Birthright citizenship EO issued.

25,862 Views | 263 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by Get Off My Lawn
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:36p, 1/21/25
AG
Trump giving this a shot. I think it is a Longshot, but any decision by SCOTUS will at least set the stage for any new legislation or amendment.

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/can-birthright-citizenship-be-repealed-by-executive-order/
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
33
sethags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:49p, 1/21/25
AG
Unfortunately, I do think this has an uphill battle to stick as an exec order. If there wasn't prior legal precedent, there would be a much better shot, because one could argue the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 14th ammendment.

HOWEVER....I think this is great to at least bring to the forefront and see how the political appetite has changed on this nationwide. If there seems to be widespread support amongst the states, let's strike while the iron's hot and repeal and/or change the 14th ammendment to explicitly exclude children of people in this country illegally. If we can get congress off their asses, and 3/4 of the states to ratify it, this could be the perfect political storm to finally address this. Along with physically securing the border (obviously), this act alone would drastically reduce the motivation for illegal immigration.
Tough times don't last, tough people do
Reply Quote
39
Keller6Ag91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:52p, 1/21/25
AG
As long as it gets us to a favorable Supreme Court decision. In light of our nation's immigration policies, I can't imagine birthright citizenship being established to someone in the US illegally.
Gig'Em and God Bless,

JB'91
Reply Quote
43
Pichael Thompson
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:54p, 1/21/25
No rewards for illegal scumbag behavior


If you can't bother to come here legally, your spawn don't get to stay either
Reply Quote
72
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:11p, 1/21/25
AG
Quote:
President Donald Trump's bid to cut off birthright citizenship is a "flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage," attorneys for 18 states, the city of San Francisco and the District of Columbia said Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging the president's executive order signed just hours after he was sworn in Monday.

The lawsuit, filed by 18 Democratic attorneys general, accuses Trump of seeking to eliminate a "well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle" by executive fiat.
LINK
Reply Quote
4
Sq 17
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:12p, 1/21/25
Would this be retro-active ?

Is there an estimate of how many Americans in each age demographic this would affect ?

Taking this to furthest extreme would the children of children of illegal immigrants lose their citizenship ?
The last mass amnesty was in the 80's people could have come since then had children and those people could have had children
Reply Quote
1
FCBlitz
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:14p, 1/21/25
….at least it starts the discussion!
Reply Quote
26
Panama Red
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:15p, 1/21/25
AG
Quote:
attempt to strip hundreds of thousands American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage


That's interesting as it only applies to kids born after February 20, 2025.

Based on my calculation, that totals 0 for number children this applies to.



2/19/25 might set the world record for number of induced labors.
Reply Quote
52
1 edit
2023NCAggies
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:17p, 1/21/25
Already being challenged. Which is the process to getting rid of It quickly.

It will go to Supreme Court and hopefully they will make the right ruling/interpretation in the end. And that will get rid of the stupid birthright crap for good

This was the fastest way and it looks like we will likely have a decision this year on it

Illinois governor has already said his state will ignore it. They need to arrest his fatass. Do it when he tries to stop ICE

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-hits-back-aclu-launches-lawsuit-birthright-citizenship-ready-face-them

Reply Quote
16
2 edits
FightinTAC08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sq 17 • 2:19p, 1/21/25
AG
Sq 17 said:
Would this be retro-active ?

Is there an estimate of how many Americans in each age demographic this would affect ?

Taking this to furthest extreme would the children of children of illegal immigrants lose their citizenship ?
The last mass amnesty was in the 80's people could have come since then had children and those people could have had children
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

"(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order."
Reply Quote
4
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sethags • 2:21p, 1/21/25
AG
sethags said:
Unfortunately, I do think this has an uphill battle to stick as an exec order. If there wasn't prior legal precedent, there would be a much better shot, because one could argue the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 14th ammendment.

