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.
Making things that are not complicated, complicated is what politicians, lawyers, and judges do best.
Any lawyer can take a DONE DEAL and throw a wrench in it and BLOW it UP!
Senator Jacob Howard, one of the authors of the 14th Amendment…
Seems pretty clear to me.
Good find Betsy.
I get lucky on occasion, Toolnut.
I’ve noticed you’re lucky quite often. 😁
Teehee 😎
Just like the Founders’ various deliberations and explanations of the purpose and the intent of the 2nd Amendment clarifying beyond doubt the individual vs. “militia” right, so this makes clear the class of persons included under citizenship. Should have been a no-brainer at the outset, but just as 2nd Amendment challenges do, it will almost certainly wind up at SC level.
Thank you for bringing us this gem.
It was Betsy’s gem.
When it gets to the SC, it will be interesting to find out how many originalists we have on the court.
Toolnut: Originalists on the Court? Two.
I fear for the Judas Roberts and ACB to muck up a wet dream decision!
If a pregnant woman comes into my house uninvited and delivers unexpectedly on my living room floor, I am not therefore responsible for that child’s support, nor that of the mother.
How hard can this be?
And the ultimate insult in this argument, which will no doubt end up at the door of the Supreme Court, is that the millions who are by definition criminals having broken federal immigration law are included in the US Census.
Someone please make sense of that for me.
this 14th amendment is very simple—I do not see how it could be misinterpreted. What else does “AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean? But they have let this slide for years.
I’m amazed it hasn’t been tested before now.
Bet, it is too logical…common sense… this is why Trump is so successful..
but this is what the left does…telling you men can have babies etc…can only hope SC sticks with “original intent”😘👍
🇺🇸💪😀👍
I think those times when we could rely on that Court (heck, ANY court) have long gone, Jim…save for Justices Thomas and Alito. The rest is a crap shoot…alas.
Democrats!
Aided and abetted by RINOs 👍🏻
The verbiage can be confusing.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title8/html/USCODE-2023-title8-chap12-subchapIII-partI-sec1401.htm
No kidding…
I’m pretty sure that Schiff, Schumer Hirono, the Fake Indian and others will make sure that it makes NO SENSE AT ALL to you, me, and pretty much everyone else here tonight, Betsy.
As intended no doubt, ed.
True. And they will once again count on the Lawfare gang to make up, support, and write their arguments and lamentations.
THANK YOU !! BETSY…. for finding this and posting….its like a black hole of Truth….there is no escaping……
They basically say AT THE TIME…. in their own colloquial vernacular….
THAT, THIS IS A NO BRAINER!!
I question, how did we “go along to get along“….for SOOOOO LONG …..?!
What it says is UNAMBIGUOUS… (to me….a layperson without a pedigreed education )EVEN NOW…. in this day and age…. as I suspect it is (was) for President Trump as well….
It is to me as well, Clayton, and everbody else in these branches, too, I’m sure.
I’ve decided we don’t have judges. We have prima donna egoists who fancy themselves as wordsmiths. Not all, but far too many and far too few originalists who honour their oaths.
A lot of our problems today are a direct result of those who have placed their ideologies and political views above that sacred document. And we are each and every one paying the price.
I don’t want to go off on a tangent, but I think you’ll find it interesting to consider the situation of my two children. We resided within the District of Columbia and my kids were born in DC (Walter Reed Army Hospital). Section 1 of the XIV Amendment states exactly what Sen Howard says, “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.” However, since we did not live within a State (DC is not a state), there is a legal question about being a natural born citizen. Upon their births, we received a notice suggesting going before a Federal Judge to be declared “natural born” (to satisfy Article II) if they ever desired to run for President. That was nearly a half century ago, but I haven’t found anything to suggest the Supreme Court has ever resolved the DC issue. Betsy, I just offer this little anecdote for your file of interesting conundrums.
Good grief…thank you.
I have noticed that “lawful” and “legal” don’t necessarily mean the same.
Good grief again.
I’ll add this to the discussion for whatever it may be worth.
If eventually the SC rules for illegals who break the law to come here and then are rewarded for it with birthright citizenship for any child born after they arrive, it makes an utter mockery and fools of those who gained entrance the legal way. The costs, time involved, and onerous bureaucratic hoops which must be jumped through are enormous.
How do I know this?
We had to go through it all for my British husband….the stories I could tell you, but won’t as it’s late.
Trust me. If we are annoyed, simply multiply the two of us by the millions who followed the laws and now watch millions upon millions who didn’t waved through, no problem,
One rule for one and one for the other.
And another for those who deliberately come across to give birth so as to secure the precious right to live in this country that others have to work hard to obtain.
No one should be rewarded for that.
No bueno.
In 1972 I went to a naturalization ceremony for the wife of one of my crew members…she was British (from Wales). At the end of the ceremony, two ladies presented her with flowers. She smiled, thanked them and then asked, “Who are you?” They replied, “We are Daughters of the American Revolution [the DAR] and we give flowers at these ceremonies.” She grinned and replied, “Oh, I’m a daughter of the American Revolution, too.” As the two ladies from the DAR looked puzzled with her response, she added, “I was on the other side.” They were nice enough not to snatch the flowers out of her hands.
Betsy: Lawful, as in “full of law;” see also, “full of s..t”
There is no DC issue. It is a citizenship issue. Dogs are not citizens.
Wasn’t citizenship of Barry Goldwater (Arizona Territory) and John McCain (Panama Canal Zone) questioned when they each ran for President?
My daughter, who is a natural born Azorean, adopted by two U.S. citizens (military) and subsequently legally adopted in the state of Iowa, has two birth certificates but was naturalized when she was 8 years old. She can never run for President and this makes her sad.
Those leftist judges don’t care about evidentiary facts like this. They just want to make up laws from the bench.
We have RINOs like Miss Lyndsey who sit on the Judiciary Committee which confirms them for waving them through. Can’t remember how many Biden shoved through in a hurry before he left…86 is the number which sticks in my mind…
It would be a pleasure to see Slo’ Joe swinging from a lamp post!
Any cause of death would be acceptable
Thanks Betsy!
This explains why the left insists on calling them ‘undocumented’ as ‘aliens’ are clearly noted in this text as being an exclusion of the 14th Amendment.
I refer to this all the time. The author made it very clear that this does not include aliens! I just wish he had included the highlighted sentence in the amendment.
@booger 71, it actually not complicated at all, it’s all a business that if it were headed by the Mafia would be a RICO case.
Whoa, a different DOJ!
Dept of Justice as opposed to the Dept of Just us…
System restore…
Trust God.
Fear not.
What will Robert’s-Coney-Barret say??
Flakey.
It depends on how quickly we get control of the intelligence community.
I just don’t see either one going for it, nor Kavanaugh. These three are what I have come to refer to as the Uniparty justices. Reading and understanding the Constitution is not how they make decisions. They make decisions based on what they think the Uniparty wants.
Judas Roberts and Judas ACB! Say no more!
Does any other country allow birthright citizenship?
If I recall correctly, we have about 5% of the worlds population and we take in about 50% of the world’s legal immigrants.
Supposedly about 30 do this, including us, Mexico and Canada.
Some other places restrict it to at least one parent being a citizen.
It all comes down to the difference between jus soli (right of the soil — where you were born) and jus sanguinis (right of blood — your parents) and whether one or both in combination or some other determinant should be used to define “natural born” citizenship. These are centuries old concepts and there are more nuances (what ifs) to each of them than Carter has Little Liver Pills (pardon an old 1950s expression). We will continue to be mired in this issue until such time as our three branches of government agree on a definition of “natural born” and supporting modifiers, like “subject to the jurisdiction” – another phrase with nuances. I wouldn’t hold my breath on any of it.
So, in the opinion of the left, when your house is burglarized (crime), the burglar (criminal) has established residency.
