javajaws said:

---

From the majority opinion of Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray:

Quote:

---

Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. . . .

---

This is a HUGE qualification in this case's majority decision - they did not really rule on the child of illegal aliens.

Keep in mind this was happening at a time when California was trying to keep its Chinese population down and this was really more of a discrimination case against Chinese than anything else.

Next paragraph of the majority decision:

Quote:

---

The acts of Congress known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, the earliest of which was passed some fourteen years after the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, cannot control its meaning or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions. And the right of the United States, as exercised by and under those acts, to exclude or to expel from the country persons of the Chinese race born in China and continuing to be subjects of the Emperor of China, though having acquired a commercial domicil in the United States, has been upheld by this court for reasons applicable to all aliens alike, and inapplicable to citizens of whatever race or color . . . .

---

---

Defining what residing means will be important for this legal case.

Is a 2 week tourist visa considers permission to reside? Or does reside in this instance referring to permanent and not temporary?

bmks270 said:

---

Defining what residing means will be important for this legal case.

Is a 2 week tourist visa considers permission to reside? Or does reside in this instance referring to permanent and not temporary?

---

Residence has a pretty plain meaning.

You only get to reside at one place. If your residence is in Florida, it doesn't matter that you have am additional home in Colorado where you spend a good chunk of your time, you can't be a senator from Colorado.

I disagree with your statement that illegal entry is a hostile occupation, but, for the sake of argument, I'll grant you this assumption. If illegal entry is a hostile occupation, then are all illegal immigrants enemy forces? What is their uniform, chain of command, rules of engagement, etc. And if they are enemy forces in hostile occupation, why are they not treated as prisoners of war when detained?

If illegal immigrants are enemy forces, then the US has far more obligations upon detention than the government is currently providing, so the US government isn't treating them as enemy forces, much less enemy forces in hostile occupation of territory, so that argument fails.

This issue is a very critical one.
If it is successful, it will solve other problems or reduce them, For example, if thisgoes through, many H1Bs will find it meaningless to live and work in the US since their kids will be foreigners, so will auto-deport. For Indians this is a logical thing as to get a green card takes 134 years at this point.
This will improve employment opportunities for US citizens and keep money in the country.

WestAustinAg said:

---

The US supreme court as set up now will not rule in Trump's favor. They will have a 5-4 majority that birth on US soil constitutes citizenship. Roberts and Amy Cohen Barrett will side with the dems on this.

---

Maybe.

infinity ag said:

---

This issue is a very critical one.
If it is successful, it will solve other problems or reduce them, For example, if thisgoes through, many H1Bs will find it meaningless to live and work in the US since their kids will be foreigners, so will auto-deport. For Indians this is a logical thing as to get a green card takes 134 years at this point.
This will improve employment opportunities for US citizens and keep money in the country.

---

My guess is that this line of the original court case "so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here" would mean children of H1B Visa holders are granted citizenship. However one could argue that that also means permanently reside (AKA green card).

In truth the same rules that apply to a 1 day old baby that arrives with a legal immigrant ( should apply to a baby born on US soil) but there is little change that will happen. Best case is that citizenship is only granted to Green card holders worst case it is any Visa holder.

jacketman03 said:

---

I disagree with your statement that illegal entry is a hostile occupation, but, for the sake of argument, I'll grant you this assumption. If illegal entry is a hostile occupation, then are all illegal immigrants enemy forces? What is their uniform, chain of command, rules of engagement, etc. And if they are enemy forces in hostile occupation, why are they not treated as prisoners of war when detained?

If illegal immigrants are enemy forces, then the US has far more obligations upon detention than the government is currently providing, so the US government isn't treating them as enemy forces, much less enemy forces in hostile occupation of territory, so that argument fails.

---

It is not the arguement that fails, but rather the federal government.

