Posted on 11/21/2025 2:13:01 PM PST by SharpRightTurn
Indians couldn't be citizens anyway, at least until the Indian citizenship act of 1924.
The 14th amendment started out by rejecting citizenship for Indians born here, so people need to realize that just being born here wasn't the deciding factor.
"Subject to the jurisdiction" was.
This is what I expect them to do as well. The legal minds of this nation have been polluted with English common law nonsense, and none of them are aware of the actual path we took to creating American citizenship.
So if we restart the Mexican/American war, which side gets to draft them legally?
Clear as mud. If it were clear, there wouldn't have been so many cases over it for the last 150 years.
It is absolutely confusing and poorly written. It was also illegally ratified, but nobody cares about that.
I always predict things will turn out badly, because if they turn out well, I am pleasantly surprised instead of unpleasantly surprised.
We should always be cynical about such things.
That argument is interesting. But there’s no way the Civil War was going to be fought without the issue of slavery being settled, such as it was. Even then, some states started to adopt Black Codes which greatly limited the rights of freed slaves, and those took decades to do away with.
If they can bust down your door, take your stuff, and put you in handcuffs on a plane to South Sudan, you are most certainly “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Some background from scotusblog.com:https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/how-birthright-citizenship-made-it-back-to-the-supreme-court/
SCOTUSBlog states accurately the status as of 9/29/2025.
Although Sauer had the option to ask the court to fast-track its petition, he chose not to. Accordingly, if the justices decide to take the case (for which four votes are needed), it will likely schedule oral arguments for sometime in 2026 and reach a decision at the end of the upcoming term – most likely in late June or early July.
The thread article is a load of bollocks.
The article dated November 21, 2025 falsely states that oral arguments were heard on Friday, presumably November 21, 2025. The only oral argument this year related to citizenship was heard on May 15, 2025.
As of 11/23, cert has not been announced as granted and there is nothing but a petition before the court.
The thread article claims:
Justices Zero In on 14th Amendment Text & IntentDuring arguments, several justices pressed the challengers to explain why the United States should reward citizenship to individuals whose parents entered the country illegally or temporarily.
Justice Gorsuch questioned whether the Court has ever explicitly held that children of illegal aliens are guaranteed citizenship: “Show me the case where we have decided this question.”
Justice Thomas focused on Reconstruction-era debates showing overwhelming evidence that the authors did not intend universal, unconditional birth citizenship.
Meanwhile, the Court’s liberal bloc attempted to frame Trump’s order as discriminatory and destabilizing, warning of “statelessness” and “harm to families.”
But even Justice Kagan conceded that the Court was entering “largely uncharted” legal territory—an admission that the Left’s claims of settled law are far from accurate.
Maybe some AI hallucinated that stuff about a non-existent oral argument. The quotes do not exist in the oral arguments in Casa. I asked Co-Pilot if any of the quotes were made by any of the justices in any oral argument and was provided the following:
Direct answer: There is no evidence that the alleged statements attributed to Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Kagan, or others were ever made in oral arguments. The Supreme Court has not yet held oral arguments on Trump’s birthright citizenship order; the case is still at the petition or preliminary stage. The quotes in Big League Politics appear to be fabricated or speculative rather than drawn from any official transcript.
Respondent's Brief at 7-10 provides a delightful review of U.S. Supreme Court precedent directly on point.
3. Precedent interpreting the Citizenship ClauseAfter the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption, this Court in Elk v. Wilkins, addressed the Citizenship Clause’s meaning with respect to Native Americans born in the United States. Explaining why the Citizenship Clause was understood to exclude certain Native Americans, Justice Gray reasoned that tribes, despite being within the United States, “were alien nations, distinct political communities,” with whom the United States dealt through treaties or specific legislation. Elk, 112 U.S. at 99. As a result, tribal members “are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ . . . than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.” Id. at 102.
Fourteen years later, Justice Gray wrote this Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark. The opinion exhaustively canvassed the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history, English and early American common law, and the meaning of birthright citizenship to the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment. It held that the Citizenship Clause stood for “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents[.]” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 688, 692-93. Thus, Wong Kim Ark, a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who could not themselves become U.S. citizens, was an American citizen. Id. at 704.
This Court’s decision hinged on the meaning of the Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The “real object” of that language was “to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases . . . recognized [as] exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” Id. at 682. The sole exceptions are “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state[.]” Id. This understanding was consistent with Elk, Justice Gray concluded, as that decision “concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents . . . not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.” Id. In emphasizing the broad scope of the citizenship grant, this Court explained that it “was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States, who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.” Id. at 676.
Since Wong Kim Ark, this Court has reiterated repeatedly that children born in this country are citizens without regard to their parents’ “primary allegiance” or domicile. See, e.g., Errico, 385 U.S. at 215 (explaining that a child had “acquired United States citizenship at birth” even though their noncitizen parents had entered the United States unlawfully); United States ex rel. Hintopoulos, 353 U.S. at 73 (stating that a child born to two “illegal[ly] presen[t]” noncitizens was “of course, an American citizen by birth”); see also Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129, 131 (1958); Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 720 (1952); Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329 (1939); Ah How v. United States, 193 U.S. 65, 65 (1904). And in Plyler v. Doe, this Court unanimously rejected the argument that undocumented immigrants fall outside the “jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. 457 U.S. at 211 n.10 (“[N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”); id. at 243 (Burger, C.J., dissenting) (agreeing with this conclusion).
Neither Plaintiff's Petition, nor Reply Brief, addressed the precedential cases of Errico; Hintopoulos; Kawakita; Elg; Ah How, or Plyler.
um... wrong idea dude...
it is not AFTER YOU COME HERE ILLEGALLY we are talking about here
it is the subject of CITIENSHIP
Just being born here is not enough.
Being here LEGALLY and SUBJECT to our laws it what is says. Either that second part of the clause means something or it doesn’t.
Being arrested if your a criminal does not qualify.
If your stupid comment was the meaning than anybody getting arrested could be considered a citizen?
That was a dumb dumb dumb comment
Its no wonder you work so hard to try to ignore the informed words of Raoul Berger and Robert Bork.
“The Court is expected to issue a decision by early summer 2026.
What do these people do all day ?”
That’s normal. All non emergency decisions come at the end of the term at the end of June.
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.