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 04/20/2026 12:48:02 PM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
The future of President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to limit access to birthright citizenship is now positioned for a final decision from the Supreme Court. Questioning from the justices...suggests an icy reception for the Justice Department’s claim that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship turns on an innovative interpretation of the legal concept known as “domicile.”
***
Trump’s executive order...claims that the 14th Amendment grants U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States depending on the citizenship or immigration status of their parents. The amendment’s citizenship clause provides that a person becomes a citizen “of the United States and the state wherein they reside” if they are born in the United States and are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
To successfully defend the constitutionality of Trump’s order, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer will have to convince a majority of justices on three fronts. First, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means a person is “domiciled” in the United States. Second, that domicile should be interpreted to require legal permission to live in the United States indefinitely as a permanent resident, the most privileged form of immigration status, rather than temporarily or altogether without the federal government’s permission. Third, that children born in the United States acquire citizenship at birth only if their mother was domiciled in the country at the time of the child’s birth.
The text of the citizenship clause does not use the term domicile, but the Trump administration argues that it is implied. Sauer, who is the federal government’s lead attorney before the Supreme Court, argued that “reside,” which does appear in the citizenship clause (in terms of state citizenship), “means domicile in the Constitution.” For children to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth, the constitutional provision “presupposes domicile,” he told the justices.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.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. |
Why? I did a search of the full 14th Amendment and found no such word exists.
I predict the court will punt, it will continue as-is but they won’t actually decide the case one way or another.
Did you read the 4th paragraph?
Relevant portion of the 14th amendment:
“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 understanding of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would seem to be the relevant point.
they were stupid to introduce the ‘domiciled’ term.
Just should have said “Two illegal aliens cannot birth a citizen”
To decide that they can the Supreme Court must create a new or change to a constitution clause.
They were only asked if Trump can or can’t proceed.
They should determine he can, because ... two illegals cannot create a citizen.
The answer to that question is literally what the article is about. Essentially, the Solicitor General argued that the word "domicile" is implied in "reside in". If you're saying that's bogus because that word isn't in the 14th Amendment, than that isn't good for Trump.
That's just a policy preference, not an argument as to what the Constitution means. SCOTUS doesn't work that way, nor should it.
The decision has to be based on legal or illegal and nothing else.
This case will decide whether the Republic can be reborn, or whether the nation’s cultural fabric will continue to wither and eventually die.
The Left couched their argument under the convoluted definition of terms that ‘jurisdiction’ effectively meant ‘location’ — and nothing more.
Example (I think this was Justice Jackson’s story to lead the ACLU witness down the garden path): you’re vacationing in Japan and steal somebody’s wallet. Because you are in Japan, you are subject to Japan’s laws and they can therefore arrest and prosecute you under their laws and legal authority.
My counter-argument: of course you have to obey Japanese laws while visiting... but at the same time, you are NOT ‘living’ in Japan (i.e., you are not *domiciled* there). You aren’t paying Japanese income taxes, your mail isn’t delivered there, and your allegiance is still given to your home country.
The Solicitor General came up with the ‘domicile’ argument to allow the court to (a) accept his view of the 14th amendment while (b) still remaining in harmony with their 1898 decision in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark... a Chinese person born in the US to _legal_ immigrant parents who HAD established their home in the US.
In other words, Wong was an ‘anchor baby’ with real ties to the US... neither a ‘birth tourist’ nor the child of an illegal alien. Therefore, this citizenship ruling was correct... and different from what Trump’s executive order refers to.
it’s not ‘policy preference’ it’s what the constitution says
Well Wong Kim Ark certainly did.
That's what will happen.
It could be Wong Kim Ark could have been poorly decided.
The same way Roe-v-Wade was a bad decision
Domicile is an ordinary word in the English language. Have the lawyers screwed it up too?
I (sadly) predict worse than a punt. Our current birthright citizen policy is too baked-in for some of the squishier Court “conservatives” to try to overturn.
I sure hope I’m wrong.
It wasn't just the left -- Trump is almost certainly going to lose at least Gorsuch on this as well. And it isn't just location and nothing more. The argument is that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is intended to exclude the children of ambassadors and others with diplomatic immunity who literally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.. So it is location, plus jurisdiction.
Just on plain words alone, it's the most simple argument. Ask "is that person subject to U.S. jurisdiction"? If the answer is yes, and they reside in the U.S., they are citizen. Answering "no, that person is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S." means you could not arrest and prosecute them for crimes because you lack personal jurisdiction. For obvious reasons, the government doesn't want to make that argument.
So, the administration had to concede, "yes, illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States", while simultaneously arguing that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not include illegals.
It's a tricky argument to have to make.
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.