Federal Judge Blocks Trump's 'Blatantly Unconstitutional' Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
“I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is,” said Judge John C. Coughenour.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the birthright citizenship executive order that President Donald Trump issued on Monday, which seeks to bar certain children born to foreign parents on U.S. soil from automatically receiving citizenship. The order is now on hold for at least two weeks.
"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," said Western District of Washington Judge John C. Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee. "This is a blatantly unconstitutional order."
On the first night of his second presidential term, Trump signed a long-promised executive order challenging the 14th Amendment's guarantee that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The 14th Amendment "has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States," the order countered.
Babies born in the U.S. to unlawfully present parents or to lawfully but temporarily present parents (such as people "on a student, work, or tourist visa") would no longer automatically receive citizenship, according to the order. Trump directed government departments and agencies to stop issuing and recognizing citizenship-affirming documents to those children starting 30 days after the order was issued.
The order quickly faced lawsuits from states, immigrant advocacy groups, and expectant mothers. On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, three of its New England state chapters, and several other organizations sued Trump in federal court in New Hampshire. The next day, 18 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court and four others sued in Washington.
The latter lawsuit estimated that in the U.S., over 150,000 children are born to undocumented parents each year. Trump's executive order "would deny rights and benefits" to those individuals "and leave some of them stateless," it argued, per a New York Times report. The states also held that "the administration's order created an immediate burden for them, requiring them to alter systems that determine eligibility for federal-backed programs."
Many legal experts have expressed skepticism that a birthright citizenship executive order would pass constitutional muster. Coughenour proved sympathetic to that argument. "Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order," he said. "It just boggles my mind."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Of course.
This was never going to see the light of day.
If only there were some…”Supreme” court to decide this.
They may get to.
They will certainly get to. Their reasoning should be interesting.
Not if they agree with a lower court.
Twat we are looking at now is a WAR between the anchor babies v/s the anchor rabies!!! There are those who say that anchor babies are human, too... Just like the SACRED Fartilized Egg Smells... And that we should tread carefully when giving Government Almighty yet MORE power to decide WHO is worthy and WHO is snot... V/S those who say that ALL who oppose them are foam-at-the-mouth Mad-Persons who are infected with rabies!!! If'n ye will SNOT Bless MEEE with INFINITE Government Almighty border powers, ye are of the EVIL Tribe!!!
They did.
https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html
They also decided Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Roe v. Wade. All three have been overturned or superseded.
Then it's disingenuous for others to argue that this EO shouldn't be blocked until such time as SCOTUS rules otherwise.
yeah, but paper thin connection there. Dred Scott was wrong on the face of it as the 2 dissents showed. Plessy undid the government's own racism!!...and roe v wade usurped state rights wholesale
DRED SCOTT
In the argument, it was said that a colored citizen would not be an agreeable member of society. This is more a matter of taste than of law. Several of the states have admitted persons of color to the right of suffrage, and, in this view, have recognized them as citizens, and this has been done in the slave as well as the free states. On the question of citizenship, it must be admitted that we have not been very fastidious. Under the late treaty with Mexico, we have made citizens of all grades, combinations, and colors. The same was done in the admission of Louisiana and Florida. No one ever doubted, and no court ever held that the people of these territories did not become citizens under the treaty. They have exercised all the rights of citizens, without being naturalized under the acts of Congress. . . .
Plessy v Ferguson
Homer Plessy was part white and part black. Out of eight great-grandparents, only one had been black. The other seven were white. But he was treated as black under the “Jim Crow,” or segregation laws
Roe v Wade
By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the states widely recognized unborn children as persons. Twenty-three states and six territories referred to the fetus as a “child” in their anti-abortion statutes. Twenty-eight labeled abortion as an “offense[] against the person” or a functionally equivalent classification. Most strikingly, the same Ohio legislature that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in January 1867 passed legislation criminalizing abortion at all stages in April. The committee that reviewed the bill, which was composed of several Senators who had voted for ratification of the amendment, declared in their report that abortion “at any stage of existence” is “child-murder.” Given the historical context, it is clear that the public meaning of the term “person” in 1868 included the preborn.
Lol. They had Fiona write this.
The judge issued an emotional and predecloratory statement before the DoJ lawyer was even allowed to speak. Judging a case prior to presentation should have had the judge removing himself from the case itself.
He then called for anyone who wrote the EO to be disbarred, further showing he was unhinged.
The question of birthright citizenship has long been discussed by legal scholars. Tom Wood even sites two Yale scholars who discussed this in 2018, scholars who want more immigration but could read the intentions and historical drafting of the 14th Amendment.
https://mailchi.mp/tomwoods/birthright?e=503752da56
What was meant by the clause was that you had to be subject to no other sovereign.
Senator Jacob Howard drafted the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is what he said it meant: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." (Emphasis added.)
Well, if we value honesty, that right there should settle it.
Congressman John Bingham, sometimes called the father of the Fourteenth Amendment itself, held that its meaning was that "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." (Emphasis added.)
Then even the Civil Rights Act of 1866 makes the same claims in the determination showing jurisdiction means not being beholden to foreign powers.
If illegal immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the US as required, why are they then given the rights to seek consule from foreign embassies? As one example.
It's a matter of law. Congress deals with that. If it's interpretation of law that's the courts.
I knew this was dead letter like Biden's student loan EOs.
Which law grants birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants?
You're skipping a huge step in your argument. I just gave you a law that extended from the 14th. Where is your law?
Whether someone is a citizen or not would be a matter of law.
I'm not saying there has to be a law, or is a law, but that is a matter of law.
The president is of limited authority and deciding who is and who is not a citizen would not be under his purview. It would be a matter of congress.
The president is ordered yours execute and faithfully apply the constitution. In the reading of the 14th by MANY constitutional scholars, it did not grant jus soli citizenship to illegal immigrants.
An EO can state how enforcement of the constitution is to be interpreted.
You're simply avoiding making an argument.
Why does almost the totality of evidence around the 14th from a historical perspective tend to show it does not extend citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants?
You've accepted a practice based on no legal construction.
I listened to an interview with a former constitutional judge. He quit his job because he went into it thinking it was to uphold the Constitution, but that wasn't his job. His job was to conjure up justification for whatever unconstitutional legislation, regulation, or executive order that was put onto his desk.
