On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Order addressing what it means to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. See Exec. Order No. 14160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (Citizenship EO or EO). That EO recognizes that the Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States or the children of aliens whose presence is lawful but temporary.
Immediately, Washington State applied for an emergency injunction which was granted by a judge. The DOJ, now under the Trump administration, has filed a response to the court requesting the injunction be removed. [SEE Response HERE]
With everything going on I have not yet had time to sit down and read the full response. However, I am told by people close to the issue that the response is well articulated, grounded in constitutional law and solid.
Due to the subject matter, this case is likely on track to reach the Supreme Court for a historic ruling. The timing will depend on how the DOJ responds to further litigation and judicial decisions. Inevitably, this is going to be a case that Attorney General Pam Bondi will have to engage with.
The issue of birthright citizenship is somewhat of an uphill battle for the Trump DOJ. However, the core issue is not complicated, can a child gain citizenship through the process of birth to illegal alien parents simply by being located in the USA at time of birth?
Can national citizenship be granted despite non-legal status of the parents and despite non-approval of the nation state? That’s the core issue behind birthright citizenship.
John Jay on “Natural Born” Citizenship
https://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/john-jay-on-natural-born-citizenship.html
Natural Born Citizen, Obama not eligible, Leo Donofrio, US Presidents, Precedents, Chester Arthur, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Chester Arthur’s lies, US Constitution, Grandfather clause, December 5, 2008
https://citizenwells.com/2008/12/05/natural-born-citizen-obama-not-eligible-leo-donofrio-us-presidents-precedents-chester-arthur-james-buchanan-andrew-johnson-woodrow-wilson-herbert-hoover-chester-arthurs-lies-us-constituti/
Leo had it figured out.
A child is born to the soil of the United States. Under what governing jurisdiction was the child born? Treaties between governments exist for a reason. The questions of which government has jurisdiction over the persons of one government on the soil of the other government, and when and how jurisdiction modulates, this is already a matter of established treaty between the nations.
If parents are American citizens at the time of the child’s birth on American soil, that child is NBC; a natural born citizen.
Any other combination of these conditions at time of birth can impact the attribution of nationality and jurisdiction over the born child. Most controlling treaties between nations determine jurisdiction as an extension naturally arising from the nationality of the parents.
Can a citizen of another country come the United States, birth an infant, and in doing so confer jurisdiction over the child’s nationality in a manner exempt from the treaties between the nation of the parent at time of birth and the nation upon whose soil the child was born? The answer in most cases is probably not.
No way can this child lawfully be NBC. A natural born citizen is born to the soil of the United States to parents who are its citizens, and born to a condition where no other jurisdiction of nationality may have a preempting or equal claim to the nationality of the child.
If not NBC at birth, other national jurisdictions may have a jurisdictional interest, and depending upon the established treaties between the nations, the parent’s nationalities will determine the nationality of the child in whole or in part.
The Framers built an elegant filter for elective offices of our government to protect us from sabotage and subsumation by infiltration of persons under the jurisdiction of foreign governments and predator foreign interests. Thus there are tests of eligibility for the House of Representatives and a more rigorous test for the Senate eligibility.
They reserved the NBC requirement for the Office of Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces of The United States and President of its government. Our media and political parties have inverted the original purpose of the office in the popular narrative. Make no mistake. The Framers made clear the Commander in Chief must be free of any and all potential foreign allegiances as a prerequisite of eligibility for that office.
But the dominating narcissistic pathologies of the hour plaguing Congress will do what they will do.
Only NBC have birthright citizenship in the United States.
What other rights might be conferred to non-NBC born to American soil is something SCOTUS must finally address. The definition of NBC and this general question seems to have been fastidiously avoided by SCOTUS.
Looks like its time has finally come. I continue to be astonished with the skill and foresight of our constitution’s framers.
Our founders built one hell of a mighty filter. May God save the hystereses that saves us all.
I often think of how different things would be, if the people currently in our government were as intelligent and forward thinking as our founders.
This President and his hand chosen cabinet are of comparable intellect, motivation and integrity as the original founders. And most importantly, like the founders, they have tasted the tyranny of those on the left who lust for power. God willing, this will again prove to be an unstoppable combination.
