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 03/31/2026 5:56:42 AM PDT by Libloather
WASHINGTON — One of President Trump’s most ambitious policy endeavors — his effort to end birthright citizenship — is set to face its moment of truth before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, just over a month after it axed the centerpiece of his tariff agenda.
The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump’s attempt to block the kin of illegal immigrants born on US soil from automatically becoming citizens is within his power, something that is widely seen as the most consequential case left on its docket.
“This is a glaring red line for the Supreme Court justices that they don’t get to give away citizenship. They don’t have that power,” Mike Davis, a staunch Trump ally and founder of judicial advocacy group Article III Project, told The Post. “We the people never agreed to give this away.”
“These justices need to follow the law or they’re going to lose their legitimacy,” he added. “There’s no more important of a case before the Supreme Court.”
Before the high court is a question of the legality of Trump’s executive order to end so-called birthright citizenship that he signed during his very first day back in office last year.
Trump had toyed with the idea of tackling birthright citizenship during his first administration, but ultimately, that never came to fruition. At the time, even many conservative legal scholars were deeply skeptical that he could end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants with the swipe of a pen.
“It really used to be more of a fringe view that language could be reinterpreted in this way,” Ming Hsu Chen, a law professor and director of the Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality Program, University of California-San Francisco, said.
“I’m a little surprised that the Supreme Court would take up this case on the merits...
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
|
|
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. |
The whole purpose of the Executive Order was to get the issue to the Supreme Court knowing full well that Democrats would instantly challenge it in court.
Ironic, since the Left always harps on how the US should follow what other countries do.
This.
Had a husky that would follow a taken bone.
With a fish head she was all teeth.
Estimates are that there are around 12 -15 million children of illegal aliens who have been given birthright citizenship over the years, It rate peaked in in the Mid 2000 at 350,000 a year . It is said the birthright citizenship tourism from China alone is over 100,000 per year.
The number rises to perhaps over 20 million if you consider the number of children who would lose their citizenship if their birthright citizenship parents lose their citezenship.
There’s about 20 countries that have birthright citizenship.
Yup. We all need to have free healthcare like Cuba, a mighty navy like the UK, and fly pride flags while complaining that the Bible is "hate speech," as Canada and Finland demonstrate.
The question is:
“What does under the Jurisdiction” mean?
How can someone, who violates the laws of the United States and it’s people, ‘be under the Jurisdiction’. They have not submitted to the ‘Jurisdiction’ or laws of the United States. Just like the ‘Native Americans’ in 1865 had not submitted to the ‘Jurisdiction’ and were not citizens until they had.
This court is adept at ruling without addressing real issues. I predict: After the Trump team presents mountains of evidence proving there was never any intent to grant citizenship to ANYONE born here, they will narrowly rule that the President has no authority to change this practice by EO.
Once again, they’ll leave the base issue undecided.
Countries with Birthright Citizenship 2026
If the debate point is "be like Canada" or "be like" Mexico or Venezuela or even Pakistan, it's not a winning argument. Jus soli is nice Latin, but the Supreme Court has to address the Constitution.
It will be an interesting decision, to be sure.
I detect no bias here.
It isn’t “under the jurisdiction”... it’s “subject to the jurisdiction.”
The first would apply to just about anyone as you place yourself under the jurisdiction of local laws by your presence. That’s how the Left views the 14th Amendment. The second refers to a status of citizenship. In language, the British are subjects of the crown while Americans are citizens of the United States. Location doesn’t change this.
Bfl
Isn’t this just gonna be another kick the can down the road? The way I understand it,the court is not gonna rule on the legality of BC, just whether Trump has the power to end it with an EO.
Agreed. Time to follow the law as written. Children of people who are not here legally are citizens of their parent’s country.
Trump’s EO was very careful to be prospective rather than retroactive to avoid this can of worms so the court won’t have to worry about that in their decision.
Trump is not a dummy and neither are his lawyers.
That is not a solution for the millions of “birthright” commie spies being raised in China right now. Or the thousands of “birthright” muslim terrorists being raised to hate the great Satan.
Wait. The article REALLY went there? They had an Asian professor quoted from the RICE Program?
I thought they were supposed to be more careful on the racial pieces. Wow.
It is the tipping item that could determine if there’s an uprising or not.
We do NOT give legal rights to ownership if a calf wanders through the barb wire and slinks into another farm to the other farmer. We CANNOT give this heinous abuse even one single inch.
“The first would apply to just about anyone as you place yourself under the jurisdiction of local laws by your presence. “
Yes, the wording is important and your correct. However, from a standpoint the ‘invaders’ have not placed themselves under local law or authority. From my standpoint, if you invade a nation (with force or sneak in) your not ‘Subject to’ or ‘Under’ the jurisdiction. Only if your caught do you fall under that ‘Jurisdiction’. If your caught and going through ‘due process’ your Subject to Consequences, but are only ‘temporarily’ here. The understanding would be simpler for Americans if we called those here not ‘Undocumented’ or ‘Illegal’ but what they really are ‘Foreign Invaders’.
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.