The scholars you speak so highly of and gush about are why the guy quit.
Well, if an unknown interviewee says so, I guess I’m convinced
Well golly, your attack on the person totally refuted their argument. Good job. You get extra bonus points for deliberately ignoring what they said. Well done. Bravo. You do lose a few points for not saying they were a leftist.
If they’re as imaginary as your girlfriend, I think they can safely be ignored.
Note. Sarc won't read the Tom woods article or the Mises one.
I’m not sure he can even read.
It's not that he can't read, it's that he won't.
Constitutional *judge*? What the heck even is that?
""You've accepted a practice based on no legal construction.""
You would be wrong. I have never accepted the practice. I believe anchor babies should not be a thing.
So now you didn't make an argument above, but disputed mine and Toms views based on the historical evidence?
The only view I'm disputing is if the president can do this by EO.
How do you think ambiguous laws are to be executed? You seem to agree it is as a floor ambiguous.
BTW, this isn't a law but an amendment.
Enforcing an ambiguous law either way would be wrong, so how does the president resolve the ambiguity?
""An EO can state how enforcement of the constitution is to be interpreted.""
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
It's the "Democrats did it first, that makes it ok" clause.
Well they are the leaders of corruption.
And you never cared when the Dems did it.
Fuck you sarc.
Take care clause. Article II. Presidential oath.
When Congress nor the courts has not acted, the president must interpert and uphold the constitution.
Is this not taught anymore?
In the absence of a law, do you think the president can't act in a constitutional manner??
So this is interesting. Multiple lawsuits were filed; in one of them on the east coast the DOJ was arguing against the judge needing to rule soon because the order didn't go into effect for 30days [so has not yet gone into effect.] The judge asked the govt lawyer "So if a child of undocumented immigrants is born today, they would be a citizen?" And the govt lawyer conceded. That as of now... a child born of undocumented immigrants on u.s. soil is a citizen.
Make of that what you will.
This is due to the same principle as you why courts stated they couldn't remove those already granted DACA but future DACA applicants could be stopped not a lawyer.
It's the president's job to enforce the law? Isn't that the purview of the executive?
You guys really just want the Presidency to be the equivalent of the British Monarchy by popular vote, don't you? Rip even it's legitimate powers away from it and hand it all to unelected bureaucrats that the executive chief officer can't even hire? That's not constitutional.
The president is ordered yours execute and faithfully apply the constitution.
Conveniently, NOW Jesse argues that the president should have the unilateral power to decide what the constitution means.
But when it was Biden claiming that the constitution permitted him to do student loan forgiveness, well... in THAT case, the president has no power to decide what the constitution means, the courts have to tell him to sit down and shut up.
This is just so transparently pathetic. It is just so plainly obvious now that Jesse and his ilk don't even pretend to believe in rules anymore. To them the ACTUAL rules are long since irrelevant, and now they only use the "rules" as weapons to wield against the people they don't like.
Jesse: When Congress nor the courts has not acted, the president must interpert and uphold the constitution.
Lying Jeffy: Conveniently, NOW Jesse argues that the president should have the unilateral power to decide what the constitution means.
See how easily he lies?
It's the air he breathes.
He lies easier than he eats a tub of ice cream.
He is a dishonest shit weasel.
The constitutional reasoning for student loan forgiveness was so ridiculously specious even the people that wanted it done admitted that there was no authority to do so.
This at least hinges on how you interpret “subject to the jurisdiction” and good faith arguments can be made on behalf of the no birthright side (see the Tom Woods link)
FWIW, I’d rather the decision either be made by Congress (I’m sure they could pass some law that clarifies the meaning) or reviewed by the SC (it seems pretty obvious that Wong wouldn’t apply to illegal immigrants as his parents were here on visas, opinions about the rightness/wrongness of their decision notwithstanding).
Simply avoiding the question doesn't answer the question.
When did Congress extend the jus Soli doctrine now practiced?
8 U.S. Code § 1401
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
But this just brings us back to the question of what is "under legal jurisdiction".
I can see you've decided you talk in circles instead of making an argument.
So how about answering a simple one.
Why does all the historical text regarding the 14th Amendment not include those subject to foreign powers as the meaning of jurisdiction? Even the Ark case made this argument when stating the parents were under the jurisdiction of china.
Now. Can you please make an argument instead of talking in circles?
No stipulationi of the Constution can be considered superfluous.
It does not simply say 'born in the US"
I remain unconvinced on the jurisdiction arguments. Other than diplomats and their families and perhaps some other special status people like that, the US and the states can apply all the laws to anyone in the territory they have jurisdiction over as they see fit. There may be some legal right to consul access, but they are still entirely subject to the laws of the US and the state they are in.
And to be clear, I am not saying this because that's what I want it to mean. I do think it's silly to automatically grant citizenship, especially to people born of parents who are visiting on a temporary visa, or waiting on an asylum ruling, or here illegally.
I do hope it gets to the supreme court. It will be interesting to see how they interpret this.
Again, being under legal jurisdiction does not mean being under US jurisdiction. This is a complete misunderstanding of the concept.
In hour city you are likely under the jurisdiction of the city, the state, and the Federal government. There are multiple jurisdictions. Likewise legal jurisdiction is just one part of a jurisdiction.
If an illegal returns home they are not under the same jurisdiction as a US citizen. They can not access a US embassy, they don't have to pay US taxes.
This is also why I cited the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which used similar language as the 14th and is temporal in nature.
“This amendment which I have offered, is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States,” he said.
The next line in the publication matches the quote in the post above word for word.
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/01/judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-executive-order-on-birthright-citizenship/
All temporal evidence around the time of the 14th mentions this concept. Jurisdiction means not subjects of a foreign nation.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 includes:
All persons born in the USA, and not subject to any foreign power….are Citizens of the USA’.
"Subject to" is not the same as "Subject of".
I don't know if you're conflating on purpose or if you're astoundingly stupid. It's always so hard to tell.
It's "thereof".
You compound his mistake !!!! Realy I am breathless that such bad reasoning can be yoked to such enthusiastic sense of being right. WoW !!!!
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
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.
