It’s not the first time Trump has considered showing up for a high court hearing. Last year, Trump said that he badly wanted to attend a hearing on whether he overstepped federal law with his sweeping tariffs, but he decided against it, saying it would have been a distraction....
“I’m going,” Trump said, when the upcoming arguments in the birthright citizenship case were mentioned. To a follow-up question clarifying that he planned to go in person, Trump said, “I think so, I do believe.”
He sat in court when they were trying him for those crimes they convicted him of. He knows how to sit in court.
From the transcript of the press conference:
Trump: And I'm going —
Doocy: You're going to go to the Supreme Court tomorrow and just sit there and listen?
Trump: Because I have listened to this argument for so long. And this is not about Chinese billionaires who are billionaires from other countries who all of a sudden have 75 children or 59 children in one case or 10 children becoming American citizens. This was about slaves. And if you take a look, slaves — we're talking about slaves from the Civil War. And if you take a look at when it was filed, all of this legislation, all of this everything having to do with birthright citizenship, it was at the end of the Civil War. The reason was it had to do with the babies of slaves and the protection of the babies of slaves. It didn't have to do with the protection of multi-millionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get an American citizenship.
It is the craziest thing I've ever seen. It's been so badly handled by legal people over the years. If you look at the original birthright citizenship papers, they all happened right after the Civil War. The reason was it had to do with the babies of slaves. And hopefully it's going to say it, because our country is being scammed. We're getting all of these people. They're selling the rights to them. People are making a living, a big living, getting hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars from bringing people in and saying, "Congratulations, your whole family is going to be a citizen of the United States of America." That's not what it was for. It wasn't for billionaires bringing people in or family in. It was for the children of slaves.
And what you really have to do, and I don't think the lawyers talk about it as much, look at when the Civil War ended and look at the date of when this was enacted. Okay.
Question: Have you ever been to the Supreme Court before? Is this going to be the first time going to the Supreme Court?
Trump: Once before, the opening of the Supreme Court in the last administration.
Question: And which justices will you be listening for most closely?
Trump: I love a few of them. I don't like some others. And you know, you say what you want, but you have the ones that were appointed by Barack Hussein Obama and Biden. I don't care how good your case is. You can have the greatest case ever. They're going to rule against you. They always do. And it's not supposed to be that way. Now, the Republicans tend to be very different. They want to show how honorable they are. So, a man can appoint them and they can rule against him. They're so proud of it. We're so proud we ruled against Trump. We're so proud. We're above it. There are those that say that's wonderful. And there are those that say they're so stupid. But the Democrats never fail at one thing. When Barack Hussein Obama or when Biden appoints somebody, they go along that line. You can have the greatest case in history. And almost — I guess I have to say almost, maybe I don't have to say it — almost without fail those people, four of them, sometimes five of them but four of them will vote against you. You don't have a chance. You don't have a chance. And that's not what the court system is. Now the Republican appointees tend to go — and this has been long before me, this has been for many years — uh, some people would call it stupidity. Some people would call it disloyal. Some people would say they're right in doing it. And I don't mind being right, but the other side almost never does it. Almost. I think you could find maybe a couple of instances. Almost never does. When a Democrat appoints a judge, and I'm talking about judges, not justices. You go before some of these Democrat judges in Washington DC and you don't have a chance. That's why I gave pardons to hundreds of people that were so badly treated having to do with J6.
Posts
106 comments:
He'll be throwing spitballs at AA Action Jackson since her vote is already baked into the cake.
I saw a X post by Harmeet Dhillon who referenced a "President's Chair" at the high court. Apparently it has only been used during ceremonial events. Several presidents have argued at the High Court before or after their terms as in the White House. Interesting.
Her post was in response to lefties doing the Chicken Little thing about how Trump is breaking all the norms. But I have not seen an actual argument articulated that his presence presents a problem for the Justices hearing oral arguments.
Instapundit reposted some CBS reporterette clutching her pearls over Trump's attendance about 'separation of powers'. No word on what she said after Chuck the Schmuck lead a mob to the USSC and verbally threatened the Justices.
Our “media”… making a BIG deal out of this, even though there is a chair set up at SCOTUS for our presidents to sit in for oral arguments.
Just say Hell No! to birthright citizenship, which is allowing and assisting the CCP and the Third World in changing the face and electorate of our nation.
