Posted on 04/03/2026 10:13:32 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Apr. 3, 2026) — Well, the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, the “birthright citizenship” case, are over and the matter is now under advisement with SCOTUS. Interested readers can view the transcript here.
And as usual, the armchair pontificators are busily at work tapping out their predictions on their keyboards…, not unlike your humble servant. And the fact that President Trump attended the event (although he left before it was over…, arguably not the wisest or most courteous move…, where is Susie Wiles when you need her…?) rendered it even more interesting.
Your servant has made his views known here as to what the constitutional and principled outcome should be. That outcome, of course, is not to be confused with what the actual outcome might be in the hyper-politicized and toxic/TDS-afflicted/anti-Trump Beltway swamp…, where, BTW, the U.S. Supreme Court is located.
Moreover, as previously noted by your servant here at The P&E, those who believe that the Supreme Court functions in an independent “deep, logical and rational cocoon,” unaffected by outside political or societal forces, are foolishly indulging in a controlled substance. ... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2026/04/03/the-trump-v-barbara-oral-arguments-fallout/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
One would think "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would be the key point of debate.
“ President Trump attended the event (although he left before it was over…, arguably not the wisest or most courteous move”
Nah. Stopped here.
If the justices rule on the law, Trump Admin wins. If they rule on politics, Trump Admin loses. I suspect political pressure wins on this one.
Actually, it's the "and" function. There would have been no need for it had Messrs. Conkling and Bingham intended birthright citizenship.
Logical.
Agreed. Why is anyone surprised that Trump appeared at a court hearing for a case titled “Trump v. Barbara” ? Sounds to me like he’s a party to the case.
3
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: '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.'
The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts agreed by the parties:
That at the time of his said birth his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein, at said city and county of San Francisco, state aforesaid.
That during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China.
The Supreme Court exercising its Article III appellate jurisdiction cannot adjudicate facts not in the record. These are the only facts in the record.
118
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
119
Order affirmed.
This was the case that was before the Court. This was the narrow ruling in the case. It was limited to only the children of permanent resident aliens.
Confirm section 93 of the Wong ruling as dicta and has no binding legal authority.
93
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.
The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.
So far, so good. SCOTUS references "resident aliens" and "domiciled within the United States."
SCOTUS continues...
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'
This is where Justice Jackson's question comes from. But, SCOTUS went way off the reservation here, completely discarding the definition of "domicile" as described in the earlier portion of the text and in accordance with Black's Law definition. Now, "domicile" is construed to be "local and temporary," but yet "strong enough to make a natural subject." Also, "his child" is no longer subject to the law of "domicile of origin," but is now "as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen."
SCOTUS in section 93 has put non-immigrants and illegal aliens on the same level as citizens!
SCOTUS finishes section 93...
It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher's case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,—it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.'
This last part is a non sequitur to the issue of "domicile." Being temporarily subject to our laws for the brief time that one is habitually residing here should not be strong enough to overrule "domicile," "domicile of origin," or to be put on par with a "resident alien" or "citizen.
The Roberts Court should overturn the conclusions in section 93 of the Wong Kim Ark decision and cast off the notion that an alien here casually has the same strength of allegiance as someone who became a permanent resident alien or the child of citizen parents.
Once the Court disavows section 93, President Trump can order the State Department to take this down and order it removed from the manual.
The [United States Supreme] Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”
Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) Definitions:
- Domicile
- A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning.
- The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile.
- The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges.
- The established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwellingplace or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence.
- It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.
- "Citizenship," "habitancy," and "residence" are severally words which in particular cases may mean precisely the same as "domicile," while in other uses may have different meanings.
- "Residence" signifies living in particular locality while "domicile" means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home.
- Domicile of origin
- The home of the parents. That which arises from a man's birth and connections. The domicile of the parents at the time of birth, or what is termed the "domicile of origin," constitutes the domicile of an infant, and continues until abandoned, or until the acquisition of a new domicile in a different place.
- Residence
- Place where one actually lives or has his home; a person's dwelling place or place of habitation;
- an abode; house where one's home is; a dwelling house.
- Personal presence at some place of abode with no present intention of definite and early removal and with purpose to remain for undetermined period, not infrequently, but not necessarily combined with design to stay permanently.
- Residence implies something more than mere physical presence and something less than domicile.
- "Domicile" compared and distinguished
- As "domicile" and "residence" are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile.
Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home.
Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile.
- Resident alien
- One, not yet a citizen of this country, who has come into the country from another with the intent to abandon his former citizenship and to reside here.
This is the cleanest and most intellectually honest approach to take. It preserves the core Wong decision, so the Roberts Court is not making new ground. All it's doing it telling people that Wong is still controlling authority, but only the appellate ruling that was before the court. The rest is dicta, some of it incorrect, and that is struck down as the Court partially reversing itself.
When filtered down to the frame, the question before the court and the question answered, it becomes so clear that all SCOTUS has to do is reaffirm Wong at its appellate core and disavow section 93 as inconsistent and incongruous dicta, and President Trump gets his birthright citizenship for nonimmigrant and illegal aliens eliminated and Roberts doesn't have to make any new rulings.
That's the perfect SCOTUS compromise that breaks no new ground; it just reminds everyone of what the Wong ruling actually was and resets us back to that.
Finally, the Supreme Court should declare that anyone who received citizenship under the misapplied ruling will keep their citizenship, but the ruling of Wong going forward applies only to the children of permanent resident aliens.
-PJ
The the President immediately announces a total freeze on new immigration through the end of his term.
following...
APPEARANCES:GEN. D. JOHN SAUER, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the
Petitioners.CECILLIA D. WANG, ESQUIRE, San Francisco, California;
on behalf of the Respondents.Wang was born in Oregon in 1971 to a Taiwanese American family and was raised in Fremont, California.[2] She is a U.S. citizen by birth, though her parents were not naturalized citizens.[6] Her parents immigrated to the U.S. from Taiwan in the 1960s to attend graduate school.[6]
And sat in a chair reserved for the president.
The Trump v. Barbara Oral Arguments Fallout.
Houston, we've got a problem.
From the only mention (correction welcome) of Law of Nations in the referenced article...
"Those criteria, of course, are articulated in Book 1, Ch. 19, § 212 of Emer de Vattel’s 1758 treatise, The Law of Nations, mandating that in order to be a natural born citizen, one must be born in a nation to parents who, at the time of birth, are already citizens of that nation, whether themselves native-born, natural born or naturalized. Otherwise, while the person may be a “citizen,” he/she is not an nbC as understood and intended by the Founders in 1787."
The fact that the article didn't actually show Book 1, Ch. 19, § 212 is STRONG evidence (imo) that the anti-Trump establishment KNOWS (imo) that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was not intended to establish automatic birthright citizenship for newborns born to foreigners.
(Scroll to § 212)
"[Law of Nations,] Book I, Chapter 19, section 212:§ 212. Citizens and natives. (Scroll to § 212)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children [all emphases added]; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
On the other hand, illegals aren't forced to come here, and even if their birth is as a result of being a victim of rape in this country, they willingly broke the law to come here, and personally decided to remain here, violating yet another law. Whatever happened to them during their time here, it's on them. Their children are not entitled to American citizenship, simply because they were born here. The parent still has allegiance to a foreign country, as does the child born of them.
I don't understand why there is such a controversy about this. It's as clear as rain that a difference exists between the two: Being forcibly and physically removed from your homeland and brought here to be used for personal gain, and coming here by your own free will to leech off American taxpayers.
I can’t take seriously someone who starts an article with “Well, “.
And here’s a little hint as to what Ms. Wang is all about:
White population of Fremont in 1970: 96.8% (includes 9.9% “persons of spanish surname”)
Chinese population of Fremont in 1970: 0.6%
White population of Fremont in 2024: 13.8%
Asian population of Fremont in 2024: 61.5%
She grew up as a tiny minority in an overwhelmingly American town and probably hated everybody in town. But things got better as more of her countrymen flooded in and ethnically cleansed the city of the Evil Americans.
She can’t let that be stopped. Her countrymen - not the Americans - demand it.
The Solicitor General did a terrible job on oral argument.
“I can only imagine what the other kids called her “
Oh don’t sob for Cecillia.
Things got better and better for her the longer she stayed.
As my post above demonstrates, she started out in a child that was almost 100% White, and by the time she was getting out of college, it was majority Asian, and the White population was maybe 1/3 of what it was.
Recall also that back before 1996, Asians were considered a “victim minority” in California and got preferences in college admission. So getting in to UC Berkeley for a deranged ideologue like herself back in 1989 was probably pretty easy.
Now she gets to dictate terms to the losers: us.
Interesting, thanks PJ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.