Also, as I mention below, there's a case to be made the other way as well. And this is getting into the stupidity where Reason utterly fucks any notion of fundamental human rights or reciprocity and conflates/gets retarded by the distinction between Transnational Law, International Law, and Intranational Law.
That is, if the 14A applies to the children whose parents are outside US jurisdiction, then it should grant people within the US the ability to put their own children outside US jurisdiction. But it doesn't do that and Reason doesn't want it to do that because they want a Hitlerian or Stalinesque version of borders and law that do exactly what they say.
Not exactly to impugn Zeb specifically below but it's a perfect example of people who are not (I believe in Zeb's case) or cannot (in Reason's case) conceive both sides (or more) of an issue arguing about how there can only be one side of the issue and it is invariably the right, makes sense, and just works.
And as I mentioned below, I have yet to see any evidence or even an argument from one side other than "it just means what i think it means."
There is a habit where "truths" we accepted early in life and never researched are hard to change one's mind on. Even in the face of evidence.
Not even 'habit' and 'change one's mind', closer to disability, like an adult who can't swim, tie their own shoelaces*, or do basic arithmetic without using their fingers.
*Again, not speaking to Zeb, specifically. Stumbling over an untied shoelace is not being unable to tie ones own shoes.
THen you are not looking hard or wisely.
"Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
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."
It's not territorial jurisdiction but personal or political jurisdiction. The authority your countries government has over you no matter where you are on the planet.
I don't know how you can read the plain text of the Amendment and claim that the word "jurisdiction" has such a specific and narrow meaning like what you describe.
It says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It doesn't say "political jurisdiction" or "territorial jurisdiction". So it seems to mean ANY jurisdiction.
No, the authors were not retarded pedants like you. They had a specific meaning in mind, which is revealed through their contemporaneous writings.
To a post modernist like Jeff, words just mean what he wants them to mean. His entire thought system is out of 1984.
If my wife and I go to Canada we’re still “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US Government (barring the lengthy process of renouncing our citizenship) but we’d still be subject to their laws while in their country. This is what seems nonsensical about the subject argument to me.
It’s not like slaves weren’t subject to the laws of the several states or the federal government, but they weren’t considered citizens. Which was kind of the whole point of the 14th.
Essentially the argument you are getting to would be that only children of citizens are automatically citizens. But when the 14th was written the recently freed slaves weren't citizens, and if they fled to Canada the US would have no jurisdiction over them anymore. Thus, this reading causes the 14th to fail at its core purpose of granting citizenship to freed slaves.
That is an interesting counterpoint.
I will have to think about that.
"Judging a case prior to presentation should have had the judge removing himself from the case itself. He then called for anyone who wrote the EO to be disbarred"
JesseAZ, have you ever heard the old saying, "What goes around comes around?" I think it is fitting and proper that people responding to Trump should do so in the same mode that Trump dishes it out in. Furthermore, I am hoping that if enough Federal officials realize soon that only they are in a position to assume the proper responsibilities of their offices and call them as they see them, it might force the juggernaut to change course back to a limited-government democratic republic.
Lol. Is this a serious argument?
Orange man bad so the judge is justified in his abuse of legal ethics?
What was outlandish with the words of thr EO?
What a fucking childish argument you've made.
Still you are not only wrong but you can't write
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
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.
"It's ok because they did it first" doesn't go both ways you ninny. It's only ok if Democrats did it first.
Anyone who says otherwise is a leftist.
Wondering if you are genuinely this retarded or have just gone 100% troll?
It's not about "X did it first so it's OK for Y to do it", it's about X and Y doing the same thing but X getting away with it while Y gets thrown in jail/impeached/fined/censored/de-banked/etc.
Sometimes I think you are retarded, while other times I think your only reason for being is to disagree with people you hate.
It's a tough call.
Why not both?
He then called for anyone who wrote the EO to be disbarred, further showing he was unhinged.
ROFLMAO. [Waves imaginary wand at POTUS] *Poof* You're disbarred!
When you're catching flak...
Senator Jacob Howard drafted the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is what he said it meant: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." (Emphasis added.)
But we live under the Constitution, not under the document entitled "Quotes by Senator Jacob Howard".
Bully for the Honorable Senator Jacob Howard believed that the 14th Amendment did not permit birthright citizenship. Too bad that he and his colleagues didn't write an amendment that was clearer to that effect.
LMAO!
Bully for the Honorable Senator Jacob Howard believed that the 14th Amendment did not permit birthright citizenship. Too bad that he and his colleagues didn't write an amendment that was clearer to that effect.
You are the worst kind of ignorant. Willfully.
I have seen you agree with Michael Hihn on his jackass interpretation of the 2A that relies on parsing the meaning of militia based on contemporaneous writings. Yet here you want to do exactly the opposite and ignore the stated meaning and intent from the Congressional record.
Go fuck yourself.
What are you even talking about? I have always supported an individual right to keep and bear arms.
"Jurisdiction" is not exclusive. As you yourself point out, we Americans are subject to multiple jurisdictions - local, state, federal. That we are obligated to obey state laws does not make the state-level jurisdiction *exclusive* and permit us to claim exemption from federal law obligations. I.e., I can't claim that I don't have to pay federal income tax because I already paid state income tax.
The 14th amendment says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It does not say "EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction".
You can cite the 1866 Civil Rights Act all you want, but the truth of the matter is, the 1866 Civil Rights Act was passed by Congress *before* the 14th Amendment was passed by Congress, and the authors of the 1866 Civil Rights Act had every opportunity to put the exact same language into the text of the 14th Amendment *but they chose not to*. Why is that?
Why doesn't the "privileges and immunities clause" just state the "Bill of Rights"?
You're not making a legitimate argument. UR trying to deceive the intent.
Judges like this should be targeted for cancellation. These people are not in charge anymore, and need to go. This judge should not be allowed to keep his position. Nor should he be allowed to remain a member of the bar.
It’s time for some 21st century McCarthyism.
I don't know about that. I do have some pointed questions about his having made up his mind before even hearing the case and then lecturing people like he did. Very unprofessional. Trump did this early on knowing it would be challenged and end up before SCOTUS which is his goal. Let's stop arguing about it and let SCOTUS rule on this once and for all.
A "textualist" view of the Constitution would say that the ordinary meaning of the words, rather than what one Congressman had in mind, is what should control the issue.