Ask people who have had to evict squatters.
I don’t have any trust in the Supreme Court led by Roberts and The DemonRats to stop birthright citizenship unless PDJT sends Kash to dig up compromised information on Roberts, Amy, Gorsuch, and Brett so it can be used against them to side with us and not the DemonRats.
Great.You want to be just like the Deep State when you grow up. GROW UP.
He is not wrong, he is just full of poison.😉
There is quite a bit of dirt out there already.
Poison is not wrong but not completely right. The reality is the dirt has already been gathered and used. The solution is to expose it to all. Once it’s out there it’s out there. If the dirt is such that the Judge is removed then that’s the way it is. If it’s personal embarrassment, well that sucks but the oath they took didn’t have a personal embarrassment exemption.
If a woman sneaks into the basement of a home and has a baby there, does that make the child a part of the family that lives there? No, it is ridiculous on its face. The only reason the nonsense has survived as long as it has is because it is accepted and not challenged.
Actually I think before it was harder to get to the US and the rule kinda made sense but now things have changed, the world is smaller and there needs to be a line somewhere.
Yes: the exit line. Please follow the arrowsOUT, criminal trespassers.
County Clerks have been issuing birth certificates and checking the “US Citizen” checkbox in error because they don’t understand the Constitution and are subject to pressure from activists and media.
This sounds like a question Alito would ask.
Why don’t conservative groups sue over these things in conservative judicial districts, and get more “favorable” treatment striking down their suit?
Of course the communist state of Washington would be the state that sues. The state gop are absolute eunuchs. A couple years ago we wrote all of our Eastside representatives about what if any resistance they were putting up to the leftist, ridiculous, sue everyone in sight mindset of the nazi State AG at the time. Big surprise didn’t receive a single response
Build The Wall, Deport Them All
Bam….I HAVE that tee shirt……🤪🥳🍻
Sweet 🤙
The Indian Citizenship Act if 1924 granted citizenship to American Indians born within the United States. Until this act, Indians were not citizens.
It appears that if Indians born in the US needed an act of Congress to become citizens, then Congress would need to
pass a similar act for the offspring of foreign nationals, legal or illegal.
So, the SC decision should be that the children of aliens born in the US are not citizens until Congress makes them citizens.
The Left has long pretended the Fourteenth was the authorizing act.
KBJ can’t define woman, so it will be interesting to see how she will suddenly be able to define citizen.
Next up: Natural Born Citizen. No more bastard presidential candidates.
CC-Patriot Bastard
Good point….but she IS outnumbered by sane conservatives….that CAN…..
Fact check True
The amendment was originally written to deny Indians citizenship because they were under the jurisdiction of their Indian nation and not US jurisdiction. Therefore the amendment stopped their children from becoming US citizens until the 1924 Act was passed.
In the form of an amendment to Constitution, of course.
.
The Constitution already provides for this:
Congress has the providence of naturalization (methods of conferring citizenship), besides there also being natural born citizens.
The entire premise of birthright citizenship is ridiculous and illogical.
No nation would ever logically make that a right.
And the normal miscreants know that, but push on anyhow
I wouldn’t pay much attention to this unti it reaches the Supreme Court. All the arguments and briefs on both sides will be well written, well argued, and have supporting authorities. The entire purpose of the XO was to draw a lawsuit so there is a case and controversy to present to the Supremes. It also gets the anti-birthrighters to stop screaming at 47 for a couple years. Whew! Quiet. A good move all around. Hat tip to whomever suggested the XO to 47.
Just a note:
I really do NOT believe any One person suggested this executive order to President Trump. I believe this was his intention since before 2015.
But that’s just me………
Could be. Then hat tip to 47.
I agree.
I think it stems from the BO and has continued to fester.
The Kenyan was not a Natural Citizen. Didn’t the Left raise Hell over McCain not being eligible for POTUS? He was born outside of the USA.
It is not about where anyone is born. That is where all the confusion arises. If Obama was born in Kenya to two American citizens, he would be an American citizen, not a citizen of Kenya.
Should this go not our way at SC then look to see all ports of entry and borders heavily guarded as well as proof of not pregnant and no visa lasting more than 7 months for “visitors”!
The “birthright” liars in political ofc KNOW the 14A was solely for the slaves.
14A was meant only to codify the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
.
We Can Apply the 14th Amendment While Also Reforming Birthright Citizenship
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422960/birthright-citizenship-reform-it-without-repealing-14th-amendment
“Birthright citizenship, as currently practiced, allows those who continue to owe allegiance to a foreign power to demand American citizenship for their children, unilaterally and as a result of their illegal conduct. Those who oppose such an abuse do not support Dred Scott. They are drawing distinctions based not on race, but on the rule of law.”
It would have been better for us if they simply wrote what they meant for a change!
The meaning of words evolve. That is why we need to understand original intent and interpret the meaning of the words at the time they were written.
“Everyone at the party was merry and gay.” 1950 v 2020
The Birthright was technically mean for the Civil War Slaves.
But then there is this other law on the books
Since Illegal Immigration Is A Crime, Anchor Babies Are Not Citizens.
“Kids” Don’t Get To Benefit From A Parent’s Crime.
Dad Robs A Bank; Kids Don’t Get To Live Off The Proceeds. Illegal Means Illegal.
IT’S CALLED. FORFEITURE OF “ILL-GOTTEN GAIN” !!
Anchor Children Gained Citizenship Though Criminal Acts Of Parents, So Anchor Babies’ Citizenship Is Not Valid Citizenships. Goes For All Crimes.
Great link to an article written by John Eastman who lays it out.👍👍👍
As if somebody who comes here deliberately to give birth can make their child a citizen.
Even if it’s not deliberate.
An illegal immigrant gets raped on her trip here and delivers the baby in the US while waiting for a court date.
Or a tourist unexpectedly gives premature birth while here even though she intended to be back home when the delivery was planned.
Neither mother is “subject to” our Constitution because they are not citizens.
You would think that would be a no-brainer, right?
Search the internet for “Birth tourism”
Here is a link from Homeland security commitee.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/2022.12.20-%20Final_Birth%20Tourism%20Report.pdf
The Constitution …
isn’t a tool for Progs/Elites class to prove their altruism or maintain an underclass Uniparty voting population,in order to justify that political class’ street cred to that same underclass,in order for that political class to maintain power.
See how it works? That’s sociopathy.
You can say what ever you want about Trump, be very carefull about what you say about The United States Constitution….👁️👁️
The biggest hurdle will be how long this has been policy in the USA. The common belief has been that it is so for so long it may end up backfiring.
The common belief amongst who? The illegals?
It’s certainly not the belief in my circles.
Squatters.
Just as most of America isn’t Blue, but is merely painted that way, I imagine most recognize common sense, but aren’t represented that way.
.
Children born in this country to mothers who may be illegal, but also may not know whether the father is a citizen (may have been told by him that he was, but he was lying?), or not know who the guy that impregnated her even is, really do have a cause to be upset, I expect.
What is most upsetting to me is people in those above situations here who may be statutory citizens due to at least one parent being American, but with no real ‘proof’, that have not done one proactive thing to get their status straightened out . . .
So if the illegal mother does not know who she hooked up with they get to stay? Smh. One parent=Illegal Hoochie Mama. One sperm donor=not a parent.
.
Biology is a science. I am not a science denier.
.
And, by ‘they’ I take that to mean mother and child.
I actually had in mind a decades old situation, where the ‘mother’ is long dead, and the ‘child’ a 60’s something guy — who has only known being an ‘American’ . . .
Suppose a pregnant woman comes to America from another country illegally and marries an American who adopts the child.
Is the husband the:
a) father
b) step-father
c) parent
d) biological father
e) biological parent
f) sperm-donor
How many parents can a child have?
.
Biologically (in NATURE) a child is born to one man and one woman.
