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 ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
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,
Jim
They entered the country without the jurisdiction of the United States.
AR-15 isn't in the constitution. Neither is .357 magnum. Perhaps words that are not actually in the constitution are inherent because they fall under the umbrella of a larger intent?
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”James Madison
I agree, but the "absolutely stupid" can't just be a difference in whether or not something is good policy. That's what judicial activists do - "your interpretation would be really bad policy so our interpretation is correct." And the sad truth is that there are plenty of people who think birthright citizenship for illegals is good policy. The only actual virtue I can see is simplicity of administration.
Republican Rep. Paulina Luna on X:
"They want surveillance powers renewed but won’t secure elections? No SAVE America Act = No FISA."
But "allegiance" isn't in the 14th Amendment either. It also would seem to exclude legal immigrants who retain foreign citizenship as well. And that seems more like judicial activism than just taking the document on its face.
Are the leftist citizens of Minnesota subject to the jurisdiction of US law ?
Are seditious and self serving spouses of ex presidents subject to jurisdiction ?
They should be but they aren’t, and so should babies born to tourists.
And an illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States when he leaves the United States, while our citizens are.
Except for Criminal jurisdiction, where everyone on the planet is "subject to our jurisdiction" if they break a US law.
Which of course is an absurd interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction", but it also happens to be the one people are claiming should apply.
It’s not the end of the analysis, I agree.
But you start from the position that “it means more than simply being here”.
I liked the explanation offered by a Freeper several days ago.
The crux of the matter is the tense of the words “born” and “naturalized”.
The slaves brought to the colonies in chains were never citizens
of the US and so their children were similarly stateless. Neither
parents nor children were ever citizens of the United States in
1865. With the end of the Civil War, Congress had to create a legal
bridge to citizenship that first allowed former slaves and their
children to become “naturalized”. Generations to follow would
then become “natural born” citizens. So the tense of the Amendment
is important; those (already) born or naturalized (in the past)
and subject to the jurisdictions thereof were henceforth citizens.
This was clearly a reference to the former slaves and their children.
Just my 2 cents...
The problem with the document is that it's not specific enough, and has allowed liberals to interpret it in their own way for their advantage, and nefarious purposes. The fact that Republicans have never legally challenged, nor taken any action on the interpretation of birthright citizenship, has already set a long-time precedent to allow children born here of illegals, to become citizens.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS that are clear on their wording and history do not require and should not be decided upon new language or vocabulary that someone injects needlessly.
it is at best a diversion, but in reality it is an invitation to abrogate the US Constitution outright
if somebody wants to inject new language into the US Constitution, there is an amendment process for exactly that purpose.
But those people are stupid dummy heads and their opinions should be ignored.
Seriously, as i've gotten older, I have began to realize there are people who are so lacking in understanding, or so intent on malevolence, that they will advocate absolutely insane views, like "men can become women."
We should absolutely refuse to recognize these opinions as valid opinions. We should state "that is nonsense which we will not entertain", and dismiss those views.
I bitch about the 14th a lot, (because it has been the alleged source of some really stupid court decisions in the past) but I think the 19th amendment was a mistake, I think the 24th amendment was a mistake, and I think the 26th amendment was a mistake.
All of these amendments contribute to dumber, more emotionally driven voters, which have consistently steered the nation towards a dumber direction.
There is remedy for that and that is passing a new amendment.
We did that by passing the 1st Amendment to repeal the 18th Amendment.
Progressing America would like a word with you.
The question before them is whether Trump's executive order is legal and constitutional. They pretty much has to rule on that.
One thing that Trump did in the EO that MIGHT help the court 'split this baby': he recognized that the court would likely be unwilling to go 'all the way' and rule that all anchor babies aren't citizens. So he made the EO NON-retroactive.
That would allow the status quo to be maintained and eliminate the chaos that could occur from a ruling of EITHER side winning completely.
MEANWHILE, I have a solution for all of these anchor babies living abroad:
> Congress must pass a law to impose a minimum federal tax for all "citizens" living outside the country. Make it $1000 annually for anyone not living in the country at least six months each year.
> Exemptions for military, Federal employees required to live abroad, etc.
> If you pay regular Federal taxes that exceed $1000 annually, you're good.
> If NOT, then you're citizenship and all access documents (visas, passports, voter registrations, driver license, etc.) are CANCELED automatically, effective 12 months after the violation (i.e., April 15th of the following year).
My FReeper friend X answered this much more succinctly than I have often done, so I'll quote him on this.
Trump Says Birthright Citizenship Was Only for the Children of Slaves. He’s Wrong.
X said: That we could have had the amendment for 50 years or so without America Indians being citizens suggests that Trump may, odd as it may seem, have been right.
I went ahead and asked Grok, and sure enough, the answer could not have been more obvious.
