable yes votes to the EO, with two swing votes. You only need 1 to get to 5.

Inspirer1:
It's actually for illegal immigrants

Nope. For everyone on a non-immigrant visa, legal or not. H1B, F1/F2, B1/B2 all impacted.

wirinet:

I honestly do not know any other way the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can be interpreted in the statement "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", other than the jurisdiction of the United States.
As I said the 6 - 3 republican majority supreme court will have to employ legal gymnastics of Olympic proportions to reinterpre that section of the 14th amendment.

That same court essentially made the president a king and agreed he could kill his political enemy and get away with it, as long as he says it was in the national interest. We all said they would not overthrow Roe v. Wade... and here we are. You vastly overestimate this court.

What you'll find is justices reverting to what the framers intended, not the most liberal interpretation of that phrase in 2024. If they went that direction, the EO likely stands. The best way to reverse the EO is to have no one challenge it for 4 years, and how a Dem wins in 2028.

free2ryhme:


liberal-to-conservative spectrum is something you need to pay close attention.

What does that mean? Preferable to speak plainly. The use of overly complex phrasing of what is likely a simple idea is not useful.

free2ryhme:


Don't be too sure

The disciples of Scalia have this one. Come back to this post in a year.