And was Howard referring to just one group of people who would not be covered, or to two? His statement can certainly be read as simply saying that the citizenship clause won't apply to those "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." That is how it is interpreted today. A second group of people whom the Amendment didn't initially apply to were American Indians living in their own communities in the West. In the 19th century, they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of United States laws. Today, they are.
I mean I gave you many of the drifters and other closely temporal laws saying the same thing.
Ever think it is you who doesn't understand the meaning of words?
That's what i see in your post.
"The judge issued an emotional and predecloratory statement before the DoJ lawyer was even allowed to speak. Judging a case prior to presentation should have had the judge removing himself from the case itself."
I'm not surprised a judge somewhere stepped in as this was headed upwards anyways but I was a little stunned at the judges manner in the case especially interrupting the lawyer before he got 2 words out of his mouth and making clear he had prejudged the case. This should not be done under any circumstances.
Very good, Jesseaz. After having actually READ Sen.Howard's comments as recorded in the Congressional Globe (precursor to the Congressional Record) as found in the Library of Congress' records, I immediately was able to re-evaluate my long time opinion on the matter. As a life-long registered and voting Libertarian, I DO have some differences with the plank and philosophical leanings of my party.
If you read even more of the text of the debate between Sen. Howard of Michigan and his questioner, it becomes even clearer.
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Are you reading this as a list? "Who" can be a modifier. It could mean "foreigners who belong to the families of ambassadors...", not all foreigners. I would think this interpretation of the phrase would make more sense considering that there were no "illegal immigrants" at the time of the authoring of the amendment.
There were no illegal immigrants at the time the Constitution was ratified, and the record is clear the framers of the Amendment intended everyone born on U.S. soil save the children of diplomats and those who were part of invading armies.
"[F]oreigners, aliens, who belong to the families [of diplomats]" isn't a list. It's a single class of persons. In this context, "foreigners" and "aliens" are synonyms.
Trump is throwing all of his campaign promises at the wall to see what sticks. This one was never going to stick. Trump doesn't care - he kept his campaign promise. I'm sure half of his domestic staff are from south of the border and more than a few prospective employees in his hotels were born in the US of illegal immigrants. He clearly enjoys driving the Democrats and other socialists into a sputtering incoherent rage and watching them waste their resources on court filings while he dreams up more outrageous slings and arrows for them to chew on after they wind down from this barrage.
Lots of fun assumptions in your spittle there.
They're learning from experience. It's a cynical move that has unfortunately been shown to be effective.
Even if blatantly unconstitutional, issuing the order forces opponents to spend scarce time, money, and energy fighting it.
And there is no downside to using the tactic. The worst that can happen is that the Court invalidates the executive order ... or the unconstitutional law ... and nothing can invalidate an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling except another Supreme Court ruling.
Trump was asked about this today by a reporter (he actually talks to reporters every day!). His response was basically, yeah we knew what this judge was gonna do, next question? This district court judge is completely irrelevant. He can bloviate all he wants but he's a pimple on the ass of the Trump strategy. Birthright citizenship is not settled law and simply repeating it over and over again doesn't change that fact. Richard Posner has been arguing the opposite for decades and, like him or not, he is a highly respected judge and legal scholar. This is not spaghetti on the wall. It is a serious constitutional question and Trump is going to force the Supreme court to resolve it whether they want to or not.
I've noticed that nobody here or this judge can actually address the questions raised by the EO. Their answer is always absent any argument supporting their interpretation of the 14th. Often dismissing actual evidence showing their interpretation to be wrong.
So one side is providing evidence with the other side simply yelling nuh uh.
They do have precedent. Birthright has been going on for 150 years.
Roe had precedence. Dresd Scott had precedence.
That's not an argument. That's blind acceptance.
Or are we back to super precedences?
Likewise there is not even a constitutional precedence. It is just how it has been implemented sans ruling or even law.
There have been quite a number of things that went on under color of law for over a hundred years and suddenly were not done anymore. I'm sure you can name several.
There is another reason to bring the issue up even if it does ultimately lose at SCOTUS and that is to bring it to the public's attention and start a movement to change that provision of the Constitution. Most people don't think about birthright citizenship in their daily lives and this could be a first step towards a constitutional amendment that redefines citizenship in the USA.
If so, then I applaud the effort. However, I question the ability of ANYONE to "force" the Supreme Court to settle ANY "serious constitutional question" if they don't want to.
"Birthright citizenship is not settled law"
Gaear, "settled law" does not mean that there is no legal discussion among legal scholars! Settled law means that repeated official rulings in actual courts have not varied significantly over time and that different courts in different jurisdictions have not significantly contradicted each other. When a ruling in one jurisdiction is cited as precedent for new concurrent rulings in similar cases, that tends to "settle" the law. Scholarly opinions certainly matter in influencing the evolution of interpretations, but they do not constitute un-settling of settled law.
This one will be decided by SCOTUS. That was always going to be the case.
You had fun being illogical but I don't see how you can be a serious adult and base your whole argument on the suspicion that 'half of his staff are from south of the border."
Maybe you have Tourettes
""the administration's order created an immediate burden for them, requiring them to alter systems that determine eligibility for federal-backed programs.""
I thought illegals did not get welfare. This seems to indicate the opposite.
Under the assumption of birthright citizenship, the children of illegals were not illegals.
Under the same assumption, the illegal parents of legal children are collecting on dependents. Assuming federal law doesn't suddenly dictate the fundamentals of accounting, the fungibility of money, or other laws of biology/physics/reality..
I don't think this is addressing welfare but rather addressing documentation for the proof of citizenship. President Trump has directed the withholding of federal documentation of citizenship like a SS number.
Cope and seethe, Fiona.
Anyway, Trump just signed an Executive Order to declassify the JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr. files!
Do you guys think Trump will survive until the weekend? The CIA must being going ape at the moment.
Next up, the Edward Snowden pardon.
He’s going full Samson on them.
Doc Samson, Brock Samson, or Leonard Samson?
Definitely an Israelites Samson - tear down the edifice, destroying yourself but taking all the ill-fated bureaucracy and intelligence traitors with him.
I hear that the CIA is particularly fond of the "Bulgarian umbrella" used on Georgi Markov 7 September 1978 in London.
They will ignore. Then who you gonna call.