Yes, members of Congress in 1866 (the Amendment was proposed by the 39th Congress in June 1866 and ratified in 1868; the relevant debates occurred then, shortly after the Civil War ended in 1865) understood the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause with precision and clarity.Key evidence from the Congressional Globe (the official record):
Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and author of the related Civil Rights Act of 1866, defined it as “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof” — i.e., “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” He contrasted this with Native Americans in tribal relations (treated as owing allegiance to tribes, like foreign powers) and temporary residents.
And who indoctrinated Americans today(2026) to no longer have knowledge of what this phrase means? Who owns the schools k-12 and universities.
Progressives. The progressives did this to us.
Progressivism is America's Cancer.
And what about Mexican citizens who happen to be having dinner in Nogales, Arizona on a Friday evening who then Unexpectedly! have to run to Holy Cross Hospital to drop El Nino Americano?
Because they are “subject to the jurisdiction” if a Santa Cruz County Deputy Sheriff decides to pull them over for speeding?
FYI: the Mexican government claims that ALL Mexicans “abroad” are Mexican citizens and provides citizenship, advocacy and court assistance through their 55 consulates strategically located through out the United States as any good occupying empire would do. Mexicans Abroad routinely vote in Mexican elections at these Invasion outposts!
Now why doya think they do all that for these people NOT “subject to their jurisdiction” according to you and El Reconquistador Cesar Cuahuatemoc Garcia Hernandez, the Real American?!
It is to laugh. You’re engaging in word games. If we buy your line, any invading army can just walk in - as long as they aren’t wearing a uniform - and declare themselves “residents”. Try proving they’re in an army: since they were never sworn in, their is no requirement for them to disclose such, and that means they can have 8 kids who you claim are “Citizen of the DisUnited Estates”.
PS the above case is not imaginary. In fact, it’s routine. As far back as the early 1980s, Mexican women in all the border towns waited on the other side until they had the first signs of labor and then they would get a taxi into the US and go to the farthest hospital they could, like Harbor General in San Pedro. The further north they were, the less likely that a CBP agent would be to force them back across the line. Friend of mine worked the ER back then and told me about it as early as 1985.
And after all this, you cling to the juvenile version of “subject to the jurisdiction”, as if these people had no other nationality, no place they have any ties to?
Again - please go back and read John Eastman’s careful delineation of the distinction between territorial and political jurisdiction, along with Sauer’s overwhelming evidence of the views of the Senators on this point in 1866 and 1868.
You have your opinion, but there’s an army of attorneys on the other side who don’t share it, or the opinion of the Chinese Maybe American girl the American Communist Liars Union put up on the other side.
Bkmk
Bkmk
“The problem with the document is that it’s not specific enough”
The document is plenty specific enough.
We as Americans used to know what the meaning was. We were indoctrinated out of knowing what it means because we have sat on our couches and let progressives own the schools(k-12 and universities).
https://grok.com/c/95d32c5a-4bcd-432b-8f7b-092c5e25cc83?rid=fc6f8a8b-4537-4170-8463-9afc3e73711d
Question: Was the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction therof” something members of Congress well understood in 1865 but today’s Americans have been indoctrinated out of understanding this phrase because of the widespread domination of schools by progressives?
Answer: Yes, members of Congress in 1866 (the Amendment was proposed by the 39th Congress in June 1866 and ratified in 1868; the relevant debates occurred then, shortly after the Civil War ended in 1865) understood the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause with precision and clarity.
U.S. K-12 civics and history curricula have long been contested along ideological lines, with evidence of left-leaning dominance in teacher training, textbooks, and academia (e.g., surveys of faculty political affiliations and critiques of materials emphasizing “living Constitution” interpretations over original public meaning). This can lead to simplified teaching that prioritizes post-Wong Kim Ark (1898) outcomes—where the Supreme Court extended citizenship to children of legal Chinese resident aliens—while downplaying the 1866 debates’ emphasis on “complete jurisdiction” and allegiance.
We used to know this.
The amendment has not changed.
We changed, because the progressives indoctrinated us out of knowing anything.
Progressive indoctrination in the schools is something we as FReepers discuss 3 times daily and 4 times on Sundays.
So what expectations and what results do you expect out of that very real knowledge of school indoctrination? Come on guys. We can’t just nebulously complain about indoctrination without realizing one real-world aspect of it and how it’s affecting us all.
Yes, I recognize that it is a bitter pill to swallow to admit that Self/I was indoctrinated. Its always so, so easy to point and say well that was someone else.
We used to know this.
Well then where did that knowledge go? Where did it go. And who stole it from us?
Progressives stole it. Progressives stole this knowledge. They are nothing but back alley smash-open-a-window-and-steal-what-you-can thieves.
“The problem with the document is that it’s not specific enough”
Yes the document is plenty specific enough and we can prove it with one simple test.
A British subject is subject to the jurisdiction of the British government. Are you having trouble understanding this? No, of course you aren’t. Nobody does.
So even with all the indoctrination in the schools, the truth still rings true.
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.