The LEGAL machinations is what is confusing the issue.
Roe v Wade was the law of the land for 50 years, but that didn’t stop the SCOTUS from overturning it.
“Subject to the jurisdiction of” has relevant meaning. If you are a citizen of another country and have not legally been accepted by the US formally for residence as a green card or naturalized citizen, you are under the jurisdiction of a foreign country. You are a foreign citizen. Period. End stop.
At the time of the 13th and 14th amendment, slaves didn’t have citizen jurisdiction but were legal residents as slave, well okay a portion counted as 2/3 of the counted census as the equivalent of the population for state apportionment reasons.
SCOTUS does not have a way cut the baby in half constitutionally, legally, ethically or morally.
There are only two justices, and sometimes three, that can be counted on to do things constitutionally, legally, ethically and morally. Three others are communists who don’t read or care what the Constitution says, and three others are more interested in pleasing their Uniparty friends in Washington. We could easily lose this 6-3 or 7-2. I think it will be a miracle if we win it. Not trying to be a pessimistic, just being realistic.
Let it go to SCOTUS as Trump intended.
I think we will win 5-4
Personally I think this one is murky and we really should codify a solid policy with a new amendment that includes itemized privileges afforded only to citizens to distinguish from non citizen residents and visitors.
Never happen.
If you tink it is murky, you are not learned in this. Time to go fill the gaps in your eduction. Complete primer here and be sure to go through each tab on the left. http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/
Go have a baby in practically any country in the world and then claim that the baby is now a citizen of that country and they might throw you in jail.
.
I think we should prevail in the Supreme Court. BUT Congress also needs to act.
Birthright citizenship should be considered revoked for all currently putative citizen individuals who were born of non-permanent-resident or illegal aliens, and who at any time since being born, either were citizens of another country or spent 50% or more time during their minority in a foreign country.
Because the birther tourism crap has been going on long enough (increasing phenomenally the last 3-4 decades) that there now are untold huge numbers of adult individuals in hostile countries who can claim to be expat “citizens” of the United States, even vote, and also (as “citizens”) bless their offspring with citizenship, even if this EO is upheld as-is.
.
I recall Techo doing an analysis of the EO and concluded it’s an uphill battle and a possible loss for the administration. Apparently there is caselaw on both sides of the issue.
.
There is no caselaw “arguably” on the other side that cannot be distinguished.
.
There are cases on both sides because of Justia-gate which distorted cases upholding historical definition (PDJT correct) to present wrong as right.
Learn and know and use the knowledge to save our country. http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/
There is a lot of Brennan and Warren era case law making its way into the dust bin of history these past few years.
From Chevron to Roe, there is a pattern of “settled law” being overturned.
I would expect Kelo (on public taking), any “birthright citizen” case law, and also the SCOTUS case granting illegal alien children the constitutional right to an education at taxpayer expense (on the reasoning it would be immoral to do otherwise, but without almost any reference to the actual language of the US Constitution) all to be overruled within the next two years.
Mike Davis clearly outlined on Bannon’s War Room today that crossing the border illegally is an act of invasion and being under the jurisdiction of their home country and not the United States, are not eligible for citizenship. Full stop.
The Amendments around this issue were passed to protect American freed slaves – some wanted to force them back to Africa.
This gave them the earned birthright as citizens, or they were free to return to Africa (newly created Liberia).
No doubt the Dems are riling up the illegals to go out and fight, and prove just why they shouldn’t be here!
And Washingtonians will get screwed paying the legal bill for this BS. Shades of Bobby Ferguson …
Washington state is a failed state.
Yep.
“……I am told by people close to the issue that the response is well articulated, grounded in constitutional law and solid.”
I have no doubt this is so, but I can assure you it’s unlikely to matter in a washington courtroom.
To washington judges such things are like waving a red cape in the bullfighting arena.
I really hope a pack of hungry and agitated wolverines is appointed to the US Attorney’s office here, and soon. We need help.
Washington State judges won’t matter, because SCOTUS will grant certiorari on the US constitutional issue presented as soon as the Washington State top appellate court issues its opinion on the case as presented. It is just a matter of time.
Yes, once it finally reaches SCOTUS, but it has to get there first.
Maximum damage and pain will be inflicted in the interim.
Two words.
National Emergency.
Two scary words.
If Marxist Democrats have their way an illegal alien could come to this country and be a mass murderer and have a couple of children, and they would automatically become citizens. Or the next president of the United States could simply implement a program inviting all pregnant women from other countries and pay their way through NGO‘s to come to the United States and have their children. And they would all be considered citizens. I don’t think so!
Much is made of the S.C. Decision in “Wong Kim Ark” regarding birthright citizenship. A bit of history is well in order.
Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873, in California, to parents who were legally immigrants to the USA. They owned property, paid taxes, had legal resident status. The parents were Chinese subjects but lawfully resident aliens in full compliance with all US Immigration laws at the time, and they continued to comply with residency requirements. The Emperor of China viewed the abdication of Chinese Citizenship as High Treason, subject to a death penalty, not only to the parents, but to as many as 3 relationships. That means Parents, grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles, and all of their children.
The Wong family did not ask for US Citizenship. The court case only asked for citizenship for the individual, Kim Ark. Kim Ark was not subject to the Chinese Citizenship requirements of the Emperor of China ‘because’ he was not born in China and did not owe allegiance to the Emperor.
These circumstances are very different from “birth tourism” and “illegal entry”.
Simply put.
The plaintiffs don’t have standing or a cause of action.
Next.
Simple and correct.
Preeminent individual in my position as an analyst, to explain the “issue”: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/birthright-citizenship/
Here is Natural Born explanation with Document: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/14th-amendment-citizens/
Be blessed everyone
Washington state has two Cities/towns nicknamed Little Tijuana1 When the sun goes down one is not safe in either unless you are a male and look Hispanic. Pasco and Yakima
In fact Yakima ranks in top 25 for most welfare people per capita and in top tier for crime nation wide.
Just before or during Trump’s first term Washington state was eliminating or had elixated tuition for DACAer and Anchor Children for state colleges, but it did not apply to anyone else in Washington.
Pasco has another nickname. El Taco
All I know is i have had many friends who told true stories of the horrors of Pasco and Yakima. when i lived in NE Oregon
I live across the river from Pasco in Richland. For sixty years,got a front row seat.
The issue has been settled over and over. Everyone is encouraged to read every section (LEFT side tabs) to see and understand it is a myth, created to cause chaos in minds and redefine citizenship and natural born citizen as written AND supreme Court verified (multiple times), allowing usurpation through insemination.
http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/
Justiagate was real.
Tangentially related – Rubio just pulled off a master level move – no doubt in consultation with POTUS:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14357371/marco-rubio-el-salvador-accept-migrants.html
“Rubio reveals ‘extraordinary’ migrant deal with El Salvador to accept deportees from any country – including dangerous criminals”
I think I’d high tail it across the nearest border rather than get tossed into one of Bukele’s mega prisons.
This will scare the daylights out of the cartel heroes. El Salvadorean prions are like the roach hotel.
Supreme Court 5-4 loss on this issue, with Roberts and ACB joining the Libs again. Roberts wants continuing access to DC cocktail parties. ACB needs to keep up the appearance of being a “fair” judge with her politically calculated rulings. That would be my guess, hope I’m wrong.
Then the Constitutional amenmend process will begin, but on shaky ground with the DemoRats using rampant voter fraud to likely stop the ratification process.
PDJT must charge forward and deport illegal families intact, like he said he would, even if the child of illegals is born here.
Roberts has two kids and an ear in the wrong place.
Not going to be a problem.
If he is even still on the bench.
Errors in Trump “Birthright” Order
By Lex Greene
https://newswithviews.com/errors-in-trump-birthright-order/
I’m not going to take the time to delve into this post, but the Constitution left English common law fully in place in the States. We operate to this day on English Common law precedent in many areas of the law, despite the ever growing body of state and federal legislation (don’t get me started on the Uniform Code efforts, ugh).
So, just a quick take on this – that the guy has no idea what he is taking about, probably.
Common law was in place until FDR rolled in. He replaced it with the law of the sea. Even though Admiralty law is in Constitution. He left us with debt money, made us “enemies of the state” when he amended TWEA of 1917. that is why you must be licensed for most anything. BC registration , SS, and took away gold. Just to name a few things.
So there are three openly anti-american communists on the court and three squishy fake constitutionalists on the court (deep-state, RINO plants to be clearer about it).
The Chief Justice, in my view, has horrid skeletons in his closet that Trump needs to pull the curtain down on. He has politicized the court to an extreme and needs to be exposed already. He is no clean operator.
Barrett and “party-boy” are scared out of their boots. They will do whatever Roberts wants unless someone exposes Roberts. Three reliables and three bed-wetters aren’t gonna cut it….
The simple fact that WA State is challenging it verifies that BRC is illegal.
mymotherthecar: An excellent point.
When it first came out, I read the document in full. Excellent work product that relies on Congressional debates, case law, legal commentary, and well articulated argument.
The baby belongs to the mother the mother belongs to another country therefore the baby belongs to the Mother’s country! Now she can return home and leave the baby here for what, for us to raise the baby she just birthed? Makes no sense to me. But I’m a simple man what do I know?
but then the mother gets to stay to care for the child.
The problem stems from the fact that it has always been referred to as “birthright citizenship”. That 2-word phrase has never been mentioned in the Constitution. We must stop calling it that.
I did not see one reference in the 60-page DOJ argument using that phrase. They instead called them “Children Born of Unlawfully Present Aliens or Lawful But Temporary Visitors”. It’s a longer phrase but a more accurate one, and one that the fake media can’t twist to their agenda.
Agree. “Birthright Citizenship” is a term invented by the left to create a right where no right exists. They specialize in creating these terms, and adopting and using their language is always a mistake for our side. I wish the DOJ would just call them “illegal alien children.” That is the correct term, both factually and legally.
R Iacoveo: Exactly. “Birthright citizenship” is linguistic sleight of hand.
We should all thank the Washington state judge for acting so quickly to get this process moving.
This was always the plan.
It will be interesting to see how Barrett rules on this when it goes to the SCOTUS. She has been a stickler for holding to the strict construction of the Constitution. If she votes for giving illegals born in the US citizenship, she will be abandoning that viewpoint and show herself to be the activist judge we surmised she was from the beginning.
There is so much evidence in the original words of those who wrote and planned this Amendment as to what it meant. For her to now ignore that history will put her in the same camp as those three liberal women judges. I don’t hold out much hope that she will rule the right way.
My neighbors cow gets in my pasture and has a calf. Is the calf mine?
If your neighbors apple tree hangs over your fence, the apples that drop in your yard belong to you.
But that’s like comparing apples and illegal aliens
Apples and calves to illegal aliens.
Don’t worry Sundance, I’m sure John Robert’s will twist this argument like a pretzel to suite the needs of the left.
I have been trying to keep track of the judges assigned to cases the left has brought against President Trump’s EO’s and agenda.
Thus far it appears that all the cases have been assigned to leftist judges appointed by Democrat presidents. This is getting out of hand as these cases are supposed to be assigned anonymously and not picked by some leftist clerk of court.
I don’t know who is authorized to rectify this, but something needs to be done about it.
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? NO.
Can national citizenship be granted despite non-legal status of the parents and despite non-approval of the nation state? NO.
Frankly if the anchor baby(like Marco Rubio) is granted citizenship by virtue of illegal alien parents, then the parents and the child need to be deported together until the child reaches adulthood at which time they can come back alone without all the family chained to him and allowed to enter America.
Birthright Citizenship: Two Perspectives
https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/birthright-citizenship-two-perspectives