Try reading the first part of the sentence you quoted. I can’t believe I’m having to explain this. One more time:
You are failing to grasp the numbers. About 4 million migrants were granted legal status under Biden using various mechanisms such as Temporary Protected Status. The catch-and-release plus gotaways total between 6 and 8 million, bringing the total to 10 M or more. Furthermore, many (most) of those given legal status got SSNs. Thus, many of them are able to vote in the less-than-secure jurisdictions. If the Left had their way, most of the 10 M would be voting in the future. Just as a reminder, Biden was in office for four years, not “generations.” Yeah, pal, it’s right quick.
If you don’t think another 10 M, thus totaling 20 M new voters is not enough to totally destroy this country, just take a gander at New York City’s new mayor. The foreign-born population put Mamdani over the top; he would never have been elected without them.
Are you ready for the future? Buckle up, buttercup.
Sounds like your real issue is with insecure voting procedures. But why tie that to illegal aliens? In those problematic jurisdictions, the dead have been voting Democrat for decades.
Now, if only the Republicans had majorities in the House & Senate and a sitting President, they could fix that problem of the dead, non-citizens, and dead non-citizens voting in an afternoon by passing a proper enforceable law. Couldn’t they?
Can’t help but notice you still did not quantify “right quick”. But that is OK, your heart is in the right place.
Again, read the whole thing. Yes, that is one issue. Do you imagine that adding another unassimilable bunch of migrants is going to have no other effect? Check out wha’t happening with Somalis in Minnesota and Ohio. And, btw, the election of Mamdani probably didn’t require election fraud.
What part of "Another Biden-style mass migration event " is not clear? I’ll connect the dots:
Biden was president for four years.
A similar person could be elected in 2028, take office 2029.
After four years (2029+4=2033) it’s all over.
2033 is seven years from now.
Seven years is a lot less than your “generations.”
Hope that helps.
Oh CTFO,we can’t even get a guy like Khalil Mohammed or Albrego Garcia outta here with any reasonable dispatch, and those bozos are not citizens. I really doubt “denaturalization” of birthright or chain migration citizens will be quick, easy or even likely.
One more thing about this. Apportionment of House seats depends on number of residents, not number of citizens. So, even with perfectly secure elections, adding a bunch of illegals to a state means more representation in the House. Thus, control of the House of Representatives can be affected by the population of illegals, which in turn affects legislation at the federal level — all without any conventional election fraud whatsoever. That means it also affects the number of electors in the Electoral College: election of the president.
The whole point of mass illegal migration is to change the outcome of elections even without the usual election fraud. Realistically, there will continue to be election fraud in Democrat-run states for a long time. Removing the illegals is a way to partly circumvent this problem.
I know, I know. So how about this: do nothing and let the last, best hope for the West sink into the muck while everyone watches from the sidelines. Lemme ask you this: is it better to take arms against a sea of trouble or to descend into cynicism and despair? In one case, there’s a chance of failure; in the other it’s a certainty. Think of it as Pascal’s Wager inverted.
@Gavin , thanks for pointing that out about representation. Yes, and that’s the reason Trump wants a census of CITIZENS,
@drlorentz , you missed my point: it’s NOT that we shouldn’t try, try again, to get any fraudulent “citizens” outta here. But the Chink babies born in San Francisco and raised in Commie Chinkland ARE, LEGALLY, citizens under the present interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The time to do sump’n about that woulda been 18 years ago. Thats why I say it’s “too late”.
Charles Murray has a similar estimate of right quick. Perhaps you might enjoy a snarky argument with him.
You're right. I have hopes that Virginia will be the canary in the coal mine for traditional conservatives (or Madisonians, as I prefer). The things we dislike about the Trumpian right are trivial compared to the things that could destroy the country if the current generation of… https://t.co/hUj9IfXPkj
Arguments about illegal immigrants voting directly in elections fraudulently usually miss this point. If you offer the political architects of these rebellions a trade, permanent amnesty and residency for all aliens with clear agreement that they cannot be counted for the purposes of electing our President or Congress, they will adamantly refuse.
Why? Because the people pushing this do not want immigrants from socially-conservative countries in Latin America to actually vote. They want to vote on their behalf via census representation, much like reconstruction-era Southern states demanded for newly-freed slaves. Their ideal situation is an urban core of deeply aligned ideologues voting with the power of millions of illegal aliens, currently worth dozens of Congressman and eight states worth of electoral votes.
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese just filed an amicus brief in the birthright citizenship case: “The conventional wisdom, accepted over decades, is that Wong Kim Ark supports absolute birthright citizenship to everyone born in the United States. The holding in this case does…
— Immigration Accountability Project (@iaproject) January 27, 2026
Thanks for linking to the brief. It’s especially interesting what he says bout how birthright citizenship came to be accepted in the latter half of the 20th century, via executive action.
I’ve always thought the contrast between the 5th and 14th Amendments is instructive. The 5th confers its protections on any and all “person(s)” who find themselves within our territorial jurisdiction, just physically in the U.S. it is a principle of statutory construction that all words of a legislative enactment must be given effect, no word or phrase can be dismissed as mere surplusage. So the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” —not “or” but “and”— must mean something, and logically can only mean “allegiant”, or as Meese says, subject to “political jurisdiction”. But nobody ever mentions the 5th.
But I’m not sure he’s right, in practice, that longevity of an erroneous interpretation doesn’t guarantee its immortality. Case in point, the Miranda warnings.
We might be pleasantly surprised. Remember when there was all that talk about “super precedent” in connection with Roe v. Wade? There is no such thing. With any legal precedent you have 3 options:
Abide by it
Distinguish it so you avoid its application in the case at bar; or
I don’t think there is any serious argument that the 5th or 14th amendment contemplated wholesale illegalinvasion of the nation by millions for the express purpose of economic betterment, benefits funded by citizens without their consent, large remittances to other nations and birth of anchor babies - specifically designed to manufacture chain citizenship for a score or so of others. If it means all this is OK, these amendments are, in effect, a suicide pact. Surely the Court can take judicial notice of these obvious facts in making its ruling.
Yup. To such people, words are “infinitely malleable things” and the entire Constitution is “mere surplusage” in comparison to woke pieties. I guess when we have one “justice” who doesn’t know what a woman is, all things are possible. If they come down on the wrong side of this, the southern “border” will really be overrun.
Because of X and Grok, I am now an armchair legal scholar (along with historian, economist and sports pundit )
But Wong's parents were permanent residents, subject to U.S. laws, and not in any exempt diplomatic role. Therefore, their U.S.-born son was automatically a citizen at birth. However, the case before the court now is about illegal aliens coming here to have birth as a way for…
)