Quote:

---

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

---

This is not correct.

The irreparable harm analysis is what a plaintiff may suffer, not the defendant.

The defendant question under rule 65 is " the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained."

Quote:

---

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

---

At this stage, how is it a con law situation? With these plaintiffs, who has been denied a constitutional right...yet? The states?

Just trying to navigate the procedure here and the legit versus the non-ripe arguments. Case an actual controversy too for that matter.

The legal maze here is worthy of the scene in The Shining. I am obviously out of practice but my research ain't turning up a lot that has much precedent.

Can you point me in a better direction so I can be better informed? Just give me a case name and I can easily go from there.

TIA, bud.

Quote:

---

how is it a con law situation?

---

How else would you characterize "is this person a citizen?"


The issue isn't whether they have tort damages or are owed something contractually.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

how is it a con law situation?

---

How else would you characterize "is this person a citizen?"


The issue isn't whether they have tort damages or are owed something contractually.

---

Because no one has been born after March 15th yet? Isn't that the date?

Unless there was a change, thought it was 2/19?

But if it's 3/15, then it's a question of ripeness of the constitutional question.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

This is not correct.

The irreparable harm analysis is what a plaintiff may suffer, not the defendant.

The defendant question under rule 65 is " the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained."

---

Well, I got the topics right, even if I got the terminology wrong.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A884/352145/20250314121246980_SCOTUS%20Birthright.pdf

Amicus brief filed by 18 congressmen including Texans Nehls, Hunt and (trigger warning) Roy

oral arguments set

Quote:

---

Consideration of the application (24A884) for partial stay
presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court
is deferred pending oral argument. Consideration of the
application (24A885) for partial stay presented to Justice Kagan
and by her referred to the Court is deferred pending oral
argument. Consideration of the application (24A886) for partial
stay presented to Justice Jackson and by her referred to the
Court is deferred pending oral argument. The applications are
consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral
argument. The applications are set for oral argument at 10 a.m.
on Thursday, May 15, 2025

---

this is not on the merits, but on whether to stay enforcement of the injunctions while the case is pending.

Sounds like a chance to take on the "nationwide injunction" issue?

Pichael Thompson said:

---

No rewards for illegal scumbag behavior


If you can't bother to come here legally, your spawn don't get to stay either

---

It's ridiculous. It is like the cops catching a burgler of a business and when they were caught they already had their hand in the cash drawer.Therefore, the courts let them just keep the money. It is that insane!! YOU SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR STEALING FROM A BUSINESS OR STEALNG CITIZENSHIP !!

Read the brief here https://t.co/uxk9GBS09W

— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) April 30, 2025

NEW: Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenshiphttps://t.co/dfPEVOtlRI

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) December 5, 2025

As I wrote some months ago:
Those who take Trump’s position generally acknowledge that they are arguing against the long-dominant understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, an understanding derived from the Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim…

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) December 5, 2025

Will be interesting to see how the handle the case.

A narrow ruling that only decides if Trump has the authority.

A broad ruling which settles the issue for good, one way or the other.

So so so pivotal to what happens next. Make or break imo.

Interestingly, birthright citizenship is a Western Hemisphere thing. Europe, Australia, and Asia don't allow it. Hell, even Africa doesn't allow it.

How will SCOTUS decide? On what basis? Or will they make up the rules? Can Congress change it?

We are not in 1776 AD and things are vastly different and we cannot go back to old rules all the time.

A tourist visiting the US popping out a baby on US soil cannot be a US citizen. WTF? The constt framers didn't imagine this would be a trick.

U.S. v Wong Kim Ark can easily be distinguished because he was born to Chinese parents here legally (under the laws in existence at that time.) They were legal residents, not tourists.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

I want birthright citizenship to die so badly. Such a stupid right that is not needed in modern times.

---

"but but but my friend Abdul was born when his parents came here illegally, but he loves America and has started businesses to hire Americans.... do you want these people to be sent away??"

aggiehawg said:

---

U.S. v Wong Kim Ark can easily be distinguished because he was born to Chinese parents here legally (under the laws in existence at that time. They were legal residents, not tourists.

---

Thanks for the court reference.

On another note, the last 4 flights this year I took out of LAX/SFO to Asia were easily carrying 15-20 newborns to Asian moms taking them back home. I'm sure it was a giant coincidence they were born here on vacation and got citizenship.

Quote:

---

Thanks for the court reference.

On another note, the last 4 flights this year I took out of LAX/SFO to Asia were easily carrying 15-20 newborns to Asian moms taking them back home. I'm sure it was a giant coincidence they were born here on vacation and got citizenship.

---

Birth tourism is a big business on the West Coast.