HOWEVER....I think this is great to at least bring to the forefront and see how the political appetite has changed on this nationwide. If there seems to be widespread support amongst the states, let's strike while the iron's hot and repeal and/or change the 14th ammendment to explicitly exclude children of people in this country illegally. If we can get congress off their asses, and 3/4 of the states to ratify it, this could be the perfect political storm to finally address this. Along with physically securing the border (obviously), this act alone would drastically reduce the motivation for illegal immigration.

He started a conversation.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
9
sethags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 2:23p, 1/21/25
AG
techno-ag said:
sethags said:
Unfortunately, I do think this has an uphill battle to stick as an exec order. If there wasn't prior legal precedent, there would be a much better shot, because one could argue the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 14th ammendment.

HOWEVER....I think this is great to at least bring to the forefront and see how the political appetite has changed on this nationwide. If there seems to be widespread support amongst the states, let's strike while the iron's hot and repeal and/or change the 14th ammendment to explicitly exclude children of people in this country illegally. If we can get congress off their asses, and 3/4 of the states to ratify it, this could be the perfect political storm to finally address this. Along with physically securing the border (obviously), this act alone would drastically reduce the motivation for illegal immigration.

He started a conversation.
Exactly. That was basically the point of my long-winded first reply. Even if it doesn't stick from an executive order standpoint, at least it starts the conversation and hopefully gets some traction for REAL legislative action.
Tough times don't last, tough people do
Reply Quote
6
titan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keller6Ag91 • 2:25p, 1/21/25
S
Keller6Ag91 said:
As long as it gets us to a favorable Supreme Court decision. In light of our nation's immigration policies, I can't imagine birthright citizenship being established to someone in the US illegally.
Not only that, since he has declared a national emergency about the border, for short term purposes it might be something can apply. At least in the way Obama and Biden did for some of their innovations later denied.

Reply Quote
3
TA-OP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:27p, 1/21/25
I feel like "subject to the jurisdiction" is pretty straightforward language. How do you charge illegals with a crime if they aren't subject to US jurisdiction while committing the crime?
Reply Quote
6
AgDad121619
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 2023NCAggies • 2:30p, 1/21/25
AG
2023NCAggies said:
Already being challenged. Which is the process to getting rid of It quickly.

It will go to Supreme Court and hopefully they will make the right ruling/interpretation in the end. And that will get rid of the stupid birthright crap for good

This was the fastest way and it looks like we will likely have a decision this year on it

Illinois governor has already said his state will ignore it. They need to arrest his fatass. Do it when he tries to stop ICE

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-hits-back-aclu-launches-lawsuit-birthright-citizenship-ready-face-them

more than anything , I want to see folks like this who are ignoring the laws of our land to be prosecuted - we have allowed way too many folks to purposely ignore our federal laws with zero consequences. I'm sure he expects nothing to happen to him based on past responses so he is beating his chest right now
Reply Quote
7
javajaws
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:32p, 1/21/25
AG
I give it 75% odds of being thrown out entirely.

This quote from Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray however does provide a small opening:

Quote:
The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

You can argue that the mass illegal immigration is a hostile occupation (in the making) and thus children of illegal aliens should be excluded under those grounds. This would partially throw out the existing precedent argument. Back then there was essentially no hostile occupation.
Reply Quote
1
jacketman03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:33p, 1/21/25
AG
So, quick question: everybody here is pretty okay with this, but what about if the next Dem president issues one saying that the 2nd amendment only applies to organized militias?
Reply Quote
6
titan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to javajaws • 2:34p, 1/21/25
S
javajaws said:
I give it 75% odds of being thrown out entirely.

This quote from Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray however does provide a small opening:

Quote:
The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

You can argue that the mass illegal immigration is a hostile occupation (in the making) and thus children of illegal aliens should be excluded under those grounds. This would partially throw out the existing precedent argument. Back then there was essentially no hostile occupation.
Good point. You can also argue they are certainly not `residents' in that officially do not exist. In fact, they have been specifically called `illegal aliens' not `resident aliens.'
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jacketman03 • 2:35p, 1/21/25
AG
jacketman03 said:
So, quick question: everybody here is pretty okay with this, but what about if the next Dem president issues one saying that the 2nd amendment only applies to organized militias?

This one dealt with freed slaves, though. Not Chicom nationals flying into LA just to give birth then leaving.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
32
infinity ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:44p, 1/21/25
What does this EO mean?

Kids of Illegal immigrants born in the US are no longer auto US citizens.
What about tourists on tourist visa who have babies here? Babies of H1B workers? Babies of people on Green Cards?

Can someone explain?
Reply Quote
1
jacketman03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 2:46p, 1/21/25
AG
techno-ag said:
jacketman03 said:
So, quick question: everybody here is pretty okay with this, but what about if the next Dem president issues one saying that the 2nd amendment only applies to organized militias?

This one dealt with freed slaves, though. Not Chicom nationals flying into LA just to give birth then leaving.
And where in the text of the amendment is it limited to freed slaves? The second amendment at least references a militia.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Maroon Dawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:50p, 1/21/25
AG
This needs to get addressed

The 14th was NEVER intended to allow anyone to just walk across the border and or squat out a baby and be citizens. It was intended to bring all enslaved peoples and their progeny into full citizenship.

We need to be like every other nation in the world where birth to a citizen or legal naturalization are the only paths to citizenship
Reply Quote
32
1 edit
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to infinity ag • 2:50p, 1/21/25
infinity ag said:
What does this EO mean?

Kids of Illegal immigrants born in the US are no longer auto US citizens.
What about tourists on tourist visa who have babies here? Babies of H1B workers? Babies of people on Green Cards?

Can someone explain?
That is the point of questioning the whole thing. Our forefathers never intended anyone to be able to walk here, drop a kid, and have that kid become a citizen. They expected people to come here for a better life and contribute to the well-being of the nation. People are coming here for what they can take.

We have an immigration system. We have an asylum system. They are not broken, our leadership has been broken.
Reply Quote
31
BigRobSA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to infinity ag • 2:51p, 1/21/25
infinity ag said:
What does this EO mean?

Kids of Illegal immigrants born in the US are no longer auto US citizens.
What about tourists on tourist visa who have babies here? Babies of H1B workers? Babies of people on Green Cards?

Can someone explain?


Pretty easy, I believe:

Unless one of your parents is a citizen, even if you're born here, you're not a citizen.

So none of your scenarios would anchor a baby to citizenship.
Reply Quote
16
infinity ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 2:52p, 1/21/25
Ellis Wyatt said:
infinity ag said:
What does this EO mean?

Kids of Illegal immigrants born in the US are no longer auto US citizens.
What about tourists on tourist visa who have babies here? Babies of H1B workers? Babies of people on Green Cards?

Can someone explain?
That is the point of questioning the whole thing. Our forefathers never intended anyone to be able to walk here, drop a kid, and have that kid become a citizen. They expected people to come here for a better life and contribute to the well-being of the nation. People are coming here for what they can take.

We have an immigration system. We have an asylum system. They are not broken, our leadership has been broken.

Got it and I agree with the intent, but how will the new EO work?
I see a lot of discussion/confusion on this on reddit.
Reply Quote
Trajan88
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 2:52p, 1/21/25
AG
Good... needs to be fully tested in today's America.

It's not the late 19th / early 20th century anymore.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to infinity ag • 2:53p, 1/21/25
Quote:
Quote:
That is the point of questioning the whole thing. Our forefathers never intended anyone to be able to walk here, drop a kid, and have that kid become a citizen. They expected people to come here for a better life and contribute to the well-being of the nation. People are coming here for what they can take.

We have an immigration system. We have an asylum system. They are not broken, our leadership has been broken.

Got it and I agree with the intent, but how will the new EO work?
I see a lot of discussion/confusion on this on reddit.
The Supreme Court will have to rule on it.

If you want to understand any of it, stay away from Reddit. They're a bunch of leftist morons and liars.
Reply Quote
9
jacketman03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Maroon Dawn • 2:53p, 1/21/25
AG
Maroon Dawn said:
This needs to get addressed

The 14th was NEVER intended to allow anyone to just walk across the border and or squat out a baby and be citizens. It was intended to bring all enslaved peoples and their progeny into full citizenship.

