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?

---

Twist the interpretation all you want but you are wrong. A person fleeing their country remain subject to the jurisdiction of their home country until they become a citizen of the country they entered illegally. Sad that the bleeding heart interpretation harms your country.

jacketman03 said:

---

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.

---

The 1866 law and the 14th Amendment apply to slaves.

Quote:

---

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

---

A decision this year from SCOTUS is very unlikely. And definitely not on the merits.

They may never even hear the merits through these cases. Lower Courts could rule that Trump didn't have power to do this through an EO and never reach the merits. SCOTUS likely doesn't even take that case up.

That would probably spur Congress to act, which i think is proper vehicle anyway given the language of 14th amendment. Then you'd eventually get a SCOTUS ruling.

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

Why would they not have just left it at anyone born in the US?

The jurisdiction modifier can only be exclusionary considering it adds a requirement.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

How did we start giving citizenship to illegals in the first place? When and/or who was the first to start granting illegal alien babies citizenship after the 14th amendment was passed?

I think that this EO will and should start the process for a Constitutional Amendment to fix/clarify this provision of the 14th Amendment, which was clearly aimed at the newly freed slaves. This EO will be litigated by all the usual suspects and very possibly be invalidated or whatever legal term applies for it being tossed out. The CA process SHOULD start now anyway. 'Birthright citizenship' as currently abused/scammed by illegal aliens needs to be eliminated.

It's definitely a process worth starting, but I don't think the votes are there in Congress or enough states.

bmks270 said:

---

How did we start giving citizenship to illegals in the first place? When and/or who was the first to start granting illegal alien babies citizenship after the 14th amendment was passed?

---

Wong Ark Kim was 1898. That fully solidified the 14th amendment as a citizenship vehicle, not just about slaves.

bobbranco said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

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.

---

The 1866 law and the 14th Amendment apply to slaves.

---

The people who drafted the 14th Amendment could have added language that said that, but they didn't.

WBBQ74 said:

---

I think that this EO will and should start the process for a Constitutional Amendment to fix/clarify this provision of the 14th Amendment, which was clearly aimed at the newly freed slaves. This EO will be litigated by all the usual suspects and very possibly be invalidated or whatever legal term applies for it being tossed out. The CA process SHOULD start now anyway. 'Birthright citizenship' as currently abused/scammed by illegal aliens needs to be eliminated.

---

While I definitely agree that we need to end birthright citizenship, an EO was not the way to do it. Granted, he may intentionally be issuing the EO in order to put it before the Supreme Court to get them to rule. My guess is they'd uphold the current understanding of the amendment.

Unfortunately, our country is so divided that you're not going to be able to get the additional 7 states (based on the recent election) to agree to any amendment that R's want, and vice-versa. The only way we'd see any movement on that front is a true constitutional conventional like the original where there's haggling and horse trading to pass amendments each side wants. Good in theory, but with the way Congress does their mutual backscratching, I'd suspect we wouldn't like what comes out of it.

You are likely right but I am thinking Trump is playing the long game on this. IF he is able to get some good things done perhaps there are some 2026 coattails and the GOP increases seat counts in both the House and Senate. Is this a 'tipping point' in American political history and we are too close to see it yet? 2025 will be an interesting year.

1873: Wong Ark Kim was born to Chinese parents in California. There was no "illegal immigration" at that time. The parents were barred from becoming citizens under US law and a treaty.

1882: Chinese exclusion act is passed, barring Chinese laborer immigration (first time we have illegal immigration)

1890: parents move back to China, he goes to visit them. He returns to US with no problem.

1896: he visits his parents again in China. This time he's denied re-entry based on Chinese exclusion act.


Court holds he's a citizen ftom birth.


So court has never analyzed the issue of a child born to people here illegally.

BMX Bandit said:

---

1873: Wong Ark Kim was born to Chinese parents in California. There was no "illegal immigration" at that time. The parents were barred from becoming citizens under US law and a treaty.

1882: Chinese exclusion act is passed, barring Chinese laborer immigration (first time we have illegal immigration)

1890: parents move back to China, he goes to visit them. He returns to US with no problem.

