Supreme Court Path for President Trump on Birthright Citizenship

Breitbart ^ | Feb. 17, 2025 | Ken Klukowski

[libstripper]

President Donald Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, tied to the invasion on the border, tees up a major Supreme Court case that could become a historic Trump win that fixes a growing, decades-long problem.

[libstripper]

This is an excellent article that's essentially a well researched brief showing that birthright citizenship was never intended for either the children of illegal aliens or the children of aliens who are only temporarily in the United States but retained their basic allegiance to the foreign powers from which they came. The author is "a lawyer who served in the White House and Justice Department."

[grobdriver]

children of aliens who are only temporarily in the United States but retained their basic allegiance to the foreign powers from which they came.

Like waving a Mexican flag around at a protest?

[Dalberg-Acton]

"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."

[Organic Panic]

Roberts and Barrett will make sure it is law of the land. Those two are.....no good.

[ClearCase_guy]

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

I'd like to see some details on what this means precisely. It's often presented as a crucially important part of Why anchor babies don't deserve birthright citizenship. But I don't grasp the nuances.

[4Runner]

It means if the mother and the father of the infant are both U.S. citizens thus subject to the jurisdiction thereof, then the child is also and is a U.S. citizen by reason of birth. If the mother and father are from Ecuador and are here illegally, and have the baby here, it is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. because the parents are subject to the jurisdiction of Ecuador, not the U.S.

Comprende?

[Tell It Right]

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

I'd like to see some details on what this means precisely. It's often presented as a crucially important part of Why anchor babies don't deserve birthright citizenship. But I don't grasp the nuances.

Respectfully, "nuances" is how the left starts a slippery slope and makes it into a problem.

For how "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was used at the time it was ratified, look at indigenous Americans born on U.S. soil but their parents were not U.S. citizens. Babies born to what they called "straggling Indians" (didn't belong to a tribe) were considered Americans by birth. Babies born to parents who were part of a tribe weren't U.S. citizens at birth.

Of course, now in our densely populated world, everybody is part of some nation (no one is born into a "straggling" group of people). And in 1924, the Indian Citizenship Act made all indigenous Americans U.S. citizens, so my prior example Indians doesn't apply today. But it's an example of what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.

[Segovia]

It was written for the sole purpose of guaranteeing former slaves irrevocable citizenship and rights. At the time it became an amendment, it did not include native Americans— the took many years to rectify. The damn thing is poorly written, giving the Dems the opportunity to interpret the works as they please. Tourists, while they are here are subject to US jurisdiction. The Amendment needs to be reversed, just like prohibition.

[batazoid]

Now Hold On There! We are Citizens by consent, not subjects by birth. It’s been that way since Independence. There are only two kinds of citizenship: Citizenship by natural right and citizenship by the plenary power of the state, naturalization. If both of your parents were citizens at the time of your birth, you are a natural born citizen. All other citizenship is naturalized citizenship either at birth or afterward.

[logi_cal869]

Presuming that it becomes a win...

...hot on its heels should be a case to force SCOTUS to revisit its illegals/schools decision.

[escapefromboston]

It’s pretty obvious that the amendment wasn’t meant to apply to illegals but the questions is if the Supreme Court as the guts to do the right thing . I doubt Amy will vote for it to be overturned .

[libertylover]

"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."

Yep, the Supreme Court will have to try to clear up what that means.

[libertylover]

If both of your parents were citizens at the time of your birth, you are a natural born citizen.

Yes, but the Supreme Court will have to address the case where the father of a child is not known.

[batazoid]

In such cases, if the mother was a US citizen, her offspring would be an nBc. If she wasn’t a US citizen, her offspring’s nationality would be the same as its mother’s.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article libstripper.

"Supreme Court Path for President Trump on Birthright Citizenship"

---

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

From related threads ...

Whatever they're teaching students about interpreting the Constitution in the post-FDR era law schools, it's evidently not to consider the intentions of constitutional lawmakers.

Noting that Rep. John Bingham is the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), it was actually Sen. Jacob Howard who requested that the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase be included in that section.

"14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born [all emphases added] 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Regarding Sen. Howard's intention for his jurisdiction phrase, the congressional record gives us his speech for including it in Section 1, his phrase best interpreted as rejecting birthright citizenship imo.

More specifically, he explained his phrase in the context of natural law and national law, these laws referenced below just as national law.

"...[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law [all emphases added] a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." —Speech on the proposed 14th Amendment

The national law that Howard was referring to is probably the "mysterious" Law of Nations (LoN), international law at the time, which is referenced in Constitution, especially in the context of challenges to the natural born citizenship requirement for POTUS.

In fact, elite desperate Democrats trying to control the Oval Office seem to argue that since natural born citizen isn't defined in the Constitution, it should simply be ignored.

Getting back to 14A citizenship qualifications, since Howard explained the qualifications in the context of national law, consider that the justices who decided the Wong Kim Ark case in Ark's favor possibly overlooked that LoN indicates that he was born a Chinese citizen under international law imo, inheriting his citizenship from his father regardless where he was born.

"[Law of Nations,] Book I, Chapter 19, section 212:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children [all emphases added]; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

So if the justices who decided Wong Kim Ark were sincerely trying to determine Sen. Howard's intent for his phrase to be included in Section 1, they seem to have overlooked LoN.

But we still have the question, or so it seems, of the importance of LoN in our constitutional republic.

Actually, it turns out that Justice John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had clarified in an official note that the Law of Nations is as much U.S. law as the Constitution is.

Excerpted from the writings of Chief Justice John Jay:

"That you may percieve more clearly the Extent and objects of your Inquiries, it may be proper to observe that the Laws of the united States admit of being classed under three Heads or³ Descriptions—

1^st. all Treaties made under the authority of the united States.

2^dly. The Laws of nations [emphasis added]—

3^dly. The Constitution, and Statutes of the united States—"

—John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, 22 May 1793

So LoN that Sen. Howard was probably referring to is his speech (imo) seems to support the stricter interpretation that children born to foreigners and aliens in the U.S. are not automatically citizens.

Finally, since neither of the terms “birthright citizenship” or “anchor baby” appear in Section 1 of 14A, these terms are interpolations and additions to that section (imo) which the Supreme Court has condemned in general.

“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters [all emphases added]; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction [spin] and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.

[jdege]

Wong Kim Ark’s parents weren’t citizens of the United States, but they were legal long-term residents.

[philman_36]

A president with the wind to his back should hope to pass such a statutory fix.

Laying the bone down in front of the DOG!
CONGRESS is responsible for this mess.
CONGRESS needs to amend USC 8 Sec 1401(a).

[Amendment10]

Thanks for reply jdege.

"Wong Kim Ark’s parents weren’t citizens of the United States, but they were legal long-term residents."

---

It has been noted that 14th Amendment (14A) didn't automatically make Native Americans citizens regardless that they were born on American soil.

Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

The Indian Citizenship Act weakens the soil argument imo, the Supreme's arguably amending 14A from the bench in Wong Kim Ark’s case.

“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters [all emphases added]; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction [spin] and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.

[itsahoot]

Laying the bone down in front of the DOG!
CONGRESS is responsible for this mess.
CONGRESS needs to amend USC 8 Sec 1401(a).

Even if Congress did this it will be decided by 5 people in black robes.

[philman_36]

A short term fix. The law needs to be clarified, which the Court just might do and which the Dems don't want to happen.

A SC decision might make Congress amending USC 8 Sec. 1401(a) a necessity.