“ … like the founders, they have tasted the tyranny of those on the left who lust for power.”
This is such a great point! Not unlike the oppression of King George.
Well stated…
And not corrupted by money.
THAT would be pretty amazing, wouldn’t it?
Maybe there needs to be an ‘intelligence test’ performed before any person can run for office..
Dumba**es need not apply…😁
No that’s all crap. The child inherits (“birthright” means inherit from the parents) the citizenship of the parents. PERIOD. If they are not US citizens, they should not get citizenship. There is an argument to be had if the parents have “no citizenship” anywhere. It would be weird but for the sake of argument, it would satisfy the requirements of the 14th amendment… MAYBE. All temporary visas are legal but considered to be diplomatic agreements between countries. Illegal entry into the US isn’t even a temporary agreement between countries. If they are asylum seekers? That’s an interesting matter which could be a matter for a ruling by the courts but generally speaking, an asylum seeker is still a citizen of another country.
I actually think it goes too far to allow “permanent resident status” (which as far as I know is not a status recognized at the time of the Wong case upon which all of this really rides). At the time of the Wong case, we allowed settlers to become citizens though I don’t know what that process was. We didn’t have a welfare state and thus didn’t have laws about any alien seeking residency in the US must be able to take care of themselves or have a “sponsor” who will ensure they are not a burden on the public services.
Clearly all issues for the courts but I don’t think the complaining party has ANY STANDING to make such a complaint and the judge should have refused based on standing. An injunction is based on “harm” to the plaintiff and injunctive relief is based on harm AND the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail.
I see no cause for a judge to believe there is standing or harm or a likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing in this case.
The parents Citizenship is conferred to the child at birth by virtue of the parents citizenship. It has nothing to do with where you are born. Regardless of where you’re born you assume the citizenship of the parents.
The enemy has taken our truths and twisted them to fit their own narrative
That is the TRUTH of birthright citizenship. Without the 14th amendment, former slaves would have been without citizenship anywhere… the way Democrats intended.
Excellent points, especially “to protect us from sabotage and subsumation by infiltration of persons under the jurisdiction of foreign governments and predator foreign interests”.
Birth tourism industry promoted pregnant women coming to the USA to confer US citizenship on their child so they could return in the future with full rights and privileges, exactly what the Framers did not want.
If someone breaks into your house and delivers a baby on your couch leftist judges will have you feed, shelter, clothe, medicate, employ, harbor, and in general be responsible financially for the child.
But giving the child of the thief citizenship is being forced to put his name on the deed to your house, giving him part ownership and decision-making rights.
Like letting the children of the bank robber keep the money, enticing more to commit the same crime.
Absolutely
Squatters-R-Us
..
Not just the child.
You have to take care of the parents, then the grandparents, and then. ….
Long overdue for a Supreme Court ruling.
All that was lacking was a Chief Executive with the spine to send it there.
No, all that was lacking was a Supreme Court to do their duty and explain what the Constitution meant, Thomas, Alito and Scalia would not have flinched from this respinsibility. But with Roberts, Coney-Barrett and Kavanaugh a clear answer, IMHO, appears remote.
I thought it was time for SCOTUS to clarify the question of NBC in 2008 during Obama’s campaign, but they punted and still the People want an answer.
But the Senate found lots of time in 2008 to debate McCains NBC and pass a resolution…
NO!
The SCOTUS need to undo it’s error in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
.
Not necessarily. The case easily can be distinguished.
.
That was an activist ruling. Chinese immigrants could become legal residents but were denied naturalization. Wong Kim Ark was granted citizenship to correct that. SCOTUS should have instructed the lower courts to correct the denial of his parents’ naturalization.
THe Ark case was different. This should take more discussion.
That case, though, lays out all the precedent for “subject to the jurisdiction”. You would have to find some reasoning to contradict the precedent.
Exactly. Just like they reversed the error of Roe v Wade.
Why is this even an issue?? If a single mother or mother/father are non-citizens, the child born in the US must be assigned the nationality of the parent/parents . It’s only logical that if the parent/parents must return to their home country, the minor child must follow.
That is why U.S. military parents who have children overseas have their parents’ nationality birth certificates. There were local registrations of birth, but they got a U.S. birth certificate. I used to type them up at Lajes Field, Azores, Portugal.
