Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spoiling for a fight: Why challenging birthright citizenship is a win-win for Trump
Hill ^ | 02/01/25 | Jonathan Turley,

Posted on 02/02/2025 6:37:37 AM PST by george76

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 02/02/2025 6:37:37 AM PST by george76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: george76

BTTT


2 posted on 02/02/2025 7:10:54 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

I think the Trump admin is hoping this will go to SCOTUS - but with Coney-Barrett, Kavanaugh and Roberts, it may not be the win the Trump admin thinks it will be.


3 posted on 02/02/2025 7:24:51 AM PST by Bon of Babble (You Say You Want a Revolution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (page 45):

“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep169/usrep169649/usrep169649.pdf


4 posted on 02/02/2025 7:39:10 AM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bon of Babble

I’ve wanted this fight for more than 50 years. It’s way past time.


5 posted on 02/02/2025 7:44:49 AM PST by SomeCallMeTim (S)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: george76
This is perhaps best evinced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe’s profane tirade the last time Trump raised this issue years ago: “This f—ing racist wants to reverse the outcome of the Civil War.”

I'm glad I don't know what it's like to be that stupid.

6 posted on 02/02/2025 7:44:53 AM PST by libertylover (Our biggest problem, by far, is that almost all of big media is AGENDA-DRIVEN, not-truth driven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Invaders who commit crimes should be removed. This is something Team Trump has legal authority to do.

The non-thug invaders should be financially squeezed by all means we can think of, hopefully right out of the USA”

1. no welfare, except Medicaid/Kidscare, for persons under age 2....


7 posted on 02/02/2025 7:45:47 AM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bon of Babble
I think the Trump admin is hoping this will go to SCOTUS

I think everyone knows this will go to SCOTUS, hopefully fairly soon. If SCOTUS allows anchor babies to continue, a Constitutional Amendment will have to be tried.

8 posted on 02/02/2025 7:47:52 AM PST by libertylover (Our biggest problem, by far, is that almost all of big media is AGENDA-DRIVEN, not-truth driven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: george76

Marking.


9 posted on 02/02/2025 7:50:01 AM PST by Rummyfan ( In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libertylover

Tribe and his tribe aren’t stupid. Like Upchuck Schumer he’s conniving.


10 posted on 02/02/2025 8:09:01 AM PST by In_Iowa_not_from
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin

“Resident aliens” precludes illegal aliens and temporary aliens, 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.


11 posted on 02/02/2025 8:34:12 AM PST by batazoid (Natural born citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: george76

I’m in too much of a rush right now to research it, but I heard that the 14th amendment was essentially a restatement of a civil rights law passed a year or so before, and the exclusion in it was a little wider in not allowing anyone with loyalty to another country. It would be interesting to see the legislative history of it and the discussions while writing the amendment.


12 posted on 02/02/2025 8:35:11 AM PST by KarlInOhio (“Forget it, Jake. It's California.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin

I read that. No, not merely the paragraph, but the pathetic, EXTREMELY presuming arguments which rationalize birth citizenship while ignoring one aspect little discussed except from the position of Conservatives opposed to it:

Birth tourism.

Perhaps stating the obvious, IMHO:

The fundamental defect in all the ‘logic’ is that an infant confers the benefits of our government upon the parents.

That is a bold-faced lie born - ahem - of progressive emotional ‘logic’.

Logically, the benefits of citizenship for the infant do not apply until the child is of age - 18 - and, for all legal intents & purposes, is conferred dual citizenship at most, no different than a baby born to American parents while overseas who - in most, if not all, countries - possesses ONLY the benefit of citizenship of its parents.

The British Crown obviously viewed its isolation as an island country as an advantage which negated any need whatsoever for discussion of the problem posed by ‘birth tourism...’

...a problem they, too, grapple with to this day as they continue to be assaulted by illegal migration mostly from islamic countries.

Any SCOTUS argument in favor of birth citizenship to aliens which ignores the prima facie evidence posed by the negative effects of such upon UK et al is defective on its face.

But it is a die which has been rolled by DJT and one which we badly have needed to roll for decades.

This website elaborates upon the health benefits to children - and parents - of said US citizens

https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/children-of-immigrants-key-facts-on-health-coverage-and-care/

and this outlines the vast number of resources available to aliens, notwithstanding non-government sources

https://pifcoalition.org/checklist

And to those who would argue that there are mechanisms in place to check & balance abuse of provisions of the web of bureaucracy involved in alien benefits: I argue that you have never been privy to the resources available to said aliens to both navigate and negate such protections against abuse.

I have.

The amount of money each hardworking American family pays to facilitate this invasion is an insult to our core values.

I have argued for years that obamacare was not merely a socialized medicine push, but part of policy objectives by said enemies of the state who sought to normalize importation of foreigners to the US for the purpose of dilution of the Republic, pursuant to the goals of globalists.

Demonstratively, the repeated violations of US sovereignty under the aegis of both the obama & biden administrations highlight the danger of diluting the US population with foreigners who owe no allegiance whatsoever.

Ironically, a recent video by Selena Gomez further highlights the dangers posed even by multigenerational children born in the US of ‘migrants’.

“My people.”

Pshaw.


13 posted on 02/02/2025 8:36:35 AM PST by logi_cal869 (-cynicus the "concern troll" a/o 10/03/2018 /!i!! &@$%&*(@ -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: george76

“No ex post facto law…”

Ex post facto laws are laws that retroactively change the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the law was enacted, often criminalizing actions that were previously legal or increasing penalties for past offenses. In the United States, both federal and state governments are prohibited from enacting such laws under the Constitution.

Doesn’t that mean that those already born here, who have been considered citizens are protected should a change be made?


14 posted on 02/02/2025 8:38:39 AM PST by JimRed (TERM LIMITS, NOW! Finish the damned WALL! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libertylover

Sure, but then they can’t bring up the slavery card ever again.


15 posted on 02/02/2025 8:52:49 AM PST by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I love Turley but he changed the quote:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

Real quote is:

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.”

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32437011560386&seq=125

16 posted on 02/02/2025 8:59:45 AM PST by edwinland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: george76

There is a way to fight these citizenship claims. Allow the claimant to assert the right to citizenship upon reaching the age of maturity (18 or 21). Until then, the claimant isn’t a citizen and can be deported.


17 posted on 02/02/2025 9:33:43 AM PST by DugwayDuke (Most pick the expert who says the things they agree with.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

As John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, pointed out to G. Washington, then presiding over the first Constitutional Convention (and I am paraphrasing here), “We are no longer subjects, but citizens, consenting to be governed.” Like naturalized Citizens, Citizens at birth must establish their allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws of the state in which they reside. The only way they can do that is by being the offspring of Citizens. Or in the words of Senator John Bingham, one of the framers of the 14th Amendment, “I assert that every person born within the limits of the Republic, or under its flag at sea, of parents who were not subjects of any other sovereignty, are, in the very words of the Constitution, natural born citizens.”


18 posted on 02/02/2025 10:19:13 AM PST by batazoid (Natural born citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void; aragorn; EnigmaticAnomaly; kalee; Kale; AZ .44 MAG; Baynative; bgill; bitt; ...

p


19 posted on 02/02/2025 10:21:14 AM PST by bitt (<img src=' 'width=40%>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edwinland

I agree. But let’s remember, these were manual notes taken down as correctly as possible at the time, but mistakes were possible.


20 posted on 02/02/2025 10:34:12 AM PST by batazoid (Natural born citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson