Posted on 03/11/2025 6:16:01 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
A third appellate court has upheld a block on President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals made the ruling Tuesday, denying a motion from Trump’s legal team to immediately overturn a block issued by a federal judge in Massachusetts.
Trump’s executive order would block automatic citizenship for any child born in the U.S. to someone who is in the country illegally, as well as children born to someone with temporary legal status if the child’s father is not a citizen or legal permanent resident.
Roughly two dozen states have sued over the executive order, which they say violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment promise of citizenship to anyone born inside U.S. borders.
But Trump’s legal team argues the Amendment, ratified 157 years ago after the end of the Civil War, only confers citizenship to people born under the jurisdiction of the United States — and they say jurisdiction isn’t always the same thing as being born on American soil.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Trump is right as to what makes sense as a matter of national policy, but wrong on the law.
This isn’t surprising. It was always going to end up in the Supreme Court—unless they chicken out and don’t take the case.
I don’t mind this too Much. Because this needs to get to the Supreme Court fast.
The wanted birthright citizenship the Founders would’ve said anyone born here is a Citizen period.
But it doesn’t say that only, there is an additional clause.
That additional clause either means something or it doesn’t.
If you let anyone born here become a citizen, Then that additional clause means nothing.
(but wrong on the law.)
Elaborate specifically how Trump is wrong on the law pertaining to the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship?
Subject to the jurisdiction
Worst. I bet they take it and rule against him
I don’t trust Roberts or Amy.
You are wrong, do some research and you will find the author of the law specifically recognized this was not intended to create birthrights as it is abused today, it was always meant for those already part of America not for birth tourism or visitors.
That is why the “subject to the jurisdiction” part.
Which was added later by……….. the guy who wrote the 14 amendment
The UK banned Birthright Citizenship in 1981.
We’re way behind them in that one respect.
No he isn’t. Just like Miller and the 2nd, the justices deliberately get the law wrong in their holdings in order to get the result that they want.
The entire concept of being in the country illegally didn't even exist at the time the 14th Amendment was passed and ratified because we had no laws restricting immigration. If you were here, that was all that matters.
Now, maybe the Framers would have wanted to carve out those here illegally if they'd thought of it, but they clearly didn't. It would have been extraordinarily easy to do, right? Just say "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, present legally, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
But they didn't say that. No distinction drawn between those here legally or illegally, and we can't just make it up now because we think it would be a good idea.
That being said, I personally don't think children born of people here illegally should get citizenship. It's terrible policy. But they didn't ask my opinion when they drafted the 14th Amendment.
Right there you lost any potential credibility you had regarding interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Yeah it is so clearly called out that it applies to ONLY diplomatic staff and families right? I don’t think so.!
You know as well as I do that the Blackmail Bank of America will decide that the ban is “unconstitutional..” through legal gymnastics from Barrett and Roberts..
You keep being a special kind of silly, Bingham was worried about slaves not becoming citizens, not birther tourism.
Feel free to continue the cringe though with your ignorance and comments equally so.
John Bingham: Father of the 14th Amendment
https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/the-father-of-the-14th-amendment/
(The entire concept of being in the country illegally didn’t even exist at the time the 14th Amendment was passed and ratified because we had no laws restricting immigration. )
I beg to differ. You forget the 1790 Naturalization Act, the first legislation by the first Congress on who is to be a citizen of the new nation.
[The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, enacted March 26, 1790) was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to “free White person(s) ... of good character”, thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, enslaved people, free Africans, Pacific Islanders, and Asians.]
The founders wanted the new nation’s Citizens to be free White people only.
Good explanation. I’ve always thought it would take an amendment to change it, but I’m no lawyer.
And of course we have the words of the Senator Jacob Howard who introduced the resolution to incorporate the 14th, he specifically stated it does not support foreigners becoming citizens.
https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
But please continue with your erudite recitations and ad hominems. Though you might want to actually know what you are talking about.
Tell us again how Trump got the law wrong when the “father” of the 14th and the Senator who introduced it both never supported the current unconstitutional interpretation?
I didn't forget anything. I said:
The entire concept of being in the country illegally didn’t even exist at the time the 14th Amendment was passed and ratified because we had no laws restricting immigration.
The Nationalization Act of 1790 said nothing restricting immigration. It was about granting citizenship, not restricting who could and couldn't enter the country.
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.