Off topic, yet…Joan, we need a wonderful travel thread on the Azores!!!
It’s an issue, because the 14th amendment was unclear as to scope. You can look back the the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which more directly dealt with former slaves. The 14th was intended to give more power to that act, but in drafting it left some “loopholes” that don’t appear to have been considered at the time (like children of illegals).
I’m guessing the hangup will be in the status of those already granted the citizenship.
Like Kamala?
Yes. Her mother was here on a student visa and her father was not a citizen. Under the EO, she would be a citizen of India.
I’m fine with it. Deport her.
That one is easy. Both parents were from other jurisdictions, other countries’ visas.
Like Obama?
What about Omar and Talib? Aren’t they actual immigrants? Can they still hold office? Born in another country yet became citizens. Not naturalized at birth.
Omar should be deported because she used her brother as her husband to come into this country. Tlaib can get a resort job in Gaza in three years.
The EO is not retroactive. Just covers future would-be anchor babies.
That will be how the media portrays it, because they’re dishonest. The EO says “30 days from” the signing of the EO. So it exempts the past.
The whole point of the EO is to force a SCOTUS review. I think Trump likes his chances. The DOJ brief uses some of the Left’s favorite successful arguments against them. They don’t have standing, for example. The Federal Government has full control over immigration. The states get NO VOICE. This has been used effectively by Democrats over the years to stop lawsuits by Texas and attempts by AZ to enforce immigration law.
And both the 14A and INA are clear. They’ve just been twisted and ignored, respectively.
It might be 5-4, but I think it gets to SCOTUS and I think Trump prevails. If any of the Democrat justices croak, Trump can nominate a hawk on illegal immigration law enforcement and it’ll be 6-3 or 7-2.
The best part? They’ll likely be able to cite justices like Kagan and Sotomayor ruling against TX or AZ about “standing” and make them square their prior rulings with this one.
Exactly, Hokkoda, the Marxists in government always paint themselves into a corner; it always comes down to whether or not the non-Marxists remind and enforce the fact you don’t get to walk over wet paint.
I think Trump prevails as well. And to your point, during the process, they will have to align their past rulings in order to try and subvert Trump here. However, it’s a double-sided sword for them- they either stick with their past stances, and this is an open-and-shut decision, or they reverse course. Reversing course, I still sides with Trump because of the 14th and the INA…it just makes for a longer process and throws sand in the 2020 election opposition to investigate gears.
Actually, eventually it will fall on the Solicitor General to argue this case, when it gets to SCOTUS, but it will be upbto Bonfi to get it there, and the appeals are all based on what occurred below, so she will have to play error free ball, in pursueing the originsl case.
Let’s hope she doesn’t F it up. I still wish we got Gaetz. I’m also so sick of Washington State. I guess I’m a whiner here tonight :/)
I agree with you, and I live in WA state.
My state has NJ Gov Murphy . Makes me sick also!
Did Gaetz have a good record as an attorney?
The Democrats are giving away citizenship to America like it’s Halloween candy! Eff Joe blow!
Trump is a genius.
A very stable one.
I want this to go up to the Supreme Court. I think they will enjoy deciding it. I’m not an attorney but I did read the DOJ’s response and it seems well-founded. I like this:
The Supreme Court has [already] identified multiple categories of persons who, despite birth in the United States, are not constitutionally entitled to citizenship because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: children of foreign sovereigns or their diplomats, children of alien enemies in hostile occupation, children born on foreign public ships, and certain children of members of Indian tribes. […]
Instead of equating “jurisdiction” with regulatory authority, the Supreme Court has held that a person is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States under the Citizenship Clause if he is born “in the allegiance and under the protection of the country.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 693. That allegiance to the United States, the Court has further held, must be “direct,” “immediate,” and “complete,” unqualified by “allegiance to any alien power.” Elk, 112 U.S. at 101-02.
I doubt any of the conservative Justices want to continue the current ruse. If they decide in favor of Trump’s EO, then the matter will be settled for a long time even though it’s just an EO.
I’m so happy Trump got started on the matter so quickly! It will take a while to reach a conclusion.
If we are fortunate enough to get a proper ruling in the end I hope it is at least retroactive to the day of the EO.
Even though I’m sure the states are wildly handing out citizenship birth certificates every single day since. They should just stop. Leave it in limbo pending a decision.
Don’t forget, the liberal justices have likely ruled in the past that states (TX) have no standing. And that the constitution gives states no role on enforcing immigration law (AZ).
That’s not to say the libs on the court will try to be consistent. But it does open doors for Team Trump to use past SCOTUS rulings and arguments against the libs to get a majority conservative court to eliminate the modern bureaucratic end-around of both the INA and Constitution.
The conservative justices will have plenty of top cover to use Sotomayor and Kagan rulings/writings against them. I think one or both of them likely ruled on Red State lawsuits. Jackson probably also has a history of denying standing to Red states trying to fight illegal immigration.
Barrett might be a problem. Just saying.
The Great People’s Republic of Washington…
Unless people go to jail, democrats will simply ignore any SCOTUS ruling, just like they ignored the myriad laws against illegal immigration. They went so far as to delete the southern border. Flew them in on jets. Who knows how many boats.
Same as they kept trying to get We The People to pay off student loans
Roberts and ACB will eff us over.
Kamala Harris parents were on student visas. Anchor baby for El Presidente. Third World. Why not? We in Oregon have a Senator who lives with a wife in NY. Rumor has it that he owns a single wide trailer house that is claimed as his address. Since he is a Senator he must have a pass on living here for any extended period. The same guy that gets big bucks from Big Pharma and Big Medical. He must fear along with brother Bernie and sister Lizzie the fake Indian that RFK jr is going to mess with the payoffs.
One was on a student visa, one was on a work visa.
Yet no way she was ever eligible to run for VP.
Probably many know this. No one wants to say, though.
Sad, and criminal.
And deliberate. Just as deliberate as the unlawfully infiltrating foreign nationals they call migrants.
Unlawful infiltration without assimilation is invasion.
To aid and abet such hostile violations of law and jurisdiction in the aid of foreign nationals and foreign interests. How is this not treason?
The officers, board and trustees, and major funders of the networks of NGOs involved in the unlawful infiltration of foreign nationals into our country need to be dealt the full measure of lawful consequences.
What about Obama, who was never born in the United States and had a foreign born father and mother who resided in Indonesia?
For 17 years, Obama’s own official bio stated that he was born in Kenya.
Constitutional expert Dr. Edwin Vieira stated this about “Born in Kenya” Obama, who was not a natural born citizen.
“Obama will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.” And with his oath of office “being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242. Dr. Vieira states, “Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4)…. Just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. ”
I kept waiting for President Trump to annul everything that usurper Obama did–including his Supreme Court appointments. But alas he did not.
If memory serves, it was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who gave her imprimatur to the legitimacy of Obama’s qualifications for the Presidency.
It was Pelosi who signed the state forms saying Obama was legitimate.
.
Yes.
She claimed to have seen his birth certificate, and that the contents therein would be embarrassing to the family if revealed.
Hence, we really have no idea as to his truthful (biological) citizenship status as we do not know whom his father (and maybe even mother) was . . .
This is perfectly written, but it also describes Biden: “a usurper cannot gain legitimacy …” A usurper in a different way.
Unfortunately Loretta Fuddy cannot be deposed. Maybe PT can unseal Obama’s records.
I am still on the Subud train!
Dead men tell no tales. Neither do dead women.
Excellent point about Kamala. If Trump’s EO were in place when Kamala was born, she would not be a U.S. citizen unless one or both of her parents were a permanent legal resident, not just here on temporary visas. I wish the Supreme Court would decide in favor of Trump’s new restrictions and also apply them retroactively, but I’m pretty sure the latter is never going to happen.
Logically speaking, why would the authors of the 14th Amendment insert a second qualification “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, if the phrase was meaningless?
The DOJ actually made that argument in the brief.
Indeed. And the phrase is just as bad as the commerce clause.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.
Here is the idiotic problem.
The word ‘Regulate’ in the late 18th century means the same as my Samgand Train Clock a few years later. The word means to ‘make REGULAR”.
It does not mean to create regulations on anything and restrict anything!!!!! It means to ‘EASE’ operations and commerce.
We have been idiots understanding what this means for a couple of centuries.
Some days, I wish we could all wake up.
!@#$$%&*(&^%$#@!
That would severely diminish the democrat voter base. They would then have to rely solely upon cemeteries for voter registration.
Does anybody know, when did this acceptance of “birthright citizenship” start? I read somewhere, was in the 1960s. I don’t think it would have been before the end of WWII nor during Eisenhower’s term?
I think it crept through the states, one by one, beginning after the 1982 unappealed leftist federal judge in CA ruled that that state’s SOS Bill – Save Our State – which stated that CA citizens were not financially responsible for the expenses of illegal aliens, like school, medical, etc.
It passed overwhelmingly by a still sane CA population viewing all the destruction of their state by the unchallenged invasion; it would have saved the state.
But after that, the brazenness of the illegal community grew, leftist states started handing out citizen birth certificates, and due to the incongruity the other states followed. IIR correctly Texas was the last to concede.
It was obvious from the beginning that it would be the death knell of the Republic.
Indeed, the Commie lobby was by then well entrenched, via the long march through the institutions.
I think the intent and effect of birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment was to formally and irrefutably recognize former slaves and other unpatriated persons born to the soil of the United States and also to parents who were born to the United States without other conflicting jurisdiction, were, are and have always been Natural Born Citizens of the United States.
They were recognizing a self evident truth. Most of these persons were fellow NBC; native born to American soil to parents also born to the soil of the United States without other foreign allegiances or jurisdiction.
Our Forbears were codifying a formal recognition of rightful and lawful status as NBC via 14th Amendment adoption. This was never about non-NBC births, which were mostly unchanged by the adoption the 14th Amendment as they were already jurisdictionally regulated in a different manner, by treaty or other precedents.
I practiced business/real estate/corporate/litigation law for 25 years in the private sector. Not bragging, but I was pretty good at it. At the end, before I retired, I was licensed in three states: Indiana, Colorado, and New Mexico.
Somewhat similar to the Citizenship Clause of the U.S. Constitution (“…, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”…), and as you well might imagine, there are an untold number of state and federal laws that hinge upon whether a person “resides” or is “domiciled” in a particular locale or jurisdiction.
The case law (legal precedents) that existed to assist the courts in ultimately determining such issues was a veritable cluster f**k. They all generally used the same concepts, words and phrases to give meaning to the terms “domicile” and “residence”, but when it came time for the court to render its decision there was always plenty of latitude for a judge to focus on particular facts or circumstances within the admitted evidence that would allow the judge to spin the decision one way or the other. Again, as you might imagine. (I can attest that not all judges are impartial and unbiased)
For a lawyer, going through the analysis and putting together legal arguments in a brief or motion was time-consuming and cumbersome. Long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court defined a person’s “domicile” as being “the true, fixed and permanent home” of an individual. Easy, right? Think again.
The “facts and circumstances” of a particularly close case could easily give rise to arguments both for and against the ultimate decision of “domicile.” Suppose a person lives a total of six months out of the year in two different places, for whatever reason (e.g., a professional football player). Or he owns two different homes and pays real estate taxes on each one. He owns a vehicle registered in each state. He votes in one state but his children go to school in another. Or maybe the person owns and operates a successful business in one state but he can’t stand the weather or traffic, so he “commutes” to work for three or four days a week from his other residence in another state.
See the problem? The “tests” which judges used to make their final decision were always malleable and pliant, and so the lawyer could never give his client a definitive assurance as to how the court would ultimately rule. It was basically a crap shoot in a close case.
So I came up with my own test (for mostly male clients), and it worked every time. Whenever “domicile” was an issue in a given case, I asked the client where he regularly kept his golf clubs, and when I put him on the witness stand to testify, I would pound into the evidentiary record all the reasons why he kept the clubs in one particular place over the other. In my real life experience, this was the decisive factor.
And so the question must be asked: Out of all the videos you’ve seen over the past four years showing millions upon millions of illegal immigrants pouring across our southern border, have you ever seen a single one hauling his golf clubs with him?
Case closed.
I know an anchor baby that got an appointment to West Point. That should not be.
Their are foreign students accepted to West Point as well.