Agreed. The Deep State is under no threat, nor will their lock on the real power in Washington, DC come under any significant threat anytime soon. The only thing that could threaten them would be a blanket firing of every Federal employee and dissolution of every Federal agency, starting from scratch with a tiny government and no federal laws or regulations left on the books. Reconvene Congress with instructions to start writing any laws they think are essential and remove any Supreme Court justice from the bench who issues an opinion allowing unconstitutional laws and regulations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister
Clapper lied to Congress. They called him back to call him on it and told them he lied to their face. Nothing was done.
In 2016 a powerful Senator gives unsolicited advice to the incoming president not to mess the intel community because they will screw you six ways to Sunday.
Two real events. They are above the law, and beyond the reach is what I learned.
Perhaps these people, should be doxxed, and treated appropriately, by angry mobs in the streets.
Cool. Fire them all and change the locks.
Problem is no one is really going to know because we have no idea what there is to start with. No matter how much documentation is produced the conspiracy minded will claim there is some information missing.
Yeah, the “conspiracy minded “ actually believe there was a lab leak even after they admitted it happened.
Can you cite where anyone admitted a lab leaked happened? I certainly don't think the Chinese government has admitted anything.
You really are retarded
It's easier for someone to be fooled than to admit they've been fooled.
This is why the Branch Covidians can never admit they were wrong.
Yes, he is a democrat.
Wr“Initial Outbreak Could Have Been Contained in China if Beijing Had Not Covered it Up”
“Xi Lied to Obfuscate His Role in the Cover-Up”
“PLA Contractor Involved in the Construction of the Wuhan Institute of Virology”
“PLA Presence at WIV Continued After Construction Completed”
“Official Chinese Websites Show Robust Cooperation between WIV and PLA”
“Cyber Evidence of PLA Shadow Labs at WIV and Bioengineering University”ong they have.
""No matter how much documentation is produced the conspiracy minded will claim there is some information missing.""
Sounds like Biden's DOJ hunting papers at Mar-a-Lago.
He's going full ham. You love to see it.
Unfortunately I doubt there's gonna be much to pick through in there, but it's still a glorious step in the right direction. I mean nobody else was itching to do this so leviathan can't be too happy about it.
Why would something like this require an Executive order?
The President should email the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and tell them to send them over to him by messenger, by the end of business tomorrow or US Marshalls will be there on Monday to pick them up.
Guillotine them all.
Wow! Trump says "all will be revealed" and says give the pen to RFK Jr. That's some historical shit right there.
Trump is in grave danger and will be so for the next four years. They've already tried to kill him twice, and the SS is obviously compromised. Trump's assassination could be the last straw that precipitates the civil war. Even if he dies in office of natural causes, his supporters will assume he was murdered and react accordingly.
They let an armed person into Congress today apparently.
Is there any other kind of danger?
English not your first language?
BUT J D Vance replace the six-shooter Trump with a nuclear warhead. Just as stupid as hell Biden was protected by dumber that dust Kamala , the opposite is operative here. Vance would be more trouble than they ever dreamed of
What to expect from the released documents
https://x.com/lpmi/status/1882579946792685848
In an unrelated note, after clicking on this post, X showed me LPMI shared a Justin Amash post and I learned that I am blocked by Justin Amash. It's a proud day for me.
Oohhh….. I’ll have to try that too.
You're on his list!
Part of me hopes the Epstein list is next. Another part of me hopes we won't see the Epstein list until people on the list are arrested.
This seems like an effort to move the so called Overton Window. Birthright citizenship has been recognized for ages, but in the mid 19th Century when the 14th amendment was adopted if a child was born to a non-citizen parent it was likely that the parents and child would live the remainder of their lives in the US. That is not necessarily the case any longer The interesting question is not whether it would require a constitutional amendment to change, as I think it would, but whether continuing birthright citizenship is really a good idea and should we try to change it?
Actually birthright citizenship is extremely rare. The last country in Europe that had it was Ireland and it was repealed by a huge margin in referendum. Also recently repealed in the Dominican Republic to keep the Haitians out.
It doesn’t appear to be rare as this link to a map shows, but it does seem to be very common in the western hemisphere and less common elsewhere.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-birthright-citizenship
No, interesting question at all
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
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.
We'll see, this will go to the Supreme Court.
And if the SC approves radical birthright citizenship, we will see a Constitutional amendment proposed that will enjoy wide public support. Birthright citizenship is an anachronism that needs to be corrected.
Western District of Washington. Uh huh. No judge-shopping going on, move along, nothing to see here. Reagan appointee notwithstanding, Coughenour struck down a sexual predator law, has had decisions reversed for being too lenient and doesn't accept minimum sentencing guidelines, visits criminals in prison, and, at 84, is, I'm sure, at least as sharp as Dementia Joe.
Has been at the same level of judgeship for 40 years. Truly a scholar.
Yeah, nothing like originating a bunch of right-wing cases at the Northern District of Texas...
I'm for just tossing the 14th and 15th Amendments since they were enacted unconstitutionally.
Lincoln's entire basis of the War Between the States was that the Southern states did not secede and their union governments were still extant even if they weren't in session. This was how Lincoln termed all the Confederates as secessionists.
After the war, the Confederates returned to their states and took power back in constitutionally elected governments since by Lincoln's definition those states had always been in the Union. However, those state governments refused to ratify either the 14th and 15th Amendments which could not pass without at least some southern states. End of story? Hardly. The Radical Republicans then decided that those states were no longer in the Union and installed military juantas to govern the states, while disenfranchising most of the white males in the South. The Radical Republicans then required those states to reapply for admission, one requirement of which was the passing of the 14th and 15th Amendments, a clearly illegal and unconstitutional stipulation since it abrogated those states' right to refuse passage. Thus these amendments should be of no constitutional force.
Food for thought
Listen, if you're into tossing amendments you don't like, how about tossing the 16th amendment too. 😉
And the 17th.
The Southern states did secede from the Union without the consent of Congress or 3/4 of all states. The Civil War then ensued after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into full effect. Their newly formed Confederate States of America was then conquered. After being defeated, captured, and occupied by the Union, each state had to be re-admitted to Union, including ratifying the Constitution and all its amendments (including the 13th amendment) again to regain the right to vote and representation in Congress.
