Posted on 01/22/2025 7:19:54 AM PST by mbrfl
From a Little Birdie on Trump winning the birthright citizenship battle at the Supreme Court (where this will ultimately go):
"The best argument is that a president has power to end birthright citizenship if its an invasion. Whoever on Trump's team that crafted his EO appears to be following an opinion from Federal Judge Jim Ho making that case (or what we call in my legal circles "The Ho Invasion Theory"). I'm not sure even Clarence Thomas agrees yet with ending birthright citizenship whole cloth. But I do think more judges would be willing to sign on to ending it under the guise of a president stopping an invasion as opposed to a governor like when Texas tried this. Because presidents have wide constitutional latitude when it comes to matters of national defense, and these illegal aliens are causing enough harm to be treated as enemy combatants. Or at the very least this level of invasion has the potential to. And most agree that so-called birthright citizenship does not apply to enemy combatants."
Whatever works.
Sounds like a lot of wishing and hoping. This needs to be fast-tracked for resolution.
This issue should not be for courts to decide. It is Congress which has the constitutional power.
What would be the ramifications of repealing the 14th amendment?
Congress did decide. The 14th amendment is clear enough for anyone who wants to actually read and understand it. The courts need merely to affirm that language.
Not going to happen and the Supreme Court is not gong to declare that illegals are “enemy combatants” which would mean the army can shoot them.
When you read that not even Clarence Thomas is ready to end birthright citizenship, the article could stop right there.
The only benefit of this executive order is that many illegals will think it might be upheld.
If Pedo Joe the Pedophile “Forgiver and Savior” of the leftist freaks can pass the 28th Amendment, I’m pretty sure President Trump can repeal the 14th Amendment.
I tend to agree, but it’s a nebulous phrase in the Amendment, unless one looks at legislative history (which is very favorable to our position, but what Senators said about text is not binding on a strict constructionist, unless it made it into the actual text).
“ Whatever works.”
*************************
Congress could help IMMENSELY by passing legislation that (with an effective date being the date of Trump’s executive order) declares illegal aliens (very broadly defined in the language of the legislation) to be SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THEIR HOME COUNTRIES).
What this really needs is an amendment, but that of course is more difficult than an EO.
And that is exactly what is about to happen.
Yeah but that court includes Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson. All women and I wish they’d be off that court!
The 14th was structured for slavery not people who broke the law and are here illegally.
Illegal aliens have not rights here.....it’s high time the left gets that through their thick ass heads.
Daddy’s home and he ain’t takin’ no shit.
.....sadly, I agree....I don’t think the SCOTUS will take that matter under consideration.... this is from another web site...another opinion on this matter.....
“Attorney Alan Dershowitz predicted Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s executive action on birthright citizenship might not survive legal challenges. Trump issued an executive order tightening the grounds on which citizenship would be granted to those born in the United States Monday, shortly after being sworn into office. Dershowitz said that while he felt birthright citizenship was “a dumb idea,” he believed Trump couldn’t alter it through executive action.”
The historical context was to give freed slaves citizenship.
They were brought here against their free will.
Such is not the case for illegal aliens.
When our Founding Fathers were putting the Constitution together the things like anchor babies and the Great Compromise weren’t topics at that time. A tidal wave can cross an entire ocean, hopefully these days are one of them.
There's dispute about exactly when the last freed American slave died, but nobody seriously disputes that all of them are now dead. (A living one would be pushing 160 years old!)
IMO, it's time to amend the 14th by repealing the birthright citizenship clause and replacing it with language asserting that (a) anyone born on US territory and subject to the jurisdiction of the US, at least one of whose parents* were US citizens at the time of birth, is a natural-born US citizen; and (b) in all other cases, Congress has power to legislate who is a natural born citizen, provided that only the law in force at the time of birth applies. (IOW, Congress can't retroactively declare someone an NBC.)
This fixes the ambiguity about who is a "natural-born citizen" for purposes of Presidential eligibility, as well as getting rid of birthright citizenship.
*You can try for "both parents," but it's going to be a huge reach.
Wrong. Since Marbury v. MADISON, the federal courts have been vested with the constitutional authority to interpret the law, including the Constitution.
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.