Judge in Seattle blocks Trump order on birthright citizenship nationwide
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/judge-in-seattle-blocks-trump-order-on-birthright-citizenship-nationwide/

Quote:

---

A federal judge in Seattle blocked, temporarily, President Donald Trump's attempt to rescind birthright citizenship the idea spelled out in the Constitution that every person born in the United States is an American citizen.
Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour on Thursday was blistering in his criticism of Trump's action as he granted a temporary restraining order that blocks Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide.
"I've been on the bench for over four decades, I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," Coughenour, an appointee of Ronald Reagan, said from the bench. "There are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say where were the judges, where were the lawyers?"
Coughenour interrupted before Brett Shumate, a Justice Department attorney, could even complete his first sentence.
"In your opinion is this executive order constitutional?" he asked.
Said Shumate, "It absolutely is."
"Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the Bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order," Coughenour said. "It just boggles my mind."
The executive order will remain blocked for at least 14 days while lawsuits in Washington and elsewhere over Trump's action proceed.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown sued Trump and his administration Tuesday, the day after the president issued his executive order ending birthright citizenship. Brown, at a news conference Tuesday, called the order an "unconstitutional, un-American and cruel … attempt to redefine what it means to be an American."
Coughenour's ruling is the first after a flurry of lawsuits was filed this week across the country attempting to block the executive order. Washington was joined in its lawsuit by Oregon, Illinois and Arizona. Eighteen other states filed a similar lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts, and several immigrant rights groups have sued the administration in federal court in New Hampshire.
More than a century of legal precedent has recognized the Constitution's 14th Amendment as granting U.S. citizenship to every person born here.
The 14th Amendment begins: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Birthright citizenship, passed at the end of the Civil War, Brown wrote, "emerged out of one of our Nation's darkest chapters and embodies one of its most solemn promises."
"President Trump and the federal government now seek to impose a modern version of Dred Scott," Brown wrote, citing the overturned Supreme Court case that denied citizenship to enslaved people and their children.
Trump's executive order says the government would not issue documents such as passports to children if their parents are not citizens or permanent residents and if their mother was in the country illegally, or even if she was here legally but only temporarily.

---

infinity ag said:

---

Judge in Seattle blocks Trump order on birthright citizenship nationwide
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/judge-in-seattle-blocks-trump-order-on-birthright-citizenship-nationwide/

Quote:

---

A federal judge in Seattle blocked, temporarily, President Donald Trump's attempt to rescind birthright citizenship the idea spelled out in the Constitution that every person born in the United States is an American citizen.
Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour on Thursday was blistering in his criticism of Trump's action as he granted a temporary restraining order that blocks Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide.
"I've been on the bench for over four decades, I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," Coughenour, an appointee of Ronald Reagan, said from the bench. "There are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say where were the judges, where were the lawyers?"
Coughenour interrupted before Brett Shumate, a Justice Department attorney, could even complete his first sentence.
"In your opinion is this executive order constitutional?" he asked.
Said Shumate, "It absolutely is."
"Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the Bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order," Coughenour said. "It just boggles my mind."
The executive order will remain blocked for at least 14 days while lawsuits in Washington and elsewhere over Trump's action proceed.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown sued Trump and his administration Tuesday, the day after the president issued his executive order ending birthright citizenship. Brown, at a news conference Tuesday, called the order an "unconstitutional, un-American and cruel … attempt to redefine what it means to be an American."
Coughenour's ruling is the first after a flurry of lawsuits was filed this week across the country attempting to block the executive order. Washington was joined in its lawsuit by Oregon, Illinois and Arizona. Eighteen other states filed a similar lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts, and several immigrant rights groups have sued the administration in federal court in New Hampshire.
More than a century of legal precedent has recognized the Constitution's 14th Amendment as granting U.S. citizenship to every person born here.
The 14th Amendment begins: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Birthright citizenship, passed at the end of the Civil War, Brown wrote, "emerged out of one of our Nation's darkest chapters and embodies one of its most solemn promises."
"President Trump and the federal government now seek to impose a modern version of Dred Scott," Brown wrote, citing the overturned Supreme Court case that denied citizenship to enslaved people and their children.
Trump's executive order says the government would not issue documents such as passports to children if their parents are not citizens or permanent residents and if their mother was in the country illegally, or even if she was here legally but only temporarily.

---

---

All according to plan. A judge blocking it was expected.

If someone has crossed a border illegally with intent to invade a US controlled territory, that's an act of war no matter what condition her uterus is in.

No way! What a huge win for the left! Man, you got us. This definitely was not the entire purpose of the executive order or anything.

That was expected... but what now?

infinity ag said:

---

That was expected... but what now?

---

I think one of the reasons Trump is doing a massive dump of EOs he knows will get tied up in court is to try to get them in front of SCOTUS or as close as possible before he is out of office, just in case a Dem wins in 2028 and decides to stop defending the lawsuits.

I don't know why they don't coordinate with Paxton on these EO's.

Give Paxton a heads up it's coming. Issue EO, Paxton files suit against it with a terrible argument in a friendly Fort Worth federal court, friendly court judge rules it constitutional with a nationwide injunction.

Teslag said:

---

I don't know why they don't coordinate with Paxton on these EO's.

Give Paxton a heads up it's coming. Issue EO, Paxton files suit against it with a terrible argument in a friendly Fort Worth federal court, friendly court judge rules it constitutional with a nationwide injunction.

---

Because "Paxton sues Trump to protect birthright citizenship" would be the headline and it would get used against him nonstop through the next election. The general electorate doesn't understand nuance like what you are proposing.

Ryan the Temp said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

That was expected... but what now?

---

I think one of the reasons Trump is doing a massive dump of EOs he knows will get tied up in court is to try to get them in front of SCOTUS or as close as possible before he is out of office, just in case a Dem wins in 2028 and decides to stop defending the lawsuits.

---

"I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case whether the question presented was as clear," Coughenour said.

"Where were the lawyers" when the decision to sign the executive order was made, the judge asked. He said that it "boggled" his mind that a member of the bar would claim the order was constitutional.

Teslag said:

---

I don't know why they don't coordinate with Paxton on these EO's.

Give Paxton a heads up it's coming. Issue EO, Paxton files suit against it with a terrible argument in a friendly Fort Worth federal court, friendly court judge rules it constitutional with a nationwide injunction.

---

Because Trump and Paxton know that's jibberish.


What's a nationwide injunction saying it's constitutional?

I guarantee this judge has heard arguments FAR MORE of a legal stretch than this case.

Buts he's an old man, so as he just doesn't remember them!

To review
Citizenship is referenced in the constitution and has been argued I. Front of SCOTUS a few times and is currently " settled law ". Trump feels that he can overturn settled law because he made a campaign promise

I suppose when a D does this to a 2A scenario it will be "starting a discussion"

Haven't followed the entire thread but I researched this quite a bit back in the day.

I always felt the way you defeat this legally is bringing to the table enough evidence proving the purpose of the birthright citizenship clause was to protect the children of freed slaves, NOT open the floodgates to the world. There should have been a timer on the birthright aspect.

I think that's the only way you get there. The evidence has to be extremely convincing.

Sq 17 said:

---

To review
Citizenship is referenced in the constitution and has been argued I. Front of SCOTUS a few times and is currently " settled law ". Trump feels that he can overturn settled law because he made a campaign promise

I suppose when a D does this to a 2A scenario it will be "starting a discussion"

---

You are correct! No previously "settled law" has ever been overturned by the Supreme Court……

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Haven't followed the entire thread but I researched this quite a bit back in the day.

I always felt the way you defeat this legally is bringing to the table enough evidence proving the purpose of the birthright citizenship clause was to protect the children of freed slaves, NOT open the floodgates to the world. There should have been a timer on the birthright aspect.

I think that's the only way you get there. The evidence has to be extremely convincing.

---

Or deport the parents who are here illegally and put the new citizen in an orphanage.