The day after a judge said the Executive Branch can’t do what it wants with the White House, we are to believe it is harmful for the President to simply sit in on Supreme Court hearings?
It demonstrates the priority and importance of the case. No surprise the left wants to stop that. Maybe they can get a Hawaiian judge from New York to prohibit his presence…
KBJ, “Trump! Why are you so mean!?”
Trump, “Madame Justice. I can call you Madame, can’t I? You are a woman, right?
You need me on that wall. You need me to protect our Republic. You laugh and mock me at Georgetown cocktail parties, but when you are home and safe in your bed you are secretly glad that I’m the one protecting you from lawless chaos. At least you could have the decency to thank me.”
The invasion by illegals must be stopped.
One of the genius moves that Trump makes over and over and over again is the breaking of "norms". Davos DNC mainstream media complex then response by crying foul about all of the norms that have been broken by Trump. This makes them official Karens of the world and everybody sees that. The vast silent majority of Middle road Americans hates Karens.
Rinse, repeat.
People who say this is just a distraction from the war in Iran, which was a distraction from the Epstein files. Don't realize that is merely just a hiatus. A brief interlude we will be back to the war shortly after these important messages from our sponsor.
Normally, parties to a case before the Supreme Court have to sit in the visitor’s gallery. But is Trump going to try to sit with the Solicitor General at the counsel table? According to his theory of the Presidency, he would think he has the right to.
And that's not what the court system is
That is exactly what the court system is. If not for a single Presidential election victory…
In accordance with his theory of citizenship and his Save Act, to attend the proceedings Trump should have to produce his birth certificate, and the birth certificates and naturalization papers of his parents and grandparents.
"And you know, you say what you want, but you have the ones that were appointed by Barack Hussein Obama and Biden. I don't care how good your case is. You can have the greatest case ever. They're going to rule against you. They always do. And it's not supposed to be that way...When a Democrat appoints a judge, and I'm talking about judges, not justices. You go before some of these Democrat judges in Washington DC and you don't have a chance. That's why I gave pardons to hundreds of people that were so badly treated having to do with J6."
At least Trump gets it.
Stupid people look in the mirror howard
Invasion by mass immigration there probably isnt a mandarin word for it, but peter schweitzer suggests there is coordination grom the south and the east
Obama threatened the court with the fury of the mob, if they didnt cave and they did on obama so put away your fainting couches
Obamacare and the abomination of gay marriage
We already know the 3 D SCOTUS Justices will vote to uphold birthright citizenship. And we can be sure 10-1 Roberts will too, since he's a Bush Globalist and hates Trump. That leaves the other 5, and God knows what they'll do.
Trump puts his finger on the problem. The R judges always want to show how they're individuals and "free thinkers". Objective. The R Senators are the same, they dont follow no stinkin party line. Tillis, a perfect example, has decided to retire and he's a loose cannon constantly shouting to the world "I don't care what the R voters want or what trump wants, I only follow me".
If the drafters of the 14th Amendment and the people who ratified it had intended to limit its protections to freed slaves only—as some claim—they could have easily included specific language to that effect. They did not.
It’s striking how familiarity with the Citizenship Clause often seems to vanish when it comes to the Due Process Clause of the same amendment. Selective reading at its finest.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Normally, parties to a case before the Supreme Court have to sit in the visitor’s gallery. But is Trump going to try to sit with the Solicitor General at the counsel table? According to his theory of the Presidency, he would think he has the right to.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did two appellate arguments, representing the State after two trials I had won. I did the brief and oral argument myself (instead of the Attorney General's Office) because I wanted it done right. I worked too hard on the trials to not want to.
In neither case did the respondent/defendant travel to the state capitol to sit at counsel's table. But I wouldn't have objected if they had. I don't have a clue how the three-judge tribunal would've regarded it.
After immigration there's no greater issue. And if we can get a win on birthright citizenship, the next greater issue is dual citizenship.
I find all this legal jibber-jabber pointless. The D Justices make it clear - they don't care. They vote their politics, and make up their reasons to support it. Roberts does the same thing, except he's more clever about it, and his politics are moderate and change from issue to issue. Go read his opinion on Trump's DACA order overturning Obama's DACA order in 2020. Its insane. Roberts is known for convoluted absurd opinions all to reach the conclusion he wants to get to.
14th Ademendment - "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article".
So why are courts doing it? And why can't Congress take away birthright citizenship.
