Posted on 01/21/2025 12:50:09 PM PST by mbrfl
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “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.” That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.
But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.
(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.
Sec. 3. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the regulations and policies of their respective departments and agencies are consistent with this order, and that no officers, employees, or agents of their respective departments and agencies act, or forbear from acting, in any manner inconsistent with this order.
(b) The heads of all executive departments and agencies shall issue public guidance within 30 days of the date of this order regarding this order’s implementation with respect to their operations and activities.
Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) “Mother” means the immediate female biological progenitor.
(b) “Father” means the immediate male biological progenitor.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 20, 2025.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.Expect LOTS of induced labors in the next 30 days.
This and border security is why I voted for this guy a third time. Winning! Now will the Supremes use Wong 1898 to strike this down is the question.
Well, maybe never been CORRECTLY interpreted. Certainly, a lot of people have been giving a nudge and wink to that end... which is why we're at this point today.
“...the Supremes use Wong 1898 to strike this down...”
-
No, and it would not be the first time
the Supreme Court overruled themselves.
President Trump has at least one outstanding lawyer writing up those exec orders. This one is brilliantly crafted with the understanding that lawsuits will be forthcoming, and that the issue will eventually wind up in the USSC.
One of the Big Guy’s appointees will declare this order unconstitutional and then the legal battle will begin.
On the contrary, SCOTUS’ decision in Wong Kim Ark should uphold this measure. Had it not been for the 1882 Chinese Immigration Act, the Wong Court said Ark’s parents would have been permanent residents, and thus, Ark was a 14A §1, birthright citizen.
At the time the Amendment was passed everyone clearly knew it was to provide citizenship for the emancipated slaves.
Looking ahead and assuming, for the sake of argument, that SCOTUS rules against Trump, there are a few options that could be pursued. One would be a constitutional amendment. While that’s definitely an option, it would be difficult.
Another approach would be to find legislative solutions that could minimize the frequency of birthright citizenship. Such strategies as may be devised, in combination with better border security overall could be an imperfect but largely effective solution.
As an example, just because an illegal has a child while in the U.S. doesn’t and shouldn’t mean that she herself automatically becomes a citizen. I’m not sure of the current practice, but my sense is that the system makes it very easy for the illegal alien mother to remain in the country. Legislation prohibiting illegals who have given birth in the U.S. from remaining in the country would reduce the incentive for them to come here in the first place. To add further disincentive, beyond immediate deportation, they should be banned for life from returning under any circumstances. The mother can either take her U.S. citizen baby back with her or leave it here under foster care. Either way, the whole practice becomes less attractive.
I think he’s kind of mischaracterizing the Dredd Scott decision.
Good start! Now protect the vote by requiring ID at the polls and eliminating mail-in voting except for those who must. Require those to be accepted by the post office only with proper ID.
While the 14th Amendment itself wasn’t meant to cover anchor babies, more recent Supreme Court decisions have inched the court’s interpretation of the amendment ever closer to granting birthright citizenship to anchor babies. The 1898 Court decision “USA vs Wong Kim Ark” granted automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents who are here LEGALLY. While that decision didn’t directly address children born to parents here ILLEGALY, that case and a handful of others will be taken as the starting point by SCOTUS.
What if the immediate male biological progenitor is not known or acknowledged?
Good question.
I think I got these quotes right:
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
1866 Civil Rights Act
“The phrase was intended to exclude from its operation the children of ministers, councils, and citizens or subjects of foreign states who are born within the United States.”
Slaughterhouse
“What the phrase that we’re using means is that it’s complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
Senator Trumbull
“I voted for the proposition to declare that children of all parentage whatsoever, born in California, should be regarded as citizens of the United States.”
Senator Conness
“Every citizen subject of another country while domiciled here is within the allegiance”
Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark
https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=lawreview
“domicile...one’s legal residence”
my dictionary
The concept of the parents being domiciled (legally resident) is key.
It’s not directly in the Amendment but was understood in Wong and at the time of ratification.
The “not owing allegiance to anybody else” requirement was stated by the Supreme Court in Slaughterhouse.
The text of Amendment II clearly says I should be able to carry a Stinger missile and its launcher around Reagan National when Congress is leaving town.
It’s quite absurd to say the US-born offspring of scofflaw Central American Indians should have birthright citizenship under Amendment XIV when the US-born offspring of law-abiding Native Americans of US tribes don’t have birthright citizenship under Amendment XIV.
It’s quite absurd to say the US-born offspring of Mexican Apaches should have birthright citizenship under Amendment XIV when the US-born offspring of law-abiding Oklahoma Cherokees don’t.
I recall an internet discussion on this topic before and a statement was made that the US is the only country in the world that grants citizenship to children born of foreign nationals. I believe that to be true.
I’m not a lawyer, but if true, then that, along with the original intent of the amendment should have some swaying power.
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.