The last superintendents have not been our best, so there is that. Maybe there will be replacement by Friday.
Of the top 30 countries (measured by GDP) only 2 allow this to occur. Canada and the US. Not permitted by any EU member. It’s not even a close case, legally. And it was not an issue in the US until (around) 100 years ago. When the Marxist takeover via ‘resettlement’ got its fledgling start.
Always, always, always, we have to go back to the Marxists of 100 years ago and their red-diaper babies.
Man, I really want to know more about the legal/ Constitutional nuance on this issue than I do. I’m eagerly awaiting your interpretation SD!
–It will be more the job of the Solicitor General, not the Attorney General to represent the US in the courts as it gets high up in the system.
–The “Reagan judge” in Washington state is a typical Leftist hack, shopped specifically for his restraining order. He had a *25 minute* hearing–12.5 minutes for each side–before making a decision on the spot. This shows you how his was a foregone outcome.
–The Left’s reading of the relevant clause of the 14th Amendment is one where the words “AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are superfluous and have no meaning. But those words are there and must be dealt with.
–The relevant clause of the 14th Amendment was not aimed at immigration but instead at the Dred Scott case and (by that time) former slaves. The framers thought a statute wasn’t enough to do away with Dred Scott’s holding concerning citizenship, they wanted it as part of the Constitution.
–it’s clear, one has to be born in the US *AND* subject to its political jurisdiction, not just subject to mere territorial jurisdiction. The legislative history of the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is clear from the framers of the amendment and the language in its precursor, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The 1866 law said instead “and not subject to a foreign power” (if memory serves).
–Political jurisdiction is distinct. It means one is subject to things no visitor is subject to, such as tax codes. It means that (as in my case) you can live anywhere outside the USA and still be subject to its federal taxation. It means you can be subject to certain legal proceedings no matter where you reside, and by virtue of your citizenship alone, a court has jurisdiction over you. That is what “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. My neighbor here in the UK doesn’t receive letters from the IRS because he is not subject to its jurisdiction.
It shouldn’t be so controversial, but I deeply worry about being let down once and for all by Roberts and Barrett.
Here is the correct analysis from the great John Eastman of the language in question from the 14th Amendment.
https://americanmind.org/features/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship-2/birthright-citizenship-game-on/
Good article.
I’m sure that in grade school civics we were taught about birthright citizenship. For me, this would be 1970 +/- a few years. Who wrote those textbooks or Weekly Reader articles we read?
Under current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, if a Russian diplomat or the diplomats’s wife gives birth in the US, the child is not a citizen. If a Russian tourist gives birth in the US, the child is a US citizen. How does the 14th Amendment require this? Or is the diplomat’s child excluded by statute? If so, the subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause seems to be a limiting factor to the grant of citizenship.
The best research on this issue shows that Birthright Citizenship became a thing in the 70s. Illegal aliens were not the only ones to benefit by acquiring US citizenship for their child. Foreign parents of means started coming to the US temporarily, but legally, to give birth, thus acquiring a US birth certificate for their children. The happy families then returned home.
It is but a few short years till these children return to the US to claim their Social Security benefits. Think on it.
Finally! Just because you come here and drop 9 pounds of flesh does not mean it belongs here. BOTH parents have to be US citizens in order for the Child to be a US citizen. the only reason why one party pushed it was they know they will vote for the hand outs what they do not care about is there ILLEGALS will eventually be in power and they will be long gone when they take over the country and destroy it. I even believe omar should be removed from congress because of the anti American comments she has made and the malcontent she has for this nation She could be literally 3rd in line for the presidency and she cannot become the President because she was bought over by her parents while young.
I agree.
.
Please read the Naturalization Act of 1790, revised in 1795.
A natural born citizen (born to US citizens on US soil) is what you describe, which is embedded in the Constitution.
The Constitution also gives Congress the authority to ‘naturalize’ — meaning to convey citizenship — by whatever means they deem ‘legal’ . . .
A person can be a citizen at birth, in the legal sense; however, a person who is a natural born citizen does not need (nor would it make sense, Constitutionally) for Congress to confer citizenship, but yet is considered a citizen at birth.