THis may be the R SCOTUS judges way out. They'll say Trump didn't have the power to overturn birthright citizenship, it has to be Congress. And good luck with that. The Uniparty leaders in Congress led by Thune, Coyrn, and Senator Goober (SC) will never pass that. Oh sorry, Chuck Schumer says he'll filibuster. Gosh, we tried.
"Normally, parties to a case before the Supreme Court have to sit in the visitor’s gallery. But is Trump going to try to sit with the Solicitor General at the counsel table? According to his theory of the Presidency, he would think he has the right to."
Good point, but I can't believe he would sit there.
He might rattle Ketanji’s intricate and precise train of thought!
It seems the footnote in plyer vs doe does a lot of lifting
There are three exemptions to that Bich. Riddle: what do Indians on reservations, diplomats and tourists all have in common that illegal aliens share?
[Hint: it's all about the same "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase that Freder can't wave away.]
To quote the Constitution -
"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 does a textualist interpret this as meaning something other than birthright citizenship? Please explain for the dummies out there (like me!).
We're all going to miss Trump when he's done. Even those who hate him. They'll feel empty, like they've lost their purpose in life.
Nothing else like him- before or after.
The trolls dont bring their best
Left Bank of the Charles said...According to his theory of the Presidency, he would think he has the right to.
Ah, yes. This old lefty chestnut--why wait until he does something to complain about it when you can just make stuff up and complain about that? Like being mad at your partner for something they did in a dream you had.
Glad to see John Eastman will be there too, hot on the heels of the CA SCOTUS agreeing to hear his appeal to the lame Bar Assoc. attempt to yank his license.
Even John Yoo is starting to come around now that he realizes the 14th has never been argued this way. He should have listened to Eastman more or even Steven Hayward during those "3 Whisky Happy Hour" podcasts.
jim5301 said...How does a textualist interpret this as meaning something other than birthright citizenship?
Already been done many times. Go read this WSJ Opinion.
Please explain for the dummies out there (like me!).
LOL why you can't read?
Ann:
Judge Leon or Judge Boasberg will issue a TRO to stop Trump from sitting next to the SG. Our democracy is at stake. Only a King would do that!
After immigration there's no greater issue. And if we can get a win on birthright citizenship, the next greater issue is dual citizenship.
Don't count on it. Melania and Barron (and maybe her parents) both have dual citizenship with Slovenia. I'd imagine that Barron has actually been to Slovenia, but only to visit relatives.
The EO and any potential decision do nothing to change the future case of a Chinese having children with a us citizen surrogate mother. Baby still is a citizen at birth.
Does nothing about anchor babies. Trump could change that by EO. Congress could change it by statute.
Changing birthright citizenship is the only thing I have seriously disagreed with trump on ever.
I hope and pray the Supremes leave it untouched.
Or we change it properly by amendment
John Henry
To be clear, I don't want to see it changed by amendment either. Just pointing out that this is the proper way
John Henry
Hard to see the SCOTUS siding with Trump on this one, but the arguments should be fascinating. Birthright citizenship is something that needs to be seriously debated in this country, which, in my mind, is the actual goal for Trump. Sure, he talks about winning, but sometimes moving the ball is a win in itself.
Freder Frederson said, "Don't count on it. Melania and Barron (and maybe her parents) both have dual citizenship with Slovenia."
Then they need to decide. High or low, I am ever-loving done with this advantages-of-both-and-penalties-of-neither crap.
Everyone in the country must choose, and it should be law.
14A doesn't say subject to "sole jurisdiction"
Other than diplomats *everyone* in the us is subject to the jurisdiction of the us.
The parents may or may not be subject to jurisdiction of the home country. Hard to argue the baby, the one getting birthright citizenship, is.
As far as immigration, I see no connection, immigration is controlled by statute and BP. Nothing to do with birth
John Henry
I think Trump wins this case. I've always thought the current interpretation of birthright citizenship was wrong. The key is what we did with the Indians. A law had to be passed to make them citizens.
If people think overturning Roe was a big deal, when SCOTUS goes Trump's way the Dems will be in full revolt. That will be one of the Articles of Impeachment. I kid you not.
If trump does go, I can just see the NYT's article the next day: "In a not so subtle attack on Trump, Justice Jackson said..."
BTW, quibbling over word meanings is what Internet commentators do best. Go at it.