You really missed the opportunity to state that the "South will rise again!" No. It won't. There are consequences to losing civil wars and half those traitor bastards that became public officials in rebel states should have actually been in prison for treason.
Regardless, this klan fantasy is not happening. The 14th amend is not going to be repealed. Kindly go f yourself.
Not a lawyer. Are an activist.
You quote Lincoln but he would never support what you say.
The key to understanding the 14th Amendment is Abraham Lincoln’s belief that the Constitution rests on the Declaration's principles. The Federal did not have jurisdiction to force
the states to respect the rights recognized by the Declaration. The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to give the federal government the authority to ensure that the states respected
the individual rights recognized by the Declaration of Independence.
Can someone explain how anyone has standing in the "birthright citizenship" case on 23 January 2025? Who has been harmed at this date? In so many other cases, standing was extensively discussed. I don't understand.
Since when do (Reason) libertarians wait for an actual victim to litigate?
Fabricate novel legal theory whole cloth, smack it on the ass, and hold on for the ride! If it starts to slow down, feed it some baseless allegations and unrelated testimony and keep riding until it collapses. Then proceed to beat it until someone forcibly separates you from it.
Wong Kim Ark v US is the SCOTUS case to look at.
The parents of WKA were legal resident aliens; both parents here legally. WKA was born in the US, and was therefore a citizen.
There has never been a case directly on point at SCOTUS, asking the constitutional question if a child born within the US to illegal aliens gets US citizenship. This is the crux of 'subject to the jurisdiction of'; under whose jurisdiction are the illegal aliens and therefore their child subject to (and what does 'subject to' actually mean).
I'll just add one thing. Remember how CO and other states tried to remove POTUS Trump from the ballot during the campaign. Back then, the legal libs said it was a slam dunk, any state could do it. You were called idiots and cultists for even thinking it wasn't constitutional. It was obvious! Plain as day! Until it wasn't, and a 9-0 SCOTUS said NFW.
Now we are being told we are idiots and whatnot because we can't see it is obvious that a child born within the US to illegal aliens absolutely must be a citizen and that cannot be questioned. Yeah, ok. We saw this movie before during the campaign.
The upshot: Let's see a test case. How hard will it be to find two illegals with a kid born here? Plenty of people in CA fit that profile. They need to suffer a legal injury (citizenship denial), and litigate it.
The funny thing about the people who often cite this case as proof of jus soli citizenship ignore the courts determined the parents were under the jurisdiction of china and not the US. Ruining their argument about what jurisdiction means.
What if many fighting age Ukrainian males fled to America with their pregnant wives and girlfriends? Once the kid is born, he or she is effectively American, and not Ukrainian? We can't return the draft dodgers because of the kid? Ukraine can't draft the kid once he hits 20? What happens to Ukraine if it loses their bloodline this way?
The status quo on the 14th amendment doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It would allow vacationing foreigners under no persecution or hardship to give birth to American citizens. And their country of origin lose one of their own to American jurisdiction. Without any protocol or procedures ever having taken place.
The 14th amendment merely reaffirmed rights of existing Americans. Only KBJ thinks it gave NEW rights to people. I think there's enough sanity in the SC now that the issue will kicked back to legislative level. Not granting DEFAULT birthright citizenship to all babies born in America doesn't mean there can be no paths to citizenship.
What if the entire population of Iceland decided to sneak into the US all at once and all the hot blond Icelandic women all decided to get pregnant and have babies? Would we be forced to accept their children as US citizens? Huh????
You can posit whatever absurd hypothetical that you want, doesn't make it a reasonable argument.
"What if the entire population of Iceland decided to sneak into the US all at once and all the hot blond Icelandic women all decided to get pregnant and have babies? Would we be forced to accept their children as US citizens? Huh????
You can posit whatever absurd hypothetical that you want, doesn't make it a reasonable argument."
LOL, what? Anchor babies are already a reality. Chinese women were caught giving birth in OC hotels. It's technically illegal for you to get married just to get citizenship.
It's a reasonable question, chemjeff. Should white people be able to move across Mexico, have kids, and then be declared "Mexican" on the spot? These places have cheap places to live, white people would abuse that system way more than immigrants.
I'm Korean. If you and your pregnant wife came to my motherland illegally and claimed birthright citizenship to your kid, your ass would be laughed out of town. You're NOT Korean. You don't speak the language, haven't lived there, don't know anything about my land or its custom, or went through any of their protocols to obtain citizenship. You'd be derided as an arrogant little ugly American claiming "I'm Korean just like you" to a bunch of people who lived there since the founding of the land. It doesn't matter that there are Americans there who contribute to their economy.
The scenario I posed is a logical and plausible extension of events that are already occurring. If we let them, most Ukrainians men would have fled to America by the millions. Not Poland or Germany, but America. Your "hot icelandic women want to come to America" is some BS you pulled out of your ass.
It's a simple question Chemjeff. Is that a way a country should be ran? Never mind whether a nation's economy can withstand such a policy. What nation would form alliances with someone would would grant blanket citizenship or a path to its future generation? You think most Koreans wouldn't kill for the opportunity to escape to LA?
You claim to champion dispassionate logic. Is the status quo on 14th amendment birthright citizenship logical?
Everything is proceeding as I have forseen.
Imagine libertarians being against 'statelessness'.
My thought too.
One of my earliest "anti-immigration" stances: As long as I can opt out of citizenship and taxes, I don't care if immigrants come and effectively opt in. Otherwise, the whole thing explicitly violates equal protection as some people can opt in, or not, but neither I nor my parents have the choice and never did. Moreover, it's an explicit pyramid scheme to get/make more people to pay in at the lower levels.
Everyone still seems to be under the impression that the "under the jurisdiction" thing refers to the birthing mother. It doesn't, it refers to the neonate, over whom only the mother's national authority can claim any power. (And then normally only that of nationality.)
You can't sue it, you can't prosecute it, you can't declare it an illegal, it can't be deposed or subpoenaed. It isn't subject to jurisdiction.
Its parents' status is irrelevant.
