Won't hold up the king can't just recreate the constitution.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

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.

---

And maybe not give them a prize for doing so?

aggiehawg said:

---

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

---

Due to treaties and other various laws and unique sovereignty issues, whether Indians were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States government was, at most, a muddled mess and it was generally accepted by the Courts and others that the 14th Amendment did not affirmatively grant citizenship to Indians.

Congress affirmatively extending citizenship beyond that granted by the 14th Amendment is quite a different question than Congress attempting to narrow citizenship granted by the 14th Amendment.



As to that claim the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment would be "unnecessary", it was viewed as necessary due to the 1857 Supreme Court ruling in the Dred Scott case that citizenship did not extend to Black Africans.

But beyond that issue, it was also viewed as just an affirmative statement of existing common law into the Constitution to ensure its durability as the law of the land.

TexasRebel said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

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.

---

And maybe not give them a prize for doing so?

---

I agree, but it seems to me that removing said prize must be done through an amendment.

Sq 17 said:

---

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

---

Actual cases that needed clarification? That's your opinion not a fact. I think the birthright citizenship needs clarification

chickencoupe16 said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

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.

---

And maybe not give them a prize for doing so?

---

I agree, but it seems to be that removing said prize must be done through an amendment.

---

Or clarification that anything you illegally bring into the country is ineligible for citizenship. Including spermatozoa, ova, zygotes, morula, blastocysts, embryos, or fetuses.

A lot of people are wondering why Trump can simply use an executive order to revoke birthright citizenship for illegal aliens without Congress first passing a law. The answer actually surprised me. It turns out that the law that supposedly confers birthright citizenship--8 USC…

— John Reeves (@reeveslawstl) January 26, 2025

The rest:

Quote:

---

A lot of people are wondering why Trump can simply use an executive order to revoke birthright citizenship for illegal aliens without Congress first passing a law. The answer actually surprised me. It turns out that the law that supposedly confers birthright citizenship--8 USC 1401(a), doesn't explicitly confer it on the children of illegal immigrants. Rather, that law reproduces the language of the Fourteenth Amendment by saying that a "person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a citizen. By signing this executive order, Trump isn't actually claiming he is changing the law. Rather, he is claiming that, as the President entrusted with executing the law, the law as properly interpreted does not include within its term the children of illegal immigrants. It will thus be up to the Courts to decide whether this interpretation is correct.

---

Certainly one possible interpretation.

will25u said:

---

A lot of people are wondering why Trump can simply use an executive order to revoke birthright citizenship for illegal aliens without Congress first passing a law. The answer actually surprised me. It turns out that the law that supposedly confers birthright citizenship--8 USC…

— John Reeves (@reeveslawstl) January 26, 2025

---

Awesome.

I am a self-appointed, non-attorney spokesman for the constitutional language challenged majority of parties interested in this issue.

Simply stated, having read the comments on this thread made by persons who are known to possess solid reputations for astute and accurate interpretations of legalese, birthright citizenship should be struck down by the SCOTUS.

However, SCOTUS justices' opinions can resemble a Whitman's Sampler box of chocolates, so only the uncertainty of their collective, final ruling is certain.

Moreover, I won't be surprised if Bill Clinton is contracted by the SCOTUS to assist in defining the meaning of keywords in the 14th Amendment.

Most of those words have more than 2 letters.

Ridiculous that you do not even have to be born in the US to claim birthright citizenship. The valley has lying midwives magically bestowing citizenship to a pootload of illegals with fraudulent documents.

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Ridiculous that you do not even have to be born in the US to claim birthright citizenship. The valley has lying midwives magically bestowing citizenship to a pootload of illegals with fraudulent documents.

---

Yup. Apparently several babies born south of the Rio Grande miraculously became citizens back in the day.

nortex97 said:

---

RDS weighs in:

The purpose of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was to overturn the Dred Scott case, not to bestow citizenship on those present in the US against the people’s will as expressed in law.

The Trump executive order will be litigated until the Supreme Court decides the… https://t.co/MLFbnDWCw3

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) January 21, 2025

---

My boy

TRUMP: "Birthright citizenship...was meant for the children of slaves. This was not meant for the whole world to come in & pile into the United States." pic.twitter.com/nyvjqgOfB9

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) January 30, 2025

If simply being born here grants you citizenship then why did Congress need to pass the Indian Citizenship Act? Yeah exactly…because they weren't subject to the complete jurisdiction of the US, they were allegiant to another entity….AS ARE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!

Boom. DOJ's Brief opposing the motion for preliminary injunction in the birthright citizenship case is powerful, and a very accurate assessment of the original public meaning of the Citizenship Clause. https://t.co/ZiCt4ytuQR. Let's hope the judge in the case gives it the…

— John Eastman (@DrJohnEastman) February 2, 2025

Massachucetts case, 1st Circuit leaves the injunction in place during the appeal.