The whole set of citizens at birth includes both naturalized (via Congressional edicts) and natural born citizens. But, (this is the important distinction): the subset of natural born citizens within the whole set of citizens at birth, is a CLOSED SUBSET of the latter.
Still to be adducted, a NATURAL-born citizen has been argued to be of two born-of-the-soil parents, possibly the male.
liberal POS commie anti american judges will do this for lots of trump’s EOs…..time to take ALL activist non conmstitutional judges off the bench……
There needs to be a way where lawsuits against a presiding administration get fast tracked to the Supreme Court and skip all the in between steps. The litigation there at the SC and final decision need to be expedited to immediate. No waiting for end of season to give the verdict.
I find it counter to the process of administering the nation that 3rd parties can bog down the Gov’t and rule making for years. It really goes against the will of the people to interfere for 2-3 years out of a 4 year term.
This is as good a time to challenge birthright citizenship as any. The Supreme court Justices are generally divided into two categories, original intent (conservative) and living document (liberal). Right now the original intent Justices are more numerous than the living document. The intent of the amendment at the time was to allow freed blacks children born in the Confederacy to be US citizens. It was never meant to leave illegal’s children to become citizens.
The problems are Roberts and Barrett, who while original intent justices often side with the living document justices (the three crazy liberal crying women justices). We just don’t know what they will decide on the issue. Two justices swinging to the living document side changes the decision from 6 to 3 for stopping birthright citizenship to being 5 to 4 supporting birthright citizenship. Only one changing sides is okay as it would be 5 to 4 for stopping birthright citizenship. But I still think it is worth the fight.
This is as good a time to challenge birthright citizenship as any. The Supreme court Justices are generally divided into two categories, original intent (conservative) and living document (liberal). Right now the original intent Justices are more numerous than the living document. The intent of the amendment at the time was to allow freed blacks children born in the Confederacy to be US citizens. It was never meant to leave illegal’s children to become citizens.
The problems are Roberts and Barrett, who while original intent justices often side with the living document justices (the three crazy liberal crying women justices). We just don’t know what they will decide on the issue. Two justices swinging to the living document side changes the decision from 6 to 3 for stopping birthright citizenship to being 5 to 4 supporting birthright citizenship. Only one changing sides is okay as it would be 5 to 4 for stopping birthright citizenship. But I still think it is worth the fight.
How many Supreme Court justices are there?
There are currently nine justices on the Supreme Court, though that number is not set in the Constitution and has changed throughout history.
There are eight associate justices, and one chief justice. Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They serve a life term. They are free to retire and oftentimes base their departure on which party control the presidency. – usatoday April 25, 2024
Dollars to donuts, Amy Coney-Barrett will side with the leftists. I think she is a leftist.
.
She also has adopted at least one foreign child.
Thus, what does the citizenship status of those children look like?
Seems, she may want to recuse, if she were honorable . . .
AI answers to relevant queries:
“The Supreme Court has addressed birthright citizenship primarily through the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, with exceptions for children of foreign diplomats. A key case is United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which confirmed that children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents are citizens, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.”
2nd query from info revealed in answer to first:
“United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) was a landmark Supreme Court case that established birthright citizenship in the United States. The Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents is a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, unless the parents are foreign diplomats or engaged in hostile occupation, affirming the principle of jus soli (right of the soil) for citizenship.”
3rd query from info revealed in answer to 2nd:
“A hostile occupation refers to a situation where a foreign power has military control over a territory, and the local population is considered to be under the authority of that foreign power.”
IMO, it’s likely that this SCOTUS decision was heavily BIASED by the goal at that time of filling up new US territories with AUTOMATIC US citizens via children born to immigrants.
It’s a defective decision that needs to be reversed.
LOL, it just occurred to me that that defective decision could be labelled as “imperialistic” to throw a pie in the left’s faces. Let them fight THAT.
My first challenge to the injunction is STANDING. They have no standing. They can’t show they are harmed in any way. There must be a demonstration of harm to establish standing in this case.
They have no standing because they are not citizens.
I don’t think non-citizens filed the complaint did they? All I see is a bunch of states AGs filing complaints and they have no standing in this matter. They are not harmed.
Suppose an army invades the USA and in that army are husbands and wives who have a babies in the USA.