Sothey can abort and kill this future citizen? Yeah, makes a lot of sense NOT ...non-citizens killing an American life
The 14th Amendment used some language lifted directly from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which defined 'under the jurisdiction of' as not applying to those "subject to foreign powers." In 1872 the Slaughter - House ruling applied that definition specifically to foreign diplomats and their staffs. In 1898 the US vs Wong Ark ruling granted Wong Ark citizenship but also stated that the ruling applied only to "children born of lawful permanent residents."
To avow that children born in the US to tourists or illegal immigrants are not granted citizenship is not a great leap from precedent. Congress can pass a law defining the issue and it should hold up in the Supreme Court.
We can argue and debate all we want. The SCOTUS will have to give an opinion here. The amendment is open to debate becasue its not clear enough who it covers. Let them rule and settle the debate.
"the administration's order created an immediate burden for them, requiring them to alter systems that determine eligibility for federal-backed programs."
Well, duh. That's one of the major reasons for the order.
I'm sure pretty soon someone is going take the jurisdiction justification of this Executive Order and turn it around on a judge to indicate that the President declared through the EO that being undocumented implies they are not subject to the court's jurisdiction and the case must be dismissed, no matter the crime. As with diplomats, the claim would go that they are immune to prosecution and the only thing the state or federal government can do is expelled or deport them. Perhaps a blessing in disguise!
Well that would be a stupid argument. Being subject to the laws of the country you’re in is not the same as being a subject of that country.
If simply being born in the United States makes someone a citizen of the United States, then why did it take an act of Congress in 1924 to give birthright citizenship to Native Americans?
Native Americans were legally in this country, but the Supreme Court held they were not American Citizens in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884). Yet, somehow, children born of a woman illegally in the United States, a woman who is a citizen of a foreign nation, "are" American Citizens?
If simply being born in the United States automatically makes that person an American citizen, then why were the 13th, 14th, and 15 Amendments necessary to confer citizenship on former slaves who were born in the United States?
It took an act of Congress to make Native Americans born in the United States American Citizens, and it required amending the Constitution to make former slaves American citizens and to give persons the right to vote regardless of race or color, and so why doesn't it require an act of Congress or an amendment to the Constitution to make children born of an illegal alien in the United States American citizens?
And no, the answer is not United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
Indians and Pacific Islanders are treated as a nation within the nation. Hence the history of treaties with the Indians and others.
TrueLibertarian2, you might think you answered my question, but you didn't.
So they were considered of a foreign nation under jurisdiction of a foreign government... Just like illegal immigrants.
Work it out buddy.
1. The Dred Scott decision declared that even former slaves could not be citizens. The 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision.
2. As was noted, before the 1920s, Native Americans were regarded as NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US at all, they were ONLY subject to the jurisdiction of their respective tribes. That changed when the law was passed granting them citizenship.
chemjeff radical individualist, did you even bother to read the two Supreme Court cases I cited?
He doesn't get the response talking points until next week.
'"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," said Western District of Washington Judge John C. Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee. "This is a blatantly unconstitutional order."'
I guess Coughenour was not paying attention for the past four years.
I guess no 2A related cases have ever crossed his desk in 40 years.
I don’t like the idea or order at all.
I don’t think there’s that much of a benefit to being a citizen over being a Person. Both are protected by the full force of our laws and protections. The only things I can come up with off the top of my head are deportation, right to vote, and perhaps some social program benefits (though I think that undocumented people may get other benefits that more than make up for the loss).
I don’t know of any specific court cases where this was ruled upon. My ignorance does not mean there have been cases
I do understand the argument that tRump is making, and it is at least “interesting” if not mean spirited and not libertarian in the least.
Since it is a constitutional issue, making this order is likely intended as the first step towards having the Supreme Court rule on it.
I would point out that the conservative view involves original intent and that’s what the administration is arguing.
I don’t think there’s that much of a benefit to being a citizen over being a Person.
Then you are grossly uninformed.
They are nor both protected by the full force of our government. Again, they can't go petition a US embassy in a foreign country.
Do you guys even bother to think through your arguments a tiny bit?
Fine. Any kid popped out onto US dirt can be a citizen, and stay. But if mom (and dad) are here on a temporary basis, or here illegally, they have to go. Let the bawling being.
So, if that's your position, let the record show that the "pro-family-values" team wants to take kids away from their parents, and the team that claims to be opposed to welfare wants to place these kids into foster homes or other situations where they are going to get welfare.
Then let the kids leave with their illegal parents.
The “unbiased” courts are so quick to block everything Conservative - but it takes years to stop trannys in schools for some reason.
Getting really sick and tired of trying to follow laws UNEQUALLY APPLIED (especially if you’re a CIS White Male).
Cis white males are THE most discriminated against population in the entire history of the world! It's so unfair!
They kind of are, you disingenuous piece of shit, and I say that as someone who is technically brown.
You're such utter garbage.
All schooling should be private anyway.
Homeschooling was awesome k-10th grade.
Then I insisted on public school (which was so easy it was a joke, but there’s chicks there!).
While we're at it can we get a ruling on who is a natural born citizen?
I say born in the country to citizen parents.
ACTIVIST JUDGE 101.
https://www.owleyes.org/text/civil-rights-act-of-1866/read/text-of-the-act#root-4
"not subject to any foreign power" (direct quote)
*is* EXACTLY what ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
means.
What kind of idiot judge would try to deny that?
Anyone who is 'subject' (citizen) of another nation is excluded of birthright citizenship.
To be fair, the judge determined his ruling before hearing a single argument.
No no, subject just means you can be thrown in jail for breaking the law! /s
*is* EXACTLY what ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
means.
Not to people who speak English. Lawyers and lawmakers can go to hell. The law should be able to be understood by laymen. If you want the law to mean "not subject to foriegn power," they should word it something like...uhh...well, "not subject to a foriegn power".
There wouldn't be any reason for an 'and' condition if it was intended to encapsulate every-birth.
Plus; It's common knowledge that the 14th was written to end slavery. It wasn't written with the intent of granting illegal immigrants citizenship.
"The 14th amendment lets vacationing foreigners give birth to American citizens"
Somehow, I don't see the conservative side of the court buying this logic. The birthright citizenship benefitted Americans who were wrongly denied their civil liberties. How it was stretched to cover random illegals who crossed our border without our consent, I can't begin fathom.
To put this in reverse - if an American couple gave birth in a foreign country that allowed for birthright citizenship, is the kid not American? Is he not entitled to the protection of our constitution? Can our consulate ignore his plight? Or does the kid have dual citizenship? I don't believe countries like Korea or Israel will agree to that, knowing that the parents would invoke his American citizenship to spare him from things like military conscription. If it happened on a large enough scale, they'll force them to choose.
Even if the SC strikes down the EO, the public is probably is a lesser mood to tolerate anarchy. Trump can do plenty other things to stop women from coming here in the first place. Remember, American children are homeless in CA after the fire.
I would quibble with one thing. There's actually a large percentage of Israelis who have dual US and Israeli citizenships. One I can think of right off the top of my head is Natalie Portman. Her father is an American Jew who moved to Israel and his mother was an Israeli citizen. She thus has dual citizenship. The Israeli government tends to demand they serve if they continue to reside in Israel but defer to allowing them to choose it they reside outside Israel. South Korea doesn't recognize dual citizenship but defers in the case of South Korean citizens who marry US service members (my cousin, retired USAF, is married to a South Korean he met while serving in Korea). Again, they tend to allow the children of such marriages to return and serve in their military if they choose to. A lot of this is because both South Korea and Israel actually a grateful for the most part for the friendship and military aid we have provided to them over the decades (interesting Japan also tends to be grateful, although there has been conflict over our bases in Okinawa, but then again, Okinawan also have some issues with the Japanese homeland). Israel and our East Asian allies tend to be far more grateful than our supposed Western European allies.
The originalists tend to look at the words in the constitution and to try to avoid interpretation beyond the words when they can. The amendment doesn’t qualify the word ‘born’, although a foreign embassy is not considered US territory.
On the other hand, the so called originalists have made some stretchy arguments when the text does not imply what they want it to.
Interesting that he "can't remember" - perhaps he should review the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, that declared for the first time that Indigenous persons born within the United States are US citizens.
Although the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "any person" born in the United States is a citizen, there is an exception for persons not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the federal government - like citizens of foreign nations, children of diplomats, etc. At the time of the 14th Amendment, this language also applied to members of Indian tribes that were citizens of their tribal nations.
Why would you need an act to change that situation if the 14th Amendment had already made them citizens by birthright? Because it didn't make them citizens by birthright, and they weren't. Just like illegal aliens' children, Indians were "subject to the jurisdiction" of - i.e. citizens of - a separate, "foreign" power - in this case, their tribe. And thus such children were NOT citizens of the US by birthright - remarkably, even though in the Indians' cases, their parents had both been born in the US - unlike the parents of alien children, who were not even born here.
You would need a parallel, "Foreign Citizenship Act" to remedy that situation - and no such Act exists. The very existence of the 1924 Act itself proves that up until 1924, those subject to foreign jurisdiction when born here were NOT citizens by birthright, and explicitly, ONLY children of Indians became citizens by birth - not anyone else - after the Act was passed. Game, Set, Match.
Citizens know the judge is wrong and when it is that clear, "goodbye, judge"
Pretending birthright citizenship as currently practiced in the US is NOT controversial doesn't make it true.
It's the only policy like it in space and time and is not a clear conclusion from the wording of the 14th amendment, which was designed to give (rightful) citizenship to previously enslaved people brought here against there will.
Some things are not like other things. The current jurisprudence around birthright citizenship is controversial in legal circles AND politically. It has every right to get a proper airing of both sides in the court of public opinion AND the US judiciary system.
Stupid immigration policy rightfully should be challenged, and justis solis is probably one of the most retarded.
It's the only policy like it in space and time and is not a clear conclusion from the wording of the 14th amendment, which was designed to give (rightful) citizenship to previously enslaved people brought here against there will.
^This.
The arguments contained in the congressional record for the ratification of the 14th amendment are crystal clear. Birthright citizenship was a specific and necessary remedy for the denial of citizenship to slaves that was enshrined in the law by the Dred Scott decision.
It was specifically stated in those arguments, by the drafters of the amendment, that it would not apply to the children of foreign nationals.
I suspect that the people who actually wrote this EO have advised Trump that this matter could easily be litigated to either success or failure, at the risk of dragging the matter out to the end of his term.
For that reason, they are probably already bargaining with Congress on three possible options. The Nuclear Option: 1) immediately redefine Article 1 of 14A by complying with Section 5's authorization to enforce the statute via legislation clarifying that children of undocumented aliens are within the jurisdiction of the parents' government(s).
The weaker option 2): propose a draft constitutional amendment to incorporate the new jurisdiction definition directly within the text of Article 1.
The best option 3): Both of the above, possibly preventing a future president from restoring the old status quo.
Each option would have immediate bearing upon court challenges to the EO that was just stayed this week.
Cato has a good history of jus soli in the first part of https://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-good-reason-revoke-birthright-citizenship.
It seems that jus soli was pretty well established at the time of the founding, and it is the treatment of slaves and Indians that was counter to background English law.
I'd like to see SCOTUS get into this ASAP so that we can settle it, or get started on an Amendment that does. Personally, I don't really care which way, but this fog needs to be cleared.
In the days of kings they wanted as many subjects as they could get so they used just soli to make everyone a subject. Now of course we want to limit citizenship so they've done away with it in most places.
Indeed that may be the case, but the question is, what was the meaning of the words written at the time written? Generally I expect that contributors to the Constitution were as intelligent and diligent as we are today, so any confusion would be a matter of changes in usage. In the passage in question ("and subject to the laws thereof"), what would have been the plain meaning, understandable to literate people in the 1860's? That is what is going to wind up on the bench in front of SCOTUS to resolve this.
"UnConstitutional" does not equal "Unjust." Birthright citizenship may be generally a just policy, but it's not necessarily an unexceptionable just policy when it is clearly and emphatically abused (i.e., "anchor babies").
Trump's executive order "would deny rights and benefits" to those individuals "and leave some of them stateless," it argued
Gotta love how the NY Slimes and Marxist Fiona types slam "rights and benefits" together as if they're somehow related.
In your first Law School class on the Constitution they say something
like 'no provision of the Constitution can be considered superfluous'.
IN FACT, the Constitution only grants birthright citizenship to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the “United States.” The facts are clear that this doesn’t include the children of illegal immigrants, visitors, or tourists.