Barack Obama should come too, sit directly behind Donald, and lean forward periodically to whisper in his ear, “Did you remember to bring your birth certificate?”
@tim maguire 8:32
Thanks for the link.
The NYT reports that Trump is there and is seated in the visitors' gallery.
Listen live here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
The difference is, Left Bank, that Trump actually COULD produce a legitimate birth certificate!
"Don't count on it. Melania and Barron (and maybe her parents) both have dual citizenship with Slovenia. I'd imagine that Barron has actually been to Slovenia, but only to visit relatives."
There's a difference between being a citizen because your mother is a citizen and being a citizen because you were born in the territory.
The proponents for universal right to citizenship at birth may at any time go to Congress to obtain express authority to grant such citizenship and to do so with constitutionally supported means. Indeed, Congress may even choose to grant citizenship to the children of foreign invading armies, or at least decide that citizenship for the children of diplomats scheme is acceptable. Either way, Congress will thereby retain its authority over the nation's citizenship laws and its oversight over the granting of such. The Democrats interests in a constitutional and lawful process will be vindicated. And the American people will benefit from the branches of Government exercising their constitutionally prescribed roles. Not a bad outcome, that!
Right, Left Bank?
I am completely disinterested in the legal hair-splitting here. This faux-virtuous posing about the sanctity of the current ""birthright citizenship" position is the dumbest and most suicidal policy of the United States. Why? Because an enemy nation (or governing ideology posing as a "religion", hint-hint) could legally conquer this country without the messy problem, massive cost, and deadly consequences of attacking us militarily. China, I believe, has already figured this out and is flooding us with students and professors and a lot more, including babies born here. Think this is silly? Think again.
planetgeo said...China, I believe, has already figured this out and is flooding us with students and professors and a lot more, including babies born here.
This is what changed my opinion on birthright citizenship. I see value in limiting the government's ability to say who is and who is not a citizen. The more objective the better. Anchor babies don't disturb me--there are other, simpler ways to keep them from becoming a real problem.
But the Chinese baby farms--where large numbers of women carrying Chinese babies give birth in the US, then the US citizen babies are brought back to China to be raised as good party members--has the potential to be a civilization-destroying phenomenon.
In Antigua, down island from me, Antigua so have been going to Canada for generations for birth. Son of an Antigua friend is 4th generation born in Canada. Canadian and Antigua citizens with 2 passports all.
My friends grandfather was born in Portugal. Portuguese citizenship carries down several generations and friend carries Antigua, Canadian and Portuguese passports.
I full agree with several here about dual citizenship. I think it should be banned but don't see how it would be done.
What do we do if some native us citizen refuses to give up Slovenian citizenship?
What do we do if Slovenia refuses to allow a citizen to give up Slovenian citizenship?
(Nishakawa, Afroim and other cases might apply)
John Henry
When I read Harmeet Dillon's X post, I was kinda hoping Trump would have a BarcaLounger set up for the president.
John henry: What do we do if Slovenia refuses to allow a citizen to give up Slovenian citizenship?
Are you saying that if the Slovenian government were to simply declare you to be a Slovenian citizen, then the US government would be legally obligated to treat you as a Slovenian citizen?
One thing that one of the justices briefly alluded to early in the argument is that the British common law form of birthright citizenship was not about providing voting rights or benefits to the individual born on British soil, it was about demanding the individual bow to the King and provide service to crown and country - it was established to impose duties on the citizen. In the USA of the 2020's the situation seems to be completely reversed - it is all about goodies for the individual.
I don't think the article is even remotely correct.
I seem to recall Obama sitting in on one argument -- the one on Obamacare. No one clutched their peals then.
I am pretty sure FDR attended a couple arguments in the mid 30s over his New Deal priorities.
A brief search shows John Quincy Adams attended oral arguments multiple times while he was President.
Lincoln attended oral arguments at least once as President.
And I know for a fact that Taft was listed as attending a few times as President (and before being appointed to the Court himself).
Oral arguments: KBJ "I don't understand" DRINK!
Looking further, it appears that Obama watched the argument on screen and then commented on it -- unusual enough to catch my interest, but he was not physically there. My memory played me tricks. Apologies.
I'm no legal scholar, but while listening to the oral arguments on birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court, it seems to me that this case serves as the ultimate litmus test: fidelity to the Constitution or fidelity to MAGA.
