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.
Posted on 07/22/2026 1:53:44 PM PDT by Bill Russell
The Trump v. Barbara ruling did not destroy President Trump's ability to limit birthright citizenship for birth tourists from China or other specific countries.
Upon release of the Trump v. Barbara opinion overruling the President’s Executive Order blocking automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal aliens and visiting tourists, President Trump congratulated President Xi and China on their “massive Birthright Citizenship WIN,” warning the ruling hands foreign nationals a golden ticket to U.S. passports for their children.
Indeed, the ruling was disappointing. It leaves wide gaps for individuals, cartels, and hostile nations to exploit our laws and gain US citizenship protections and benefits for future potential spies, saboteurs, terrorists, or simple welfare dependents who have no loyalty to our nation. Fortunately, the majority and dissenting opinions left in place, and verified, the means and actions by which institutional protection of our national sovereignty from the most existential threats implemented by foreign governments, organizations, and individuals to exploit our laws and harm our nation may be performed or completed. These include immediate and targeted Presidential actions as well as longer term legislative and constitutional actions.
Chief Justice Robert’s majority opinion holds that children born to illegal aliens and tourists in the US are entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment because they are subject to the “jurisdiction thereof” of the United States. Justice Roberts’s definition of jurisdiction for illegal immigrants hinges on the English doctrine jus soli, declaring duty of allegiance and jurisdiction are derived from birth within our nation’s borders, thus overruling the blanket removal of birthright citizenship for children born to illegal aliens and tourist within the United States. But the definitions and exceptions to jurisdictions cemented by the opinions are materials with which the President and the Congress can still protect our nation. While it often takes a constitutional amendment to overrule a bad Supreme Court ruling like Dred Scott, the Congress has the authority to write new laws defining jurisdictions and the Executive Branch has sole discretion in determining who is covered by the Court’s recognized exemptions to Birthright Citizenship for foreign representatives and invaders.
If the order Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship had been upheld based on the reasoning of the dissenting opinions, it would have created Constitutionally recognized exemptions to the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause for illegal aliens and temporary visitors. However, the Constitutional vulnerability of the order was that it attempted to create a new category of persons exempted from jurisdiction for birthright citizenship who are not covered by the recognized exemptions. Also, as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out, it was contrary to the plain language of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a) which states “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” shall be a citizen at birth. The beauty of the outcome in the ruling is the Supreme Court specifically defined the short-term and long-term solutions to protecting our nation from exploitive introductions of new citizens in an uncontrolled fashion. By striking down this broad and general blanket temporary order, the Court identified the constitutional and legal means by which specific and immediate follow-on actions may be put in place to mitigate the most existential threats, as well as long term statutory policies to protect American Citizenship and our nation.
The constitutional means for reestablishing these controls over our sovereignty include a constitutional amendment, making use of the constitutional exceptions to birthright citizenship for the children of foreign officials & foreign invaders which are determined at the sole discretion of the Executive Branch, and similar exceptions which may be defined through legislative action by the Congress and signed into law by the President. The Supreme Court recognized exceptions are still available for immediate use by the President and the Executive Branch to help prevent the exploitation of Birthright Citizenship by our international adversaries and the threat it poses to our national sovereignty and security.
The absolute best solution to permanently protect our sovereignty is a constitutional amendment limiting birthright citizenship to the children of US citizens and legal residents while excluding illegal aliens, tourists, students, or other non-temporary visa holders. A clearly worded amendment would minimize tortured interpretations of the language and history of the Constitution by activist justices (as Justice Thomas noted in the opening pages of his dissenting opinion). But amending the Constitution is exceedingly difficult. It has only been done 17 times since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. It is a highly unlikely near-term solution in a political environment where one of our major parties opposes laws preventing noncitizens from voting in our elections.
The legislative approach is the next best permanent solution. It was specifically identified by Justice Kavanaugh as the clearest means to amend the plain language of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a), updating the exemptions to the “jurisdiction thereof.” Kavanaugh believes such legislation would pass Constitutional muster. (Trump v. Barbara, Kavanaugh Opinion, No. 25-365, June 30, 2026, pp.7-9). Indiana Senator Jim Banks’ July 13, 2026, introduction of legislation to classify illegal aliens as invaders in accordance with US v. Wong Kim Ark recognized exceptions to birthright citizenship is a good start. However, Senator Banks admits that it will be difficult as this new legislation will face many of the same legislative challenges which the Save America Act is facing. In addition, once the law is passed and faces challenges in the courts, the question remains on how Justices Roberts and Barret will vote.
Pending more permanent solutions that will take some time, the President still has tools and materials to immediately stem the tide of birthright citizenship exploitation, for at least the duration of his presidency, from the greatest adversarial and grifting nations. The silver lining in the Trump v. Barbara opinion is that it left a partial but bullet-proof solution that no Court or Congress can overrule without radically changing the Constitution, the law, or over 200 years of Supreme Court precedents: the currently recognized exceptions to birthright citizenship which are determined solely by the Executive Branch. The President, through his Secretary of State determines who qualifies for the diplomatic and invader exceptions to birthright citizenship. The determination of these exceptions could be used effectively if targeted to specific countries or organizations.
The key to success in the use of these exceptions is to tie them to specific foreign policy decisions regarding specific countries or organizations. Such decisions are exclusively under the authority of the President’s separate powers according to Article II of the Constitution. Neither the Courts nor the Congress can infringe on the separate powers of the President. Using the US v Wong Kim Ark exception designations as Article II foreign policy decisions, President Trump can still prevent birth tourism from the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and state encouraged illegal immigration from other nations while avoiding the pitfall which came up in his blanket blocking birth right citizenship to the children of all illegal aliens and tourists. He can do this immediately and with full constitutional authority endorsed by the Supreme Court.
To clear the air of doubts, the majority opinion in Trump v. Barbara confirmed the Presidential authorities. In arguing that all persons in the territory of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, Chief Justice Roberts cites Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1812 opinion on sovereignty and its exceptions for foreign representatives:
“jurisdiction” referred to “the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories.” 7 Cranch, at 136. That “absolute” power was “susceptible of no limitation not imposed” by the nation itself. Ibid. All sovereigns, however, were understood to have impliedly waived their jurisdiction in “certain peculiar circumstances”—in essence, where exercising jurisdiction would “degrade the dignity” of “foreign sovereigns.” Id., at 136–137. As in the context of jus soli, those peculiar circumstances arose most frequently in the case of “foreign ministers.” See id., at 138–139. “[E]very sovereign would hazard his own dignity,” after all, if his officials abroad were made to “owe temporary and local allegiance to a foreign prince.” Id., at 139.(Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812), 7 Cranch 116, See H. Wheaton, Elements of International Law §96, pp. 136-137, 139, and 154, (8th ed. 1866)).
It must be noted that Justice Roberts fully embraced Schooner Exchange’s recognition of friendly foreign military personnel, not just diplomats, as agents of their home nations falling under the exceptions to jurisdiction of the US, so long as they remained friendly and lawful during their presence. Justice Roberts goes on to recognize “the children of foreign ministers and members of 19th century Indian tribes over whom the United States had ceded a part of its territorial jurisdiction to preserve its relationship with a foreign sovereign (or quasi-sovereign)” are excluded from the jurisdiction of the United States. Justice Roberts reasons that “No such intersovereign concerns apply to children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States; no foreign sovereign would “have any motive for wishing” them outside this Nation’s authority. Ibid.” (p.12).
Roberts cements the Court’s view on jurisdiction: “The question is whether a person is ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the government of the country in which he is physically present, even if he is only there temporarily. He is (unless he falls under one of the familiar exceptions, such as for ambassadors).” (p.22)
The President and his Department of State have the sole Constitutional authority to determine whether a foreign person is an agent of a foreign government.