You mean it’s not?
I have now carefully read both(!) motions, and the President’s motion is compelling. It cites contemporary legislation that was passed before the 14th was adopted (and which informed its language), and numerous Supreme Court decisions with which this EO is entirely consistent.
Children of people whose parents are “domiciled” elsewhere owe allegiance to their country of domicile – as do their parents. This principle is recognized for those who are lawfully here “temporarily,” and it most certainly applies to those whose parents are not legally here at all.
Any nation has the fundamental and sovereign power to decide who may be or become a citizen, and who may not. Courts may not intrude to limit Executive (and, Congressional) power over this.
The states seek to rely upon a principle of feudal-era English Common Law which the United States expressly rejected many times over the last 200 years. (These are not “the King’s lands.”) They also whine about losing Federal money if the population of their State is reduced, calling this “irreparable harm.” A State cannot sue the Federal government as though it were “the parents of” its residents, nor to prevent the exercise of Federal powers.
This case will immediately go to the Supreme Court, which will surely rule again as it already did – in 1868.
You know, Obama could settle the question of NBC if he would publicly admit that his real father was Frank Marshall Davis and not Barack Obama Sr. You could question the place of his birth, but Davis and his mother were both US citizens.
If “we the people” don’t start speaking up making our voices heard regarding issues such as this then we will continue getting the same results that created our terrible situation we now are fighting to fix.
Let Congress know, let the judges know we ain’t at all happy with the decisions and the outcomes of their brain less leadership.
Amy Phony Barrett is the wild card. Can a virtue signaling elitist white woman who adopted two black Haitian kids remain impartial and objective in reviewing the available legislative records from the time period of the amendments’ passage, and derive a true, original intent decision?
.
I, too, have expressed the issue of her recusing on this matter. Also, Roberts should be receiving scrutinization for what type of citizenship his adopted children claim . . .
Coney Barrett cried with her two black adopted daughters whilst binge-watching videos of George Floyd
Kavanaugh has been p-whipped
Roberts enjoys the wine and cheese soirees
Gorsuch is smarter than anyone else ever, a deep deep thinker who can see nuances where none exist
Liberals have been pushing illegals to come here and have their babies because the parents are less likely to be deported. Probably for more than 1 child it is even harder to deport the parents.
Impeach the activist…err “Judge” disbar him and get this liberal out of our court system.
I’d sure like to hear the lawyer types square this circle: If there is birthright citizenship to the children of non-citizens in our nation illegally, why did it take an act of Congress in 1924 granting citizenship to Native Americans? Before that, as I understand it, Native Americans didn’t have the same obligations as citizens, such as being subject to the draft during the first war. I doubt anyone can argue that the presence of Native Americans was “illegal” in the sense used today, yet they weren’t “born American” subject to the jurisdiction (like the draft) of the US until 1924. At some point between being forced onto reservations and 1924 there was a full (legal) freedom of movement about the entire US for Native Americans (further proof that said presence didn’t rise to what would be today considered illegal entry / presence).
Native Indians were not considered citizens by birth because of the “jurisdiction of” clause. They had to wait till 1924 for a law to be passed.
Not that these kind of “gotchas” work with lefties because facts and logic is not how they determine “truth” in their minds, but would they be okay with Hitler/Putin/Xi/Netanyahoo/Kim/Bin Laden/Robbie Williams babies being American citizens if some broad plopped them out in Rhode Island?
This issue has been KNOWN for decades.
However, the uniparty wanted to destroy the USA. They almost succeeded in doing that.
Now, we have a president, who they tried to assassinate at the helm and the deep state is about to die, and every corrupt lawyer, judge and lawgiver with it, God Jehovah/Yahweh, Willing.
A lot of this is going to wind up in the SCOTUS. The Justices better be ready.
It is a simple matter if intention of the law is interpreted with context.
The 13th amendment, abolished slavery.
The 14th amendment gave the freed slaves citizenship along with the slaves children.
That’s it.
3 paragraphs.
Everything gets muddied for a purpose. All the footnotes and rulings over the years made a mockery of simple English.
We shall see if we can get a final interpretation and application.
Count on ACB letting us down on this one too.
Those children are not born to AMCIT. The End.