₦airaland Forum

Deepthoughts:
Ànd if you really thinks that's a carte blanche for you to just stroll into the US n have you kid to later claim citizenship by birth then watch out, there's always another way, getting in will surely become another ball game,I hope the supreme court would open the borders freely for you.

Kobojunkie:
Don't change the subject, please. Focus on the issue, which is that you are wrong in insisting that plopping a child down on American soil, either as an illegal immigrant or a temporary visitor, does not propel one to the front of the line when it comes to naturalization.

2. Some people are still waiting, even 30 years after submitting their first application, to become naturalized in America. I personally know at least 4 such people who would give anything to be accepted into America. And even if they were to be accepted today, they would need to wait another 5 years after that to obtain citizenship and access benefits available to citizens.

However, a temporary visitor or illegal immigrant in the United States who plops a baby down on American soil can go raise that child in whatever backwater/cheap/shithole place he/she wants to in Africa or wherever else(since many such folks don't really care that the child be raised as an American with American standards), all while having direct access to child benefits for that child to take advantage of in raising said child, only to then return 20 years later to claim American citizen because of that same child within, at most, a year and a half, and then access all benefits every American can without needing to pay a single dime in taxes even then. That is still front-of-the-line access.

If you do not see how that is front-of-the-line access compared to those who legally attempt to enter the U.S. of their own merit and record, then you are not being honest at all.

Kobojunkie:
Well, you see, you are wrong about this!

Getting a green card through your child takes approximately 12 to 18 months. That is literally the front of the line, since getting a green card without a child or prior connection(employment, highly sought-after skill, verifiable asylum need, money for investment, etc.) takes approximately 10 years in most cases(many are even denied it due to their history).

Kobojunkie:
1. E be like say you fail math in primary school. 33 out of 198 is not over 30% of the countries on earth.

2. Nigeria does not allow it because the framers of the Nigerian Constitution understand well that allowing any such would leave Nigeria vulnerable to outside forces.

3. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution. That is all! And it has done its job. One of the judges even wrote a 91-page dissent explaining why their decision may not have been in America's best interests.

4. That is not what the President said. Instead, if you paid attention, you would note that the government has since made clear that while it works to push back on the problem using the limited power it has at this time, educating the American people on the importance of why the status quo can not and should not continue, the work now falls on Congress to work on an amendment to the 14th Amendment to resolve what is clearly proven to be a dangerous issue facing the country's present and future.

Kobojunkie:
Nothing? The next step is to have Congress, the ones who created the amendment around 1965, to reamend it. In the meantime, the Executive can use its current powers to fish out and remove as many of those looking to enter by dropping babies on American soil so they can jump to the front of the naturalization line. That is how things work!

Kobojunkie:
Only 33 countries in the world actually have birthright citizenship. Why should the US have something that has more than proven to be harmful than good?

Even your country, Nigeria, does not have birthright citizenship. Dem no born anyone papa well to think say im fit claim Nigerian citizenship simply by plopping a baby down on Nigerian soil.

Deepthoughts:
Why don't you ask countries like Saudi Arabia,Iran,Russia,China to accept citizenship by birth n sent your their to give birth so that your son can become their citizen,why insisting on the western countries,if the USA now wishes to change any of their homeland law that they now found to be counter productive to their interests what exactly is the problem with that?, it's up to every country to make their country condusive for themselves simple.

Deepthoughts:
O Let's be sincere, would other countries accept what they demand of the US?

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. u. BARBARA ET AL.
CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT To THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 25-365. Argued April 1,2026—Decided June 30, 2026 The question presented is whether the Constitution guarantees citizen-ship to children born in the United States of parents who are unlaw-fully or temporarily present in the country.

Under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, "All persons born or natural-ized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..

On January, 20,2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. The Order provides that children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present here are not "subject to the ju-risdiction. of the United States—and thus do not qualify for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which uses the same language. 90 Fed. Reg. 8449. Several parents filed suit, some in the name of their children arguing that the Executive Order Violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the INA.

The District Court agreed, provisionally certified a nationwide class of children who would be denied citizenship by the Order, and prelimi-narily enjoined the Order's enforcement. This Court granted certiorari before judgment.

Held: Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or tem-porarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizen-ship Clause. Pp. 2-26. (a) The Citizenship Clause must be understood in light of its histor-ical context, from the English common law to the widespread condem-nation of the Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393.

Birthright citizenship upheld: In a big loss for President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, striking down his executive order. Chief Justice John Roberts, calling citizenship “the right to have rights,” wrote for the court that “the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

sandra2025:
The correct answer is D) Brazil.The Concrete ReasonThe most definitive, objective categorization that separates Brazil from the other options is historical colonial administration and official language:Nigeria, Ghana, and India were all colonized by the British Empire. As a result, they are all members of the Commonwealth of Nations and use English as their official language.Brazil, on the other hand, was colonized by the Portuguese Empire. It is not a member of the Commonwealth, and its official language is Portuguese.Alternative Valid AnglesDepending on the specific lens you use to analyze the group, there are a couple of other valid reasons:Geographic Sub-classification: Nigeria, Ghana, and India are all located entirely in the Old World (the Afro-Eurasian landmass), whereas Brazil is located in the New World (the Americas).The "Ghana" Exception: If looking strictly at global geopolitical/economic powerhouses, B) Ghana could be an outlier. Nigeria, India, and Brazil are all massive regional economic giants that participate directly in the expanded BRICS alliance (Brazil and India as founding members, Nigeria as an official partner country as of 2024/2025), while Ghana is not a part of this bloc. However, the linguistic/colonial connection remains the most standard "odd-one-out" benchmark for this specific combination of countries.