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. |
Im not optimistic. I don’t trust Roberts or Barrett.
According to the racist anti-American ADL, you’re part of a “white supremacist cult” for believing the truth that the Great Replacement Theory is anything other than superstition and rumor.
Now that we’ve got past the humor part of the comment. The “elites” don’t seem to understand there are a LOT more of us than them, and this issue, we’ve simply sat by waiting for the fix to be put in place, and watched the invasion. It’s going to stop. And very likely with a violence the world has never seen.
Legal arguments are helpful, but in the end, “hope” is what the case depends on.
The English language, and especially from two-hundred years ago, is often ambiguous, that is it can be interpreted to mean vastly different things. This is the case with the phrase “under the jurisdiction of”. Based on over forty years of trial and appellate work, what I usually see happening when it comes to statutory construction is that a judge in most cases decides what they want to do and then beats a path through the law to get there. The historical analysis presented in the opposing briefs is helpful in that process, but usually not determinative. That is, what matters most is what the judge actually wants to do, and so we hope that their wishes for the future align with ours. From that perspective, I am hopeful, given the present court’s make up.
Good point juggling is for clowns.
Justice Jackson has precedent for such behavior based on her claim not to know what a woman is.
Jus soli will stand.
Congress or an amendment to the Constitution could change things.
Jus soli will stand. And I'm betting it will be unanimous.
I believe Scalia addressed it at some point and it is what it says...born here...you're a citizen.
I'll wait to learn what the decision is.
I do not trust Roberts, Kavanaugh, and especially Coney-Barrett.
So if you are visitor, and have a valid visa, and commit a crime. You can be arrested and taken to jail in the US. It looks to me like you are subject to US jurisdiction.
If the founders meant “ANYONE BORN HERE IS A CITIZEN” they would have said that - and nothing else.
Then they would not have had to spend decades explaining what the SECOND CLAUSE means.
“AND UNDER OUR LAWS AND JURISDICTIONS”
Key word being “AND”
Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Exactly what benefits & privilages are obtained along with citizenship in these counties & islands?
There are many types of jurisdiction. Criminal acts cause arrest & prison whoever & wherever you are. That is a local jurisdiction action.
American citizens are routinely arrested, tried, convicted & imprisoned in other nations w/o becoming or being considered as citizens of that nation.
Indeed afterserving their sentance they are often deported to their country of citizenship.
Why ask me? Look it up.
ABSOLUTELY-—GIVE THEM NO WIGGLE ROOM
The ruling should have been limited to the children of permanent resident aliens, as that was the case that was brought before the court. Somehow, the ruling expanded the universe to be all children born in the United States, not just the children of permanent resident aliens.
I'd like to know why?
-PJ
Mike Davis: “We the people never agreed to give this (citizenship) away.”
This statement of Mike Davis is totally false. From 1787 to 2026 it has always been the view of 99% of US citizens that “born in the USA’ grants US citizenship (except the Diplomatic Corps). When WE argued that Chinese tourists should not be able to visit the US, give birth and return to China with a US citizen the MAGA side argued that this was an abuse of Constituional citizenship.
Birthright citizenship for babies of permanent immigrants, not tourists.
“It really used to be more of a fringe view ... Totally factually true.
A NEW VERSION OF A SQUATTER
To be “subject to the jurisdiction, requires government approval.
I wasn’t asking you. It was a rhetorical questio.
My point is that countries where there is a benefit to the country by adding population and where there is little cost to the country because social programs are meager, are the countries willing to allow birth citizenship,
The droves of folks looking to give birth in Guam for citizenship, as an example, are nonexistent. OIOH the USA is a magnet for those looking to benefit from freebies and a life standard they could not otherwise aspire to. The misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has coused widespread damage to the lives of American citizens and the fabric off the Country.
SCOTUS will not do the right thing. Instead of addressing the fundamental question they will focus on the issue of the legitimacy of using an executive order, overturn the order and leave the underlying question unanswered.
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.