Yes, from what I have read, theres not been a case dealing specifically with children born to those here illegally.

I think theres a pathway to establishing thay children born to parents here illegally are not inherently citizens.

Hoyt Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

U.S. v Wong Kim Ark can easily be distinguished because he was born to Chinese parents here legally (under the laws in existence at that time. They were legal residents, not tourists.

---

Thanks for the court reference.

On another note, the last 4 flights this year I took out of LAX/SFO to Asia were easily carrying 15-20 newborns to Asian moms taking them back home. I'm sure it was a giant coincidence they were born here on vacation and got citizenship.

---

If the dems win in the 2028 election, hordes of foreign pregnant women will be lining up at the border in Mexico waiting for inauguration day.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Yes, from what I have read, theres not been a case dealing specifically with children born to those here illegally.

I think theres a pathway to establishing thay children born to parents here illegally are not inherently citizens.

---

One of the many reasons I do not like using Wong Kim Ark case is due to the dearth of immigration laws when it was decided. And there were few immigration laws when the 14th was drafted and passed that the subject would not have occurred to them. And the US was still growing adding new states and territories so immigration was viewed much more favorably.

It is not anathema to being a strict constructionist to factor in those considerations. Do I think SCOTUS goes that far? Not really but it is always a possibility. I never thought Roe would be overturned either.

aggiehawg said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Yes, from what I have read, theres not been a case dealing specifically with children born to those here illegally.

I think theres a pathway to establishing thay children born to parents here illegally are not inherently citizens.

---

One of the many reasons I do noeasy.

using Wong Kim Ark case is due to the dearth of immigration laws when it was decided. And there were few immigration laws when the 14th was drafted and passed that the subject would not have occurred to them. And the US was still growing adding new states and territories so immigration was viewed much more favorably.

It is not anathema to being a strict constructionist to factor in those considerations. Do I think SCOTUS goes that far? Not really but it is always a possibility. I never thought Roe would be overturned either.

---

Roe being overturned hasn't really stopped abortions from happening though, and in that vein, if the courts give a president the ability to alter or remove citizenship for a certain group, would another president be able just to undo what Trump does if given the chance? Like the back and forth with EOs?

No Spin Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Yes, from what I have read, theres not been a case dealing specifically with children born to those here illegally.

I think theres a pathway to establishing thay children born to parents here illegally are not inherently citizens.

---

One of the many reasons I do noeasy.

using Wong Kim Ark case is due to the dearth of immigration laws when it was decided. And there were few immigration laws when the 14th was drafted and passed that the subject would not have occurred to them. And the US was still growing adding new states and territories so immigration was viewed much more favorably.

It is not anathema to being a strict constructionist to factor in those considerations. Do I think SCOTUS goes that far? Not really but it is always a possibility. I never thought Roe would be overturned either.

---

Roe being overturned hasn't really stopped abortions from happening though, and in that vein, if the courts give a president the ability to alter or remove citizenship for a certain group, would another president be able just to undo what Trump does if given the chance? Like the back and forth with EOs?

---

Removing citizenship won't happen as just about anyone affected would be rendered stateless. Stopping the future granting of citizenship could. If the city rules against birthright citizenship, it would not be something that could be undone with an EO. They would invalidate the entire idea of birthright citizenship through a new interpretation of the 14th amendment. The EO is just to trigger the case.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Yes, from what I have read, theres not been a case dealing specifically with children born to those here illegally.

I think theres a pathway to establishing thay children born to parents here illegally are not inherently citizens.

---

One of the many reasons I do noeasy.

using Wong Kim Ark case is due to the dearth of immigration laws when it was decided. And there were few immigration laws when the 14th was drafted and passed that the subject would not have occurred to them. And the US was still growing adding new states and territories so immigration was viewed much more favorably.

It is not anathema to being a strict constructionist to factor in those considerations. Do I think SCOTUS goes that far? Not really but it is always a possibility. I never thought Roe would be overturned either.

---

Roe being overturned hasn't really stopped abortions from happening though, and in that vein, if the courts give a president the ability to alter or remove citizenship for a certain group, would another president be able just to undo what Trump does if given the chance? Like the back and forth with EOs?

---

Removing citizenship won't happen as just about anyone affected would be rendered stateless. Stopping the future granting of citizenship could. If the city rules against birthright citizenship, it would not be something that could be undone with an EO. They would invalidate the entire idea of birthright citizenship through a new interpretation of the 14th amendment. The EO is just to trigger the case.

---

Interesting.

So, like abortions, would people just be able to go to places that would give them citizenship?

Rapier108 said:

---

Will be interesting to see how the handle the case.

