Posted on 07/23/2025 7:10:25 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday said President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order is unconstitutional.
In a 2-1 ruling, the appeals court upheld a nationwide injunction against Trump’s order.
The three-judge panel included: Majority: Judge Gould (Clinton), Judge Hawkins (Clinton) – Dissent: Judge Bumatay (Trump).
“The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,” the majority wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Yes the The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has a high losing track record record anyway.
“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.”
How are illegals subject to the jurisdiction when they are violating the law right off the top not to mention the government isn’t even aware they are in the country? This is like saying “All residents of Spain are citizens of the USA” plus the 14th was referring to slaves not foreign breeding cows who sneak across the border and dump a baby.
Yep, it’s difficult to say how the Sc will rule. Immigration laws have been on the books almost since the beginning of the country. But they are a mess to decipher. The question will be; are the children of illegal aliens and non-residents here on temporary visas citizens of the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
That is difficult to say. It obviously means that children born in the US to foreign diplomats and their foreign-born employees are not citizens since they are exempt from US laws. So are illegal aliens and foreigners on tourist and temporary work visas “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
The obvious answer is yes, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US since they can be arrested and prosecuted under US laws. But they are not granted full constitutional rights since they aren’t citizens. So are they really? Does this mean that the children born in the US to illegal alien sleeper cell spies are US citizens?
It’s not an easy question to answer?
Its the so called ‘birthright citizenship’ which is unConstitutional...
Name the Article or Amendment which gives an illegal alien instant American citizenship...
Hint: There isnt one...
It was a rhetorical question. In the debates in Congress it was made clear that it excluded sojourners, those only in the country temporarily. Without a legal residency in the country, illegals should be considered just that, and their children born here should not bring automatic citizenship.
Be careful what you wish for.
9-0 for birthright citizenship, it's the easiest case they will have all year.
9th Circus...three judges.IIRC the 9th Circus’s batting average with SCOTUS is something like .045
“ There is a strong originalist argument against the current birthright interpretation. The authors of the amendment clearly had no intention that it could be twisted this way. But yeah. Guess we’ll see.”
Exactly!
That’s the way I understand it too.
I wouldn’t bet my life savings on SCOTUS ruling correctly on this case. But I do wonder if a Constitutional Amendment could succeed.
Ninth Circus Court of Appeals ruled against Trump today. In other news, a dog bit a man, and a bear crapped in the woods. Experts agree that the Pope is Catholic, and that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, and the Trump Administration will appeal the Ninth Circus ruling.
Judgment won't stand because they didn't add the '... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and gave an incorrect ruling.
Ninth Circus, how predictable
What you’re seeing is what was proposed...not what finally became law. The first part doesn’t even make sense. “born who are foreigners” - you can’t be both etc
There is an inference to families of dignitaries in the statement made about the amendment by the amendment’s author! Also there is a statement about aliens, etc. by the author as well. It was not intended to mean what you think or want it to mean.
Also, you are stating that your grandparents were not naturalized, and thus their children (your parents) were by virtue of that bor to non-citizens (not naturalized). If your parent were natuarlized, or otherwise brought under the jurisdiction thereof the US (laws related to american indians/native americans, or treaties, then yeah, you were born to naturalized parent and thus meet the criteria. Otherwise, you’re arguing the law shouldn’t apply to you because you don’t like the idea.
Whatever, I need no further replies or discussion from you on this topic. It seems pretty clear that you won’t be convinced otherwise anyhow, and I don’t need a back and forth that will be a fruitless waste of my time.
a strike out at this level.
another swing at the supreme court.
AND THEN, the real goal, a national discussion and legislation.
The Supreme court has shown some common sense lately, and as we are the only country on Earth allowing birthright citizenship...they will again.
Actually most of the Western Hemisphere allows birthright citizenship.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-birthright-citizenship
Newborn children of foreigners are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof (The United States)”. They are subject to the jurisdictions of their parents’ home countries.
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.