BREAKING: The First Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the Trump administration's effort to lift a nationwide block on its effort to restrict birthright citizenship. https://t.co/gor6j179Kt pic.twitter.com/81KyFktTN0

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) March 11, 2025

onto SCOTUS. though I think they will not get involved at this juncture as this was not a merits decision at circuit

Quote:

---

onto SCOTUS. though I think they will not get involved at this juncture as this was not a merits decision at circuit

---

Remind me. Has anyone actually been affected yet? Much less harmed? If not, how could merits even be addressed in court?

i didn't mean to imply merits should have been addressed, I was saying why SCOTUS is not going to take this up ahead of the REEEing about Roberts and Barrett.

TexasRebel said:

---

Most of those words have more than 2 letters.

---

Take these complaints to the General board!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

onto SCOTUS. though I think they will not get involved at this juncture as this was not a merits decision at circuit

---

Remind me. Has anyone actually been affected yet? Much less harmed? If not, how could merits even be addressed in court?

---

The only harm asserted is that the states cannot ask for the Enumeration At Birth application fee for a SSN and federal funds for health insurance that is only available to the states for U.S. citizen births, and are not likely to get that fee in the future even if the states win.

Somehow, that harm is more important than the harm to the Trump administration in starting to craft legislation similar to the EO.

Thanks for sharing this BMX. Not surprised at the result. The argumentation is maddening.

So, in line with Trump's Memo from last week, could Trump ask the plaintiff states to issue a security bond in the amount of health insurance reimbursements provided to the states for the kids in question here?

Strategically, this is very likely not the case to press that issue, but, conceptually, could they? I'm not that familiar with surety bonds.

they could ask, but extremely unlikely one would ever be required in a case where constitutional rights are at issue

BMX Bandit said:

---

they could ask, but extremely unlikely one would ever be required in a case where constitutional rights are at issue

---

Tend to agree with that. Different circumstances on this one. How could one even estimate how much and for how long such a bond would be, first off.

Inb4 dems freak out and take the "20" side of yet another issue where 80% of Americans agree with republicans.

Thanks guys.

The calculation estimate itself is probably bad enough to make the sureity idea DOA. Probably caselaw out there on the ability to accurately calculate the appropriate size of a bond, but the idea is so hair-brained in this context to not be worth researching.

TexasRebel said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

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.

---

And maybe not give them a prize for doing so?

---

Or in time it may become necessary for border states to break away, and then arbitrarily remove any such citizenship from their new constitutions, to create a new approach. Then "rejoin" -- a cynical enough leadership could preside over such a process.

I don't think you'll find any caselaw on "accurate calculation" because the rule leaves it to the discretion of the District court

BMX Bandit said:

---

I don't think you'll find any caselaw on "accurate calculation" because the rule leaves it to the discretion of the District court

---

Interesting.

Very weird to me. What would be the court's basis for any bond amount then, if the judge is not advised on the amount of potential damages?

I have seen before an economist quantify potential damages from an injunction for a defendant just to show that there is no "irreparable harm".

I would think that if surety bonds for the other types of civil litigation discussed above are going to be used, such expertise might be helpful to the court.

BMX Bandit said:

---

I don't think you'll find any caselaw on "accurate calculation" because the rule leaves it to the discretion of the District court

---

But the judge will take evidence and argument on the matter, correct? Or is that discretionary at this stage of the proceedings, too? (Which once again is a consequence of the s***ty procedural postures of these cases.)

Quote:

---

What would be the court's basis for any bond amount then, if the judge is not advised on the amount of potential damages?

---

In a commercial setting, the defendant can pit on evidence of damages. But when someone constitutionally rights are potentially deprived, it's not an easy calculation on harm to the government and the equities weigh in favor of not requiring a bond

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

I don't think you'll find any caselaw on "accurate calculation" because the rule leaves it to the discretion of the District court

---

But the judge will take evidence and argument on the matter, correct? Or is that discretionary at this stage of the proceedings, too? (Which once again is a consequence of the s***ty procedural postures of these cases.)

---

I don't know that it's required and I really doubt we see DoJ pushing for a security bond in con law cases.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

What would be the court's basis for any bond amount then, if the judge is not advised on the amount of potential damages?

---

In a commercial setting, the defendant can pit on evidence of damages. But when someone constitutionally rights are potentially deprived, it's not an easy calculation on harm to the government and the equities weigh in favor of not requiring a bond

---

I mean, this makes sense to me.

But the "irreparable harm" we are talking about in the present case is the amount of federal funding the states would receive to support health insurance and EAB fees for children of illegal aliens. I don't see that as a civil rights issue, as it is the states that are suing. The plaintiff states went trough a lot of argument about standing that I won't pretend to know one iota about, but I didn't see any arguments that individual human rights were damaged during those standing arguments.

Even with all that said, this would be a terrible case to push for a bond, I think, strategically. I would want to save that argument for all of the fraudulent spending cases, which are much more cut and dried, and much more likely to result in better case law in that regard.