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 05/11/2025 5:05:35 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
For far too long, the American legal and political landscape has been distorted by a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment: that merely being born on U.S. soil makes one a citizen. This misconception contradicts the original intent of the amendment’s framers. Furthermore, it undermines the foundational principle that citizenship arises from allegiance, not geographic happenstance.
On May 15, the Supreme Court will take up three cases, consolidated under the name Trump v. CASA. It will address Donald Trump’s bold and necessary attempt to end the unconstitutional practice of granting citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental allegiance. The fact that the Court has chosen to hear these cases in May — a rare occurrence typically reserved for matters of utmost urgency — underscores just how pivotal this issue is. The stakes couldn’t be higher. At risk is the foundational principle that citizenship is rooted in allegiance, not mere geography. This is a principle that the Constitution clearly supports and that decades of judicial misinterpretation have dangerously eroded.
President Donald Trump’s executive order is at the crux of this case, and marks a critical moment in the battle to restore constitutional integrity. This action, however, has rekindled debate over whether birthright citizenship is truly required by the 14th Amendment. A closer examination of the Constitution, its framers’ intent, and relevant historical precedents reveals that birthright citizenship is neither constitutionally mandated nor consistent with the principles of American law and government.
The Crux of the Issue: Jurisdiction and Allegiance
The primary argument for birthright citizenship hinges on the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads:
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.
Advocates of birthright citizenship often isolate...
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.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.
The Peruvian Pope would beg to disagree
As an aside, this demonstrates a good reason not to allow dual citizenship.
Roberts and Conway. So far seem bent on Warrenizing the Court.
Our Department of State handed out citizenship automatically to hundreds of thousands of people.
It was done quietly and with little fanfare and has persisted for more than two generations. Our demographics are changing before our very eyes and we don’t seem to have the will to stop it.
This always seemed very clear to me. I work in IT, and am familiar with Boolean logic, and the purpose and meaning of the word "AND" in the statement:
"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."
I have always been puzzled that it is somehow not crystal clear that to certain people, the Boolean logic imposes by that word "AND" makes the intent crystal clear, as did the statement by Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who introduced the Citizenship Clause in 1866.
I have to remind myself that the people who have deliberately misinterpreted it did not do so on the basis of logic.
I have never, ever understood why we allow dual citizenship. Ever. It seems antithetical to everything outlined in the Constitution which seemed carefully constructed to prevent foreign influences...and dual citizenship is somehow allowed?
It just doesn’t logically follow.
It wasn’t even contemplated; that’s how beyond the pale it was.
BTTT
Good thing his opinion is irrelevant
Don’t get your hopes up
A guaranteed certainty is that Roberts will be with his three democrat females.
And Barrett, who knows what delusions are running through her brain,.
That blank sheet she displayed at her confirmation hearing turns out to be a representation of her judicial thought processes.
There are too many women on the Supreme Court. They will allow birth right citizenship to stand forever.
Dual citizenship was handed out to Israelis almost as a matter of routine.
I don’t recall a time in my life (or ever) when it was never handed out to anyone. But there may have been a period I am ignorant of when it wasn’t done.
I’m with you on this one.
It’s also allowed for Mexicans, Canadians and the Irish, and probably many others. Why do you focus on Israelis?
Are the Israelis a protected group?
To follow the birthright citizenship proponents argument to its conclusion, children of US citizen born outside the country would not be US citizens. That would leave them citizens of nowhere.
EC
Someone needs to get this article to Pam Bondi and/or the Solicitor General. With this Supreme Court, they need all the help that they can get in formulating arguments.
Can bet on this one. Judge Roberts the coward will engineer this result:
The Court holds that it is the province of Congress to issue such a law banning birthright citizenship. Since that was not done in this case, the Court need not reach the merits of whether such a ban is permissible.
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.