A narrow ruling that only decides if Trump has the authority.

A broad ruling which settles the issue for good, one way or the other.

---

I don't see how the court could rule narrowly. Of course, history is rife with bad and cowardly USSC decisions, but on this issue Trump's EO basically says "stop illegal issuance of citizenship" which the chief executive would clearly have the authority to do IF the practice is unconstitutional.

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

---

What is more important? The clear wording or the desired interpretation?

It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States", not "All persons born to citizens of the United states or naturalized in the United States".

A Constitutional Amendment could revise that or could even remove it.

What I don't understand is why the parents should be permitted to stay just because their son or daughter is a citizen. Let the baby stay and send the parents home. Or let the parents take the baby home, but the baby can come back if and when he wishes.

Note that even if the baby never returned to the US, being a citizen of the US, he or she would still owe income taxes in the US.

No, itd be like daca i suppose for the time being.

Congress would have to act. I could envision something along the lines of those here now whom gained citizenship in such a way have nothing changed but those about gain citizenship that way would only get the citizenship of their parents.

Or, maybe some form kf mass asylum is given to people who were born here but parents were illegal.

Its a tough situation but one that must be resolved. We, as a nation, cannot sustain both birthright citizenship and open borders (every time the dems are in charge).

No Spin Ag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Yes, from what I have read, theres not been a case dealing specifically with children born to those here illegally.

I think theres a pathway to establishing thay children born to parents here illegally are not inherently citizens.

---

One of the many reasons I do noeasy.

using Wong Kim Ark case is due to the dearth of immigration laws when it was decided. And there were few immigration laws when the 14th was drafted and passed that the subject would not have occurred to them. And the US was still growing adding new states and territories so immigration was viewed much more favorably.

It is not anathema to being a strict constructionist to factor in those considerations. Do I think SCOTUS goes that far? Not really but it is always a possibility. I never thought Roe would be overturned either.

---

Roe being overturned hasn't really stopped abortions from happening though, and in that vein, if the courts give a president the ability to alter or remove citizenship for a certain group, would another president be able just to undo what Trump does if given the chance? Like the back and forth with EOs?

---

Removing citizenship won't happen as just about anyone affected would be rendered stateless. Stopping the future granting of citizenship could. If the city rules against birthright citizenship, it would not be something that could be undone with an EO. They would invalidate the entire idea of birthright citizenship through a new interpretation of the 14th amendment. The EO is just to trigger the case.

---

Interesting.

So, like abortions, would people just be able to go to places that would give them citizenship?

---

No. Citizenship is a national matter, so a federal ruling would be a new standard for birth in all US states and territories.

The question is a "grandfather clause" question. If the court does the right thing, there won't be any retroactive revocations. It'll just be a new standard that will withhold citizenship from newborns who's parents remain subjects of foreign states.

eric76 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

---

What is more important? The clear wording or the desired interpretation?

It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States", not "All persons born to citizens of the United states or naturalized in the United States".

A Constitutional Amendment could revise that or could even remove it.

What I don't understand is why the parents should be permitted to stay just because their son or daughter is a citizen. Let the baby stay and send the parents home. Or let the parents take the baby home, but the baby can come back if and when he wishes.

Note that even if the baby never returned to the US, being a citizen of the US, he or she would still owe income taxes in the US.

---

LIAR.

Don't truncate the sentence. An honest man in the right would present it WITH the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and argue from a position of honesty. Your post is a naked lie by omission.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

eric76 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

---

What is more important? The clear wording or the desired interpretation?

It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States", not "All persons born to citizens of the United states or naturalized in the United States".

A Constitutional Amendment could revise that or could even remove it.

What I don't understand is why the parents should be permitted to stay just because their son or daughter is a citizen. Let the baby stay and send the parents home. Or let the parents take the baby home, but the baby can come back if and when he wishes.

Note that even if the baby never returned to the US, being a citizen of the US, he or she would still owe income taxes in the US.

---

LIAR.

Don't truncate the sentence. An honest man in the right would present it WITH the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and argue from a position of honesty. Your post is a naked lie by omission.

---

Isn't anyone in this country subject to the jurisdiction of this country while they are here?

Note that the sovereign citizens claim that they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of this country and because of that, they cannot be prosecuted here. Of course, their argument falls flat real quick.

If you visit London, do you become a subject of the crown, or are you temporarily subject to their laws?

The qualifier was known to exclude foreign dignitaries children and Indians following the amendment's ratification, meaning that "subject" refers to "allegiance" rather than mere presence.

Leaving out part of a sentence because you don't understand it doesn't grant you "honesty by ignorance." Spreading lies is spreading lies.

Here here!