1896: he visits his parents again in China. This time he's denied re-entry based on Chinese exclusion act.


Court holds he's a citizen ftom birth.


So court has never analyzed the issue of a child born to people here illegally.

---

No need to address it, because the Constitution already does. In 14 (1) you see them make a distinction between "all/any persons" and citizens. If you read "all/any persons" as only legal immigrants, that has a cascading effect to a lot of other amendments and will have some major unintended consequences.

The only legal argument is the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". If we say illegal immigrants aren't subject to US jurisdiction, then that also leads down a rocky path. If they're not subject to our jurisdiction, does that effectively make them sovereign citizens and they can't be charged with anything? We can't have our cake and eat it too.

Whether we like it or not, if we want to maintain some form of Constitutional high ground, then we don't bypass things because they're inconvenient. If we're ok with bypassing proper process, then we're no different than (D)'s, and we just hit the gas pedal on the inevitable collapse.

BMX Bandit said:

---

1873: Wong Ark Kim was born to Chinese parents in California. There was no "illegal immigration" at that time. The parents were barred from becoming citizens under US law and a treaty.

1882: Chinese exclusion act is passed, barring Chinese laborer immigration (first time we have illegal immigration)

1890: parents move back to China, he goes to visit them. He returns to US with no problem.

1896: he visits his parents again in China. This time he's denied re-entry based on Chinese exclusion act.


Court holds he's a citizen ftom birth.


So court has never analyzed the issue of a child born to people here illegally.

---

Except, in Wong Kim Ark, the Court said that, in addition to "Indians not taxed ", everybody born in the US is a citizen unless they are 1) the children of foreign diplomats, 2) born on a foreign public ship, or 3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation.

Now, you say illegal immigration first became a thing in 1882, and Wong Kim Ark was issued in 1898, so if there was an exclusion for the children of illegal immigrants, why didn't the Court mention it?

Would you be ok with deporting the illegal parents and allowing them to chose whether to leave their kid in the US?

mickeyrig06sq3 said:

---

Whether we like it or not, if we want to maintain some form of Constitutional high ground, then we don't bypass things because they're inconvenient. If we're ok with bypassing proper process, then we're no different than (D)'s, and we just hit the gas pedal on the inevitable collapse.

---

Like I said yesterday, if Trump can end birthright citizenship by executive order, then the next Dem president can end the personal right to keep and bear arms by executive order.

Where are we on this? Do the kids of non citizens and non GC holders born today get citizenship or is the EO valid from sometime in the future?

What comes next? Is Trump going to get Supreme Court approval make this into law?

They have already tried. They also tried to use OSHA to implement the completely moronic vaccine mandate that only complete ****s supported. It's already happening. I don't agree with it as I think you deport the parents. That being said let the courts figure it out.

If the noncitizen parent is not entitled to relief under 241(b)(3) of the INA, sure.

The funny thing about being a nation of laws is that the laws bind the government just as well as the governed.

Yep and we should detain the illegals and the child goes into foster care. I am for that 100%.

Noncitizen lol. How about illegals. I'm not talking about legal immigrants I am talking illegal aliens. They need locked up and deported. Lock them up until their hearing

infinity ag said:

---

Where are we on this? Do the kids of non citizens and non GC holders born today get citizenship or is the EO valid from sometime in the future?

What comes next? Is Trump going to get Supreme Court approval make this into law?

---

It starts on 2/20/2025 I believe.


I think that's his hope, but I can see a 9-0 without getting to the merits, and a 6-3 decision against him if it does.

It's a ridiculous law illegals have been using for decades. You shouldn't be able to crossover the border illegally, drop a kid, and get citizenship. You should be here legally in order for the child to be a citizen.

Agreed. Then Manny will start a thread about how the Supreme Court is being blackmailed. This is Manny's dream thread.

infinity ag said:

---

Where are we on this? Do the kids of non citizens and non GC holders born today get citizenship or is the EO valid from sometime in the future?

---

read the thread

Yeah, that's how the system is designed. However, with the children in foster care, the relevant standard is "best interests of the child", and absent a showing of unfitness, the presumption is that it's in the best interests to be with their parents.

jacketman03 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

1873: Wong Ark Kim was born to Chinese parents in California. There was no "illegal immigration" at that time. The parents were barred from becoming citizens under US law and a treaty.

1882: Chinese exclusion act is passed, barring Chinese laborer immigration (first time we have illegal immigration)

1890: parents move back to China, he goes to visit them. He returns to US with no problem.

1896: he visits his parents again in China. This time he's denied re-entry based on Chinese exclusion act.


Court holds he's a citizen ftom birth.


So court has never analyzed the issue of a child born to people here illegally.

---

Except, in Wong Kim Ark, the Court said that, in addition to "Indians not taxed ", everybody born in the US is a citizen unless they are 1) the children of foreign diplomats, 2) born on a foreign public ship, or 3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation.

Now, you say illegal immigration first became a thing in 1882, and Wong Kim Ark was issued in 1898, so if there was an exclusion for the children of illegal immigrants, why didn't the Court mention it?

---

it was not mentioned because it was not part of the case. his parents were not in America illegally when he was born..

Except the parents need to be detained if here illegally. We don't let's criminals out of jail/prison because it's the best interest of the child. The parents are making the choice of sending their kids to foster care

The reality is Trump issuing the EO is the only way to get anything moving on the issue. Congress clearly won't ever get anything done on the topic. Trump and his advisors/lawyers had to have known that doing this would quickly end up with legal challenges that will hopefully force the matter to the supreme court to make a ruling based on today's world rather than what the country was dealing with 130+ years ago. An EO is obviously never going to hold up over time as it can be easily changed. But if it can force the hand of the judicial branch to finally make a clear ruling on the matter then it is worth the effort.

94AGBQ said:

---

The reality is Trump issuing the EO is the only way to get anything moving on the issue. Congress clearly won't ever get anything done on the topic. Trump and his advisors/lawyers had to have known that doing this would quickly end up with legal challenges that will hopefully force the matter to the supreme court to make a ruling based on today's world rather than what the country was dealing with 130+ years ago. An EO is obviously never going to hold up over time as it can be easily changed. But if it can force the hand of the judicial branch to finally make a clear ruling on the matter then it is worth the effort.

---

I agree with this.

Regardless of how the SC decides on this, it'll at least be over and done with, plus it'll be one less political wedge issue.

BMX Bandit said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

1873: Wong Ark Kim was born to Chinese parents in California. There was no "illegal immigration" at that time. The parents were barred from becoming citizens under US law and a treaty.

1882: Chinese exclusion act is passed, barring Chinese laborer immigration (first time we have illegal immigration)

1890: parents move back to China, he goes to visit them. He returns to US with no problem.

1896: he visits his parents again in China. This time he's denied re-entry based on Chinese exclusion act.


Court holds he's a citizen ftom birth.


So court has never analyzed the issue of a child born to people here illegally.

---

Except, in Wong Kim Ark, the Court said that, in addition to "Indians not taxed ", everybody born in the US is a citizen unless they are 1) the children of foreign diplomats, 2) born on a foreign public ship, or 3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation.

Now, you say illegal immigration first became a thing in 1882, and Wong Kim Ark was issued in 1898, so if there was an exclusion for the children of illegal immigrants, why didn't the Court mention it?

---

it was not mentioned because it was not part of the case. his parents were not in America illegally when he was born..

---

And he wasn't an "Indian not taxed", he wasn't born on a foreign public ship, the government didn't claim that his parents were foreign diplomats, and there were no allegations that he was born to enemy forces, but the Supreme Court still analyzed those exceptions, and said they are the only exceptions.

aggiehawg said:

---

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

---

Oh, well, if the cities of San Fran and Washington DC say so.

none of what you posted changes that SCOTUS has never taken up the issue of the citizenship of a person born of parents here illegally.

I'm not trying to argue the merits one way or the other. Wong Ark Kim is going to play an enormous role in any decision. but anyone telling you it is directly on point either doesn't know the fact of that case or is lying to you.

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

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

---

100%