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 04/02/2026 8:48:34 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on the Trump administration’s challenge to the decades-long practice of interpreting the 14th Amendment to allow foreigners to obtain American citizenship simply by being born within the boundaries of the country. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this view, allowing any foreigner circumstantially (or intentionally) born on U.S. soil to be automatically adopted into the Union as a citizen, it will mean the end of actual American citizens taking the high court seriously.
As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to black people and freed slaves after the Civil War. Making the point further, Thomas asked, “How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer noted that there was very little, if any, which suggests that the intent of the 14th Amendment was never to be the international migration boondoggle it has become.
While Thomas appeared to recognize that reality, it was difficult to tell where the rest of the court stood on the issue at times — except for the other reliable conservative, Justice Samuel Alito.
But if the justices harbor any consideration of keeping the 14th Amendment migration train running by upholding the current bastardization of the amendment, it will signal to the American people the illegitimacy of even the highest legal authority in the land, ostensibly with a 6-3 conservative majority.
A SCOTUS decision to uphold birthright citizenship as currently applied would communicate that it means to follow in the footsteps of successive presidential administrations and Congresses, selling Americans’ jobs, land, and promises of freedom to the highest bidder, or simply giving them away to foreigners who cross the border illegally. Whereas many view the head of the judicial branch as a safeguard, upholding the Constitution when the executive branch and Congress overstep their bounds, a majority decision affirming unbounded birthright citizenship would suggest they too have no regard for the people who have a right to be here, and whose futures depend on the end of mass migration.
In his opening remarks, Sauer brought up the reality of “birth tourism,” pregnant foreigners coming to the United States in order to give birth on American soil and obtain citizenship with an anchor baby, who is automatically granted full citizenship under the current 14th Amendment framework. The issue is prominent in China, where there are actual businesses — reportedly more than 1,000 — that exist for achieving that goal, as Sauer pointed out.
Sauer’s introduction of the issue of birth tourism led to a potentially telling exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts, where Roberts asked about birth tourism’s prominence. Sauer cited the high number of such operations, stating,” No one knows for sure,” adding, “We are in a new world now.” Roberts seemed to reply flippantly: “It’s a new world, it’s the same Constitution.”
Roberts has consistently postured himself as the chief justice most intent on preserving the institution of the Supreme Court. He is suspected to have sided with majorities he may not actually agree with, in order to make the ruling more acceptable to the American people (a 6-3 decision is more convincing than a 5-4 decision, as the argument goes).
That is what makes his line of questioning both confusing and concerning, because it suggests he believes the proper constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment would continue to allow these birthright farms to send foreigners to the United States so their babies can receive rubber-stamp citizenship.
If the conclusion from the Supreme Court is that any country on earth can lay claim to the American homeland, so long as they send enough people to give birth here, then Americans will have no choice but to reject that notion out of hand. Such a decision would further deteriorate confidence in the Supreme Court, leading the American people to reject it as a legitimate authority on the Constitution altogether.
|
|
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. |
I not as sure as some here of how the Court will go.
That doesn’t cover ‘birth tourism’. Those people come here legally, and are just as, if not more, dangerous.
“The chances of a constitutional amendment ending birthright citizenship passing both houses and a majority of state legislatures for ratification is about the same as the chance of Joe Biden being a champion on Jeopardy.”
The Republican Congress could end 1040 federal tax withholding and 1040 taxation on the middle class unless the amendment is sent to the states and ratified. People wouldn’t vote Democratic to get fleeced again.
He might to the favorite plaintiff has no standing or claim it is a tax...lol
Good idea, but the number of Congressional Republicans who have the guts to make such a bold move would leave room to spare in a phone booth (if there are still any booths around anywhere).
“interpreting the 14th Amendment to allow foreigners to obtain American citizenship simply by being born”
From 1787 to present any and all babies born in the US have been citizens (except for kids of diplomats). The 14th has zero relationship to the topic.
Strict construction of the Constitution requires Birthright Citizenship and always has. Those trying to end Birthright Citizenship are taking a flexible use of the Constitution usually only found in leftists.
(Some see a difference between THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and The post 1933 UNITED STATES INC. That is a different topic.)
So Republicans in Congress throw red meat to their voters about supporting deporting illegals, and maybe make some symbolic moves when in office, but aren't really serious about it.
Even the Trump administration's policies are more about spectacle and substance, sure, the raids result in some deportations and a hostile environment leads to some illegals self-deporting, but have you seen any initiative to nip the problem at the bud by going after businesses that knowingly hire illegals? No, of course not.
I can’t help but agree that this is a showdown between President Trump and the court. If they persist in putting the Country at risk with poorly reasoned judgements he will declare a constitutional crisis.
The President has defied the SC at least 10 times. Seveal presidents were awarded a win: Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Biden. More times Presidents lost. Congress could pass a lawn defining BR citizenship but not with the filibuster in place.
https://billpetro.com/history-of-presidents-opposing-supreme-court/
Since the only babies who don’t have birthright citizenship are babies of diplomats, we could declare all undocumented and their families to be diplomats of unspecified nations and then declare that we have no diplomatic relations with unspecified nations and all their diplomats must leave.
I do not favor mass deportation of all, just the murderers, rapists....DUI drivers, Drunk n Disorderly. But the above seems to be the only legal alternative.
"Mr. TRUMBULL. Of course my opinion is not any better than that of any other member of the Senate; but it is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin. The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Mel Brooks couldnt write this crap.
From the 14th amendment debate:
"Mr. TRUMBULL. Of course my opinion is not any better than that of any other member of the Senate; but it is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin. The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
See my quote from the 14th amendment debate above.
Were Black slaves considered U.S. citizens in 1787?
If so, why were they denied the full panoply of rights of citizens?
Vote fraud in 2020.
‘Jury nullification’ is the only recourse if they choose to allow the bastardization of the 14th amendment to continue. In fact, all arguments for amnesty of these people should never be in doubt if this is the understanding of the 14th amendment.
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.
Strike section 93 of the Wong ruling.
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.
Strike this down and order it removed.
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.
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
It’s going to be 9-0 keeping birthright citizenship as is. In first grade, you are taught, if you are born in the United States, you are American. If you want it changed, a constitutional amendment is the direction to go.
I sure hope this is orbiter dicta:
“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.’”
I am sure that the framers of the natural born citizenship clause saw the difference between a natural born subject and a natural born citizen. Monarchs aren’t elected; presidents are. We are citizens by consent; subjects are subjects by default.
I don’t agree. We may not win it, but I don’t think every Justice is going to accept a misapplication of what the original amendment intended.
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.