Justices will hear arguments on Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on May 15 on the federal government’s request to be allowed to implement President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship to almost everyone born in the United ...
Birthright citizenship is nowhere in the Constitution.
It simply isn't there.
That term is not in the US Constitution, but the 14th Amendment does state the following:
U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1:
I don't think President Trump will win this. However, I don't think that is necessarily his goal. I think his goal is for Congress and perhaps all Americans to fix this Amendment, yet again (see Dred Scott), to outlaw the practice of human trafficking to the U.S. for the purpose of having anchor babies.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
The word AND means both factors must be true.
A foreign citizen is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
If anyone born on US soil was automatically a US citizen, Congress would never have had to pass the Indian Citizenship act of 1924 to give American Indians citizenship.
My grandfather was not a US citizen when he was born.
Ding ding ding ding!!! For the win!!
So simple a 5th grader can explain it. Just like “…shall not be infringed…”.
Interesting.
There is an and but also an or between born and naturalized.
A non-naturalized foreign citizen may not be subject to US jurisdiction, but I would think a child born here would be. Their rights are separate from their parents as a unique individual. Even though their parents might be lying, cheating illegals, that's not the child's fault.
Is it possible the Indian Citizenship act was passed because native Americans lived on reservations, which were established as sovereign territories for them? Technically, they were born on sovereign Indian reservations and not born in the United States, even though the reservations exist within the boundaries of the united states?
To be clear, I don't want anchor babies or any of this invasion going on. I just think the 14th amendment may need to be updated. I don't think they ever envisioned an assault from within by our own government, effectively allowing the invasion of our nation with full support by the president (biden) and his executive branch.
They obviously flooded our nation on purpose and have used a corrupt Judicial branch to do so. I don't have as much faith in our SCOTUS as I should. I think they are compromised too.
The OR indicates either of those prior conditions AND the condition after must be met.
Even Indians born off the reservations were not citizens if their parents were enrolled tribal members.
They were consided to be under the jurisdiction of their respective tribal governments.
Also, although Indians had 'sovereign' nations, they still had to follow the Constitution and all federal laws.
For instance, you could not own slaves on a reservation once the 14th amendment was ratified.
So they were technically under the jurisdiction of the federal govt but tribal members were still not considered to be citizens.
There is even a case that was taken all the way to the SCOTUS where an Indian wanted to vote but was denied since he was an enrolled tribal member and therefore not a US citizen.
So yes, freed slaves were US citizens before American Indians were, even though Indians were here before there was a United States.
All great feedback fren. I appreciate the thorough responses.
I am praying we figure this out once and for all. An invasion by millions is not okay. I think we can all agree on that!
Jus Soli makes the Baby one that IS ""Subject to the Jurisdiction""....
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark....
Wong was a legal resident not an illegal alien.
As a legal resident you are 'subject to the jurisdiction of' the US.
I presented the SCOTUS Decision of that entire Case, it says what it says....
If you want to Re-argue the case, then have at it, Reopen it at District and go, or build a Time Machine and go back and argue the case in its own Time Period....
I simply presented what is now Established Law, an I will not help you feel superior just because you want to repeat Hearsay/Rumors....
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1....
STATE CITIZEN is a Birthright Citizenship....
Then why pass the the 14th declaring slaves as citizens and why pass the Indian Citizen Act?
Nowhere, absolutely Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it say anything about Freeing Slaves....
Find it and Post it if you think that's true, read the whole thing, and find where it says anything at all about Any Slaves....
We aren't speaking about the Indian Citizens Act are we, no, no we are not, at no point was anything mentioned about that Act, so WHY would you bring up a Nonsequiture???
Liberal SCOTUS probably will not end birthright citizenship but it's good to bring the case as far as it will go : /
Are you 100% sure???
jus soli noun
In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote:
It was NEVER Directly Intended to give any of the Freed Slaves any form of Citizenship, because ALL OF CONGRESS knew way back then, that the Slaves were already STATE CITIZENS under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
""each State"" has been and was back then intentionally Misinterpreted as meaning ""ALL States"", but they knew it meant Individual States....
And no, I have no idea why they would Confuse it in this manner other than to Cause a Big Problem in the Future....