Youve made that clear otto
Daniel Turner on X: "SCOTUS Justice who cannot define what a “woman” is… …is 100% certain a pregnant CCP national who sneaks into America to give birth is “domiciled”." / X https://share.google/2F2xFGCaMLLAeOy4H
Tiny E® @10:19am or…
The Amazing Criswell?
You be the judge.
Sean f
I was thinking of one getting it by birth since someone mentioned Barron Trump.
But your question is interesting. Suppose Slovenia passed a law saying all uscitizens with last name starting with "h" or born on Feb 29 is now a Slovenian citizen, come to the consulate to pick up your passport.
Would/should the US recognize your Slovenian citizenship, along with your us citizenship?
John Henry
Its curious how process srguments dont apply here
Per Grok this is a partial list of countries that prohibit renunciation of citizenship
Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Uruguay: Mexico, for
Qatar, Yemen, Vatican City: No formal renunciation process; citizenship is effectively permanent.
Tonga, Niger:
Iran: I
I imagine the law would be simpler than assumed: You cannot have two passports. You may reside in the USA, but if you have a passport obtained either by birth, gift or other means, a US passport will not be issued until the other is relinquished and renounced. If you are found to have another passport, your US passport will be invalidated.
To be a citizen of the United States requires a choice, and it must be your first choice. Anything less should be unacceptable to US citizens holding US passports.
Also, very hard to give up us citizenship. See Perez (Mexican & us citizenship) gave up us city, later changed his mind court ruled renunciation void.
Or ask Juan Mari-bras
And one of the conditions for renunciation is permanent legal residency in a non US country
John Henry
One of the widely recognized bars to birthright citizenship is that children of invading armies are not citizens.
Invading armies are people who come across a border uninvited. Historically- they aren't ALWAYS armed.
Illegal immigrants are invaders.
Their children are children of an invading army. And shouldn't be rewarded with citizenship.
"Also, very hard to give up us citizenship."
US citizenship should be easy to give up, but hard to get. If we're not your first choice, we don't want you. If we weren't your first choice, we don't want you back. If we are your first choice, effort should be expended and sacrifices made to obtain what's desired.
US citizenship needs to be made a contract again, one in which its substantial benefits are dispensed only to those whose obligations warrant. Obtained with difficulty, discarded at peril.
jim5301 said...
Very easy. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof has never been defined by law or statute. And the phrase-"And of the state wherein they reside" does have definitions, which differ from state to state. Generally- a fixed address, an intention to stay, and have been in the state for 30 days or more consecutively. Someone flown to a hotel room in LA who had a kid two weeks late then flies back to China was never resident in the state.
Little Excursion™️ said...
I'm no legal scholar
You never made a post that seems to emanate from scholarship.
Related... TSLA is up 43% from a year ago.
Arguments should be interesting. The precedent has some quirks. I do remember when Dingey Harry Reid said Birthright citizenship was an outrage, or some such. The video is still around.
There's a difference between being a citizen because your mother is a citizen and being a citizen because you were born in the territory.
Well yes there is. I don't understand your point. I was responding to RideSpaceMountain's desire that the next issue to be tackled is dual citizenship.
The naturalization process (which Melania went through but not Barron) has you swear an oath to renounce all other allegiances. The State Department, until the 1980's took that oath seriously and naturalized citizens were theoretically prohibited from being dual citizens. But they granted so many exceptions that the finally gave up on it. The only time your dual citizenship may be problematic now is if you want a security clearance.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
There are three exemptions to that Bich. Riddle: what do Indians on reservations, diplomats and tourists all have in common that illegal aliens share?
Another exception- American Samoans. American nationals, not citizens. Upheld by the Supreme Court. And non-Samoan parents who drop a kid in American Samoa? That kid is not a Samoan. Apparently foundlings on Swains Island and Rose Atoll, unless they're parentage can be proved Samoan. Which I suppose a DNA test could do. I don't think there's ever been a court case about it.
So, based on the fact that someone born on American Samoa is not a citizen of Samoa- backed up by Supreme Court decisions, are they citizens of the USA? Apparently, only if their parents are American citizens, based on SC precedence and the words of the 14th amendment. Because they're not citizens of the territory in which they were born.
The Kennedy-like hoarseness of the SG and the ACLU lawyer's uptalk made that hard to listen to.
Also, "Indian" seems to be an acceptable formal reference to the descendants of the native Americans per Justice Jackson.
Don't Supreme Court justices sit in Congress during the State of the Union address? Only rude guests accept invitations to visit but never offer any in return.
It's clear what the 14th Amendment means. If it doesn't suit modern realities, then pass another amendment.
To be completely fair to Sauer, there's no way to come prepared adequately to defend a stupid, ahistorical, illogical, bad faith argument. Winning on one depends on stupid or dishonest judges.
Did you hear the reference to Congress passing an act after the 14th that "provided citizenship" to Indians born on reservations. That statute removed the Indians from that "exceptional three" leaving only diplomats and temporary visitors (citizens of other countries) as people "not subject to the jurisdiction" of USA. Because they have allegiance to another country and are expected to return there after their visits.
Obviously we can't predict what the 2026 SCOTUS will think of the issues raised here because it was interpreted by administrations and courts in different ways at different times. Then we let the legal confusion that grew out of birthright citizenship movement 1970-2025 fest for far too long. We can't undo the 20,000 Chinese babies back in China already holding US passports. We can't undo the devastating financial consequences of the stupid "chain migration" policy that metastasized out of the 1965 Act.
But we can compromise on stopping the stupid now. That's the best outcome we conservatives can hope for. Triage. Maybe sane policies and secure borders. But there will be no movement to remove the ones mistakenly granted US citizenship. The open borders crew had a good run for a few years. But it's over. The public will not let it continue.
Rabel,
There are much better authorities in favor of this usage of the term "Indian", e.g.:
https://www.puyalluptribe-nsn.gov/
https://atnitribes.org/
And notice they are completely proud of the term "Tribe" as well.
It’s a new world but the same constitution” ~ Chief Justice Robert’s’ 🎤 drop
There are actually multiple layers to this Trump legal case.
1. There is an unambiguous "birth-right" that no government can legally violate. If a person is born on U.S. soil that person has the right of U.S. citizenship, unless or until we change the U.S. Constitution. A person can renounce their citizenship, but the government does not have the right to take it.
2. There is the issue of due process. Even in the case of people who are not in the U.S. legally, or who are not citizens, they still must receive a judicial process before removal. The government can't just round people up, and ship them off -- at least not legally. There are a whole range of issues tied up in the question of immigration courts, etc. Non-citizens enjoy fewer legal protections. The immigration court process has a lot of problems. However, even with the lower standard that applies here, there are many cases where the Trump administration just blatantly violated what we call the "due
process" of non-citizens and citizens alike.
There is almost certainly going to be a big financial cost to U.S. taxpayers for the fact that the Trump administration has repeatedly and systematically violated the law.
I'm listening to the orals and the Solicitor General keeps mentioning invading soldiers. Historically, any invading soldiers would have been male. Any children they might have while here would be primarily with female American citizens. Either willingly or unwillingly.
But under Trump's theory in the EO, the children of an American citizen mother would be a 14A citizen, assuming birth in US. The status of the father has no impact on citizenship.
One of the justices called SG's theories "quirky"
Seems like a perfect word as he gets further and further into the swamp of arguments.
John Henry
As a matter of law, this whole debate is absurd.
It is actually kind of interesting to go back to the 1860s and read legal debates around the passage of the 14th amendment, which helped to establish birth-right citizenship. The debates at that time were an unambiguous "yes" to the idea of establishing birth-right as a basis for legal U.S. citizenship. A primary motivation behind the 14th amendment was that Congress wanted to ensure that former slave states weren't able to effectively reinstitute slavery through the backdoor by denying freed slaves the status of citizenship. However, there was also secondary debates involve other disfavored immigrant groups. e.g. Chinese immigration was a hot issue. Prior to that there was significant resentment towards Germans and the Irish.
In practice there have always been exceptions. e.g. some of the immigration enforcement actions under Eisenhower against people with Mexican heritage crossed legal lines (people born in the U.S. were almost certainly deported, the issue was that they did not always have legal paperwork to establish the claim). However, the law is clear. This question was litigated back in 1898 and should be considered a matter of settled law.
A baby born outside the US who gets citizenship because of their mother's citizenship is a "statutory" or "naturalized" citizen. Congress can, and has several times, change this by passing a law. Not retroactively, though
A baby born in the US is a 14th Amendment, Constitutional citizen. That can only be changed by amendment.