We need to be like every other nation in the world where birth to a citizen or legal naturalization are the only paths to citizenship
Again, if it was so clear that this was the only purpose, why didn't they say it? They didn't have a problem using slavery language in the 13th and 15th, but they, what, forgot all about slavery in the middle?
Reply Quote
infinity ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigRobSA • 2:56p, 1/21/25
BigRobSA said:
infinity ag said:
What does this EO mean?

Kids of Illegal immigrants born in the US are no longer auto US citizens.
What about tourists on tourist visa who have babies here? Babies of H1B workers? Babies of people on Green Cards?

Can someone explain?


Pretty easy, I believe:

Unless one of your parents is a citizen, even if you're born here, you're not a citizen.

So none of your scenarios would anchor a baby to citizenship.

Ok, that is clear now.
An immigrant needs to have US citizenship or be a Green Card Holder and only then a baby he/she has can get citizenship.

This means an H1B holder having a baby will not get citizenship. This is what someone said on reddit channel I was prowling in so I wanted to confirm. A lot of H1Bs are incensed about this. For many, getting a green card will take decades, so they would be 70 by the time they are eligible to have US citizen babies.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jacketman03 • 3:02p, 1/21/25
jacketman03 said:
Maroon Dawn said:
This needs to get addressed

The 14th was NEVER intended to allow anyone to just walk across the border and or squat out a baby and be citizens. It was intended to bring all enslaved peoples and their progeny into full citizenship.

We need to be like every other nation in the world where birth to a citizen or legal naturalization are the only paths to citizenship
Again, if it was so clear that this was the only purpose, why didn't they say it? They didn't have a problem using slavery language in the 13th and 15th, but they, what, forgot all about slavery in the middle?

So you really believe that a female from China that schedules a trip over here right when she is due so she can have a baby here to give it citizenship is what the 14th creators envisioned? No way in hell!
Reply Quote
13
1 edit
Trajan88
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:05p, 1/21/25
AG
Read that one thing was considered is visas issued to pregnant women will have a reduction in length of stay in the U.S.

Don't think that was even close to being implemented in the past.
Reply Quote
jacketman03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Logos Stick • 3:08p, 1/21/25
AG
Logos Stick said:



So you really believe that a female from China that schedules a trip over here right when she is due so she can have a baby here to give it citizenship is what the founders envisioned? No way in hell!
I'm saying the text of the amendment says what it says, and no amount of wishing can change that.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, and one reason for the Citizenship Clause was a desire to put the Civil Rights Act of 1866 into the Constitution.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 said

Quote:
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude...

The 14th Amendment says
Quote:
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.

Seems like the Congress was aiming for a more expansive grant of citizenship than the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Reply Quote
1
backintexas2013
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:32p, 1/21/25
AG
Child can stay American citizen and stay in America. Parents get deported. They can take the child with them or leave the child here with family. Let them decide.
Reply Quote
3
UntoldSpirit
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TA-OP • 3:36p, 1/21/25
AG
TA-OP said:
I feel like "subject to the jurisdiction" is pretty straightforward language. How do you charge illegals with a crime if they aren't subject to US jurisdiction while committing the crime?
Because there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction and complete political jurisdiction, which was the intent stated by some of the advocates of the amendment.

Illegals, as well as tourists, for example, are subject to our laws because they are on US soil, but they cannot serve on a Jury or be drafted. Their political jurisdiction is the country from which they came. This was the intent. It would encompass the children of freed slaves, but not tourists or other visitors.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will validate this and end the misinterpretation by the birthright advocates.
Reply Quote
11
Keller6Ag91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jacketman03 • 3:38p, 1/21/25
AG
jacketman03 said:
So, quick question: everybody here is pretty okay with this, but what about if the next Dem president issues one saying that the 2nd amendment only applies to organized militias?
Good luck with that argument.
Gig'Em and God Bless,

JB'91
Reply Quote
3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.