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

if the intent was to grant foreign babies citizenship, then why did they add the second requirement "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

---

This is non sensible. The number of babies born to foreign dignitaries in the US is way to small to command text in an amendment. This would be like adding a clause to an amendment specifically targeting babies born in the airspace over the US. It's so esoteric, it's not worth mentioning as part of the text of the amendment.

To exclude kids of diplomats & dignitaries, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US

---

And at the time, the number of children born to parents who intended not to stay and become residents of the US would have been exceptionally small. Maybe even way to small to command text in an amendment.

I agree that birthright citizenship needs to go away but that must be done via an amendment which will, unfortunately, probably never happen.

Sq 17 said:

---

To review
Citizenship is referenced in the constitution and has been argued I. Front of SCOTUS a few times and is currently " settled law ". Trump feels that he can overturn settled law because he made a campaign promise

I suppose when a D does this to a 2A scenario it will be "starting a discussion"

---

This is just flat out untrue.

2A has been hit with several Supreme Court challenges. For example, back in 2010 Heller was all about whether the intent of the second amendment was for a "well regulated militia" ready to be called up by the governor at any time to defend the state, OR is the intent of the second amendment that individuals have the right to own guns and defend themselves?

That's the 5 second version.

The court said the latter. We'll see what they say here.

ETA: I guess Dred Scot just wanted to start a discussion too right?

Heller and other court decisions bubbled up from actual cases that needed clarification

Not sure clarification is currently required seems pretty simplie but to properly make a challenge

the more appropriate path would be for a governor to deny birth certificates to children of illegals and start the process that way after the they 5 th circuit weighed in SCOTUS would review it.

Or attempt to pass legislation either federal or state that clarifies or amends the current law of the land and again the 5 th circuit would weigh in

I use the 5 th circuit because a move like this would and should come from states in that circuit. An EO that goes against settled constitutional interpretation is a bad idea

chickencoupe16 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

if the intent was to grant foreign babies citizenship, then why did they add the second requirement "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

---

This is non sensible. The number of babies born to foreign dignitaries in the US is way to small to command text in an amendment. This would be like adding a clause to an amendment specifically targeting babies born in the airspace over the US. It's so esoteric, it's not worth mentioning as part of the text of the amendment.

To exclude kids of diplomats & dignitaries, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US

---

And at the time, the number of children born to parents who intended not to stay and become residents if the US would have been exceptionally small. Maybe even way to small to command text in an amendment.

I agree that birthright citizenship needs to go away but that must be done via an amendment which will, unfortunately, probably never happen.

---

Then the country is lost.
It belongs to the most fertile culture that can cross a border.

Joke is believing in birthright citizenship to illegals... says every other country.

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

if the intent was to grant foreign babies citizenship, then why did they add the second requirement "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

---

This is non sensible. The number of babies born to foreign dignitaries in the US is way to small to command text in an amendment. This would be like adding a clause to an amendment specifically targeting babies born in the airspace over the US. It's so esoteric, it's not worth mentioning as part of the text of the amendment.

To exclude kids of diplomats & dignitaries, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US

---

you feeling its non sensible is not as relevant as the fact the drafters of the amendment believed this to be an important category to exclude.

they literally discussed it on the senate floor. the drafters wanted to clear that children of dignitaries and invading forces were not covered. that part is not really debateable.

the debate is over children born to people here illegally. and as said multiple times, that issue has not yet been examined by SCOTUS. but it likely will be.

TexasRebel said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

if the intent was to grant foreign babies citizenship, then why did they add the second requirement "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

---

This is non sensible. The number of babies born to foreign dignitaries in the US is way to small to command text in an amendment. This would be like adding a clause to an amendment specifically targeting babies born in the airspace over the US. It's so esoteric, it's not worth mentioning as part of the text of the amendment.

To exclude kids of diplomats & dignitaries, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US

---

And at the time, the number of children born to parents who intended not to stay and become residents if the US would have been exceptionally small. Maybe even way to small to command text in an amendment.

I agree that birthright citizenship needs to go away but that must be done via an amendment which will, unfortunately, probably never happen.

---

Then the country is lost.
It belongs to the most fertile culture that can cross a border.

---

It certainly is in trouble. Our only real option is to keep them from crossing the border.

BMX Bandit said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

if the intent was to grant foreign babies citizenship, then why did they add the second requirement "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

---

This is non sensible. The number of babies born to foreign dignitaries in the US is way to small to command text in an amendment. This would be like adding a clause to an amendment specifically targeting babies born in the airspace over the US. It's so esoteric, it's not worth mentioning as part of the text of the amendment.

To exclude kids of diplomats & dignitaries, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US

---

you feeling its non sensible is not as relevant as the fact the drafters of the amendment believed this to be an important category to exclude.

they literally discussed it on the senate floor. the drafters wanted to clear that children of dignitaries and invading forces were not covered. that part is not really debateable.

the debate is over children born to people here illegally. and as said multiple times, that issue has not yet been examined by SCOTUS. but it likely will be.

---

My point was that, if that was the only category to exclude, that it isn't even worth mentioning.

In the discussions on the senate floor, children of "foreigners, aliens" were also thought as a group of people to exclude.

To be very clear here, I don't think we disagree at all on this topic. "the debate is over children born to people here illegally." is 100% accurate.

My hope is that SCOTUS will agree that illegal alien kids are not citizens, but I'm hoping, not expecting.

Quote:

---

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he "owed immediate allegiance to" his tribe and not the United States.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

---

The fact that Congress used its authority to further define the status of American Indians and their children in 1924 gives credence to the ability of Congress to pass legislation to further define whether it applies to children born here to parents here illegally or on an anchor baby tourist visa.

LINK

I disagree with some folks here on this but I think the Constitution is just a document that has laws that needs to be changed with time.
You cannot take a 18th century document and use that to decide situations in the 21st century. Times change, new problems arise, old ones go away.

We have citizenship issues now that we did not have 200 years ago. We cannot cling to old laws like Muslims cling toa 7th century Quran. They are in a terrible shape because of this, and if we don't wisen up, we will go the same route.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

if the intent was to grant foreign babies citizenship, then why did they add the second requirement "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

---

This is non sensible. The number of babies born to foreign dignitaries in the US is way to small to command text in an amendment. This would be like adding a clause to an amendment specifically targeting babies born in the airspace over the US. It's so esoteric, it's not worth mentioning as part of the text of the amendment.

To exclude kids of diplomats & dignitaries, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US

---

And at the time, the number of children born to parents who intended not to stay and become residents of the US would have been exceptionally small. Maybe even way to small to command text in an amendment.

I agree that birthright citizenship needs to go away but that must be done via an amendment which will, unfortunately, probably never happen.

---

The "select to the jurisdiction thereof" text goes back to diplomatic immunity, which goes all the way back to Roman law. The reasoning is that the Romans wanted to encourage diplomatic relations with foreign nations, so you did that so the host country wouldn't arrest them as soon as they set foot on your soil.

HTownAg98 said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

if the intent was to grant foreign babies citizenship, then why did they add the second requirement "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

---

This is non sensible. The number of babies born to foreign dignitaries in the US is way to small to command text in an amendment. This would be like adding a clause to an amendment specifically targeting babies born in the airspace over the US. It's so esoteric, it's not worth mentioning as part of the text of the amendment.

To exclude kids of diplomats & dignitaries, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US

---

And at the time, the number of children born to parents who intended not to stay and become residents of the US would have been exceptionally small. Maybe even way to small to command text in an amendment.

I agree that birthright citizenship needs to go away but that must be done via an amendment which will, unfortunately, probably never happen.

---

The "select to the jurisdiction thereof" text goes back to diplomatic immunity, which goes all the way back to Roman law. The reasoning is that the Romans wanted to encourage diplomatic relations with foreign nations, so you did that so the host country wouldn't arrest them as soon as they set foot on your soil.

---

I would love for that to be true, and it may, it just doesn't seem obvious to me that it is. I would love to be proven wrong.