John Henry
John McCain and Ted Cruz (and had he not been born in HI, Obama) all statutory citizens. I agree they were citizens by birth but I never thought they were "natural born citizens".
Keener legal minds than mine, including the hostess, disagree but that's my position and I am sticking to it.
John Henry
14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Section 1:
“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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.“
Birth right citizenship is already embedded in the U.S. Constitution.
It would take a Constitutional amendment to repeal the right.
What is "the United States" for the purpose of the 14th Amendment. The Constitution doesn't define it. Statute does.
For purposes of citizenship, 14A, US Code defines "state" as:
TITLE 8 / CHAPTER 12 / SUBCHAPTER I / § 1101
(38) The term "United States", except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
John Henry
Tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of Canadians over the years are US citizens because Canada's healthcare system cannot handle all the births, and many times can't handle difficult births.
These mothers get sent to hospitals in the US and when the child is born it is an American. And a Canadian.
John Henry
"A baby born outside the US who gets citizenship because of their mother's citizenship is a "statutory" or "naturalized" citizen."
Aren't you getting the terms mixed up. The baby in question is specifically not a naturalized citizen, but rather a statutory one.
MAGAS only believe trump F%#k th Constitution ,just an old piece paper.They certainly don't read it .the orange guy where he needs to be IN COURT! Pay back the tax on Americans(tariffs in tune of 160 billion and reinstate all the illegal withholdin gof funds to NPR etc and fix the freakin economy you screwed up .All stump lieslowest gas evrt below $2, debt gone in first year(nearing 40 trillion, food prices way down, wouldnt know a grocery bill from a geometry problem, NO NEW WARS, THE BIGGEST CON, AMERICA first,,Con , who gets sanctions off of them and breaks trumps on blcokade ? you got it VLAD, THE COUNTRY WE'RE BOMBING ,gets to sell there oil to buy weapons and Russia gets a pass as they share intel with Iran to kill Americans, No nation building,,My God Madge this goes on and on..BEAUCOUP DINKY DAU! THEY FEL FOR IT HOOK LINE AND SINKER, George saw it coming long time ago,too bad the framers didnt ,they trusted there would not be a criminal elected to office..WRONG!!!
Seems to me that the Court has one legitimate job here. That is to provide its interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
All else will follow from that interpretation.
And the Demented One walked out after hearing Justices badmouth the concept of not granting citizenship as we always have. Now why did he bother to go into the hearing at all?
I suppose he attended the SCOTUS hearing in order to have something say after declaring that he will desist and depart from the Iran war tonight on national TV. He could first declare victory when he walks away but we know that his failing popularity is the real reason he is bailing.
“There is almost certainly going to be a big financial cost to U.S. taxpayers for the fact that the Trump administration has repeatedly and systematically violated the law.”
The infestation continues. BTW, anybody seen DHS, ET AL. v. DVD, ET AL., affirming our right to deport illegals to “third countries.” The government routinely wins on appeal. The “big financial cost” occurs because Democrats oppose all deportation for political, not legal or moral, reasons.
He’s addressing the nation tonight when fools rush in and wise men fear to tread.
It’s hard for me to imagine worse optics than a fool of a President addressing the nation on April Fool’s Day. Did his advisers not urge him to delay the speech for one day?
DINKY DAU 45 (12:51): Geez, Professor. Really? Where are we, Yahoo News, hothouse for illiterate lefty loons.
According to his theory of the Presidency, he would think he has the right to.
According to Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution, he most certainly has the right to.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
He is squarely within his Constitutional powers and prerogatives to perform the duties of the Solicitor General, or the Attorney General, or the White House janitor, none of whom are named in the Constitution, let alone granted any enumerated powers thereby.
The preening grandees of Congress and the pearl-clutching enemy news media and the scheming court eunuchs of the Deep State will shriek about the "Norms" of "Our Democracy", but President Trump should spit in their faces and do as he pleases. The public knows how many norms were violated by their illegal, seditious conspiracy to overthrow his first duly elected administration and then carry out the most egregious banana-republic lawfare against him after he left office.
Rabel said...
"The Kennedy-like hoarseness of the SG and the ACLU lawyer's uptalk made that hard to listen to.
Also, "Indian" seems to be an acceptable formal reference to the descendants of the native Americans per Justice Jackson."
From the Spanish. En Dios
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.