It is well known that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) exercises absolute sovereignty over its citizens within China and puts great effort into extending that sovereignty over them while overseas. The PRC grants permission to travel only to trusted citizens over whom the Party may maintain leverage while abroad. China holds its citizens responsible to report to CCP officials, whether officially or unofficially present in the US, to include illegal Chinese police stations in major American cities. All Chinese citizens travelling to the US are tasked and expected to report on all of their interactions and endeavors while here and to keep tabs on other Chinese expatriates. Given such taskings, the CCP is keeping Chinese citizens as its agents within the territory of the US, even if they travel to the US as tourists, students, or for business purposes. It would be extremely hard to prove that the current programs promoting Chinese “birth tourism” in order gain US citizenship for children to be raised as loyal PRC agents are not long-term strategic policies of the PRC. The Secretary of State simply has to declare them as agents of their sovereign government in China, thus removing them from rights to birthright citizenship.
For those who argue that such a declaration would introduce issues of diplomatic immunity, it is a manageable and minor issue. The United States abides by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Vienna Conventions provide varying levels of diplomatic immunity granted to foreign agents traveling to the US. These range from total immunity from criminal prosecution and civil suits for ambassadors to almost no immunity for diplomatic service staff and personal servants. The State Department has the exclusive Article II constitutional authority to designate tourists, businesspeople, or students from the PRC as agents of the PRC, exempting them from birthright citizenship while only granting them the lowest tier of immunity which would still leave them subject to prosecutions or suits for criminal or civil violations.
Additionally, it is also well documented that the Chinese view of warfare is not limited to armed conflicts. Warfare also encompasses economic, intelligence (espionage), political, legal, subversion, and ideological forms of confrontation in international relations. Almost all China followers acknowledge that the CCP views itself in direct conflict with the United States on all these levels and is pursuing a policy of succeeding the US as the dominant world power. It is exclusively within the authority of the executive branch to determine the levels and types of invasions by the PRC and to use the appropriate designation to exclude their children from birthright citizenship.
Similar policies can be implemented on a case-by-case basis for countries which encourage their citizens to immigrate to the United States illegally, whether by official or unstated and unofficial policies. The State Department has the authority to determine that foreign sovereigns are making their citizens agents of their foreign policies and exempt them birthright citizenship. Such facts would directly confront Chief Justice Roberts reasoning that “no foreign sovereign would ‘have any motive for wishing’” their citizens outside this Nation’s authority.
The greatest strength of this approach is that it can be implemented by the President immediately through the State Department with full authority under Article II of the Constitution, current US statues, and most recent Supreme Court precedent confirming over 236 years of Presidential authority over foreign policy. Its major weakness is that it is a policy determination that can be changed at the whim of a new President if it does not become law. However, it is the tool with which the President can fill the gap for the next two years to protect our nation from the most existential threats created by foreign nations flooding our borders with uncontrollable flows of new citizens. It will give time for a more permanent legislative solution to ensure those entitled to the rights, privileges, and benefits of our nation at birth also bear the responsibilities and loyalties of American Citizenship.
|
|
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. |
Just to have some more fun with the Left, President Trump should write an Executive Order mandating that any child born inside the U S of A, from non-citizen parents, must be named Donald or Donna.
You have their names send them a Tax Bill every year and if they refuse to pay takeaway the citizenship or require they live in the US for 10 or 15 years or thy lose citizenship , that’s for the birthright leeches
At the State Department level, disallow visas to pregnant women.
Done.
...I believe it was yesterday that Texas’governor Abbott signed an executive order basically cracking down on this crap...good for him...and then wait for the lawsuits to start rolling in....
There is always room for good fun when conducting serious business.
Could you imagine millions of ballots from “American citizen” mailed in from China?
Simple in principle, but extremely hard in implementation....
Exactly... If somebody shows up at the border and they’re pregnant... Tell them to go home.
“...The absolute best solution to permanently protect our sovereignty
is a constitutional amendment limiting birthright citizenship...”
-
Snowball’s chance in hades.
Orange County, CA is GROUND ZERO for Chinese birthing hotels, namely the city of IRVINE. The Feds need to go in there and CLEAN HOUSE. That city has been all but TAKEN OVER by the CCP, including UCI (University of Chinese Immigrants).
They have to state under penalty of perjury that they are not pregnant.
Should they be found to have delivered a baby while here, lock them up and take the kid away. When they’re done serving their perjury sentence, deport them. Put the kid up for adoption.
Be ruthless.
Felony Perjurers can never be let into the country ever again.
Fairly decisive, but not perfect.
The free money express
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.