Thursday, January 23, 2025

Fed Judge Halts Trump Order Ending Birthright Citizenship

A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's executive order ending the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship regardless of the parents' immigration status.

Posted by Corky at 03:32 PM | 105 COMMENTS | permalink

More

A swath of Democratic-led states and civil rights groups have filed the first lawsuits challenging Trump's executive orders, including one that seeks to roll back birthright citizenship in the US.

[image or embed]

-- Guardian US (@us.theguardian.com) January 21, 2025 at 3:34 PM

Comments

"The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship " the principle of jus soli or "right of the soil" " is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.

The lawsuits argue that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship for people born and naturalized in the U.S., and states have been interpreting the amendment that way for a century.

Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, the amendment says:

"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."

Maybe Plantation Don will offer the kids a 3/5's citizenship.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2025-01-23 02:37 PM

Judge is a Reagan appointee, btw.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2025-01-23 03:45 PM

So a RINO ...

#3 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-01-23 03:50 PM

I refuse to get my hopes up. This country has let me down too many times.

#4 | Posted by censored at 2025-01-23 03:53 PM

Judge is a Reagan appointee, btw.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2025-01-23 03:45 PM | Reply

So a RINO ...

#3 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-01-23 03:50 PM | Reply

Ironic considering that Reagan was the OG MAGA President too.

#5 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-23 03:58 PM

Reagan gave amnesty to immigrants.

Today's Republican Party would lynch him.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-01-23 03:59 PM

"blatant violation of the 14th amendment" but jeff is probably okay with it cuz (R)easons. or biden is worse sonehow.

#7 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-01-23 03:59 PM

Bi(D)en is the worst.

Only Donald t(R)ump can save America from the voices screaming in BullBringers head.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-01-23 04:04 PM

#7

You'll have to wait until Johnny Turley writes an op-ed on to find out what JBelle thinks.

Of course, Rupert has to approve it before publication.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2025-01-23 04:07 PM

deport anchor baby barron.

#10 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-01-23 04:10 PM

It should bf ended IMO as it was never meant to be abused flagrantly for a citizen from another country, coming here to gain citizenship for their child.

Just one flagrant example:

www.justice.gov

#11 | Posted by MSgt at 2025-01-23 04:46 PM

coming here to gain citizenship for their child.

#11 | POSTED BY MSGT

I'm having trouble understanding why gaining a new citizen is an issue?

You behave like it's a priori evil.

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2025-01-23 04:51 PM

New citizens mean legal new workers and an expansion of the tax base.

What's the original sine here?

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2025-01-23 04:53 PM

#11 | POSTED BY MSGT

You're going to have to deal with the fact that the Founding Fathers favored birthright citizenship in order to keep tyrants from oppressing people by manipulating such a fundamental legal condition.

Like Donald is attempting to do.

#14 | Posted by Zed at 2025-01-23 05:01 PM

It's funny reading European Americans, who are only Americans because they were born here, wanting to change the rules due to their xenophobia.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-01-23 05:09 PM

That was dumb. Now it will goto SC and affirm it.

FFS Lumpers hold it together.

#16 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 05:20 PM


Just one flagrant example:
www.justice.gov
#11 | POSTED BY MSGT A

There's other less draconian ways to fix this issue, I wonder sometimes if this is Trumps way of negotiating.

#17 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 05:21 PM

That was dumb.

Doing nothing would have been smarter?

Now it will goto SC and affirm it.

Most likely. But, it would prove how partisan the Supreme Court is and what little regard they have for the Constitution.

Something most of us are already aware of.

Lumpers hold it together.
#16 | POSTED BY 1LUMPYCOLON

You talking to your sphincter? Clench down hard!

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-01-23 05:24 PM


The lawsuits argue that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship for people born and naturalized in the U.S., and states have been interpreting the amendment that way for a century.

Well its somewhat up in the air given the wording. It doesn't directly/explicitily say "guarantee citizenship to people born in the US".


and states have been interpreting the amendment that way for a century.

That doesn't mean anything, the constitution changed to end slavery. The constitution is a living document.

#19 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 05:24 PM

The constitution is a living document.

Except the 2nd amendment.

That's dead set.

#20 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-01-23 05:26 PM

Right. We can't alter an amendment because reasons.

One of those reasons is American's don't own a thesaurus.

#21 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-01-23 05:27 PM

That doesn't mean anything, the constitution changed to end slavery. The constitution is a living document.

#19 | Posted by oneironaut

Tell that to the morons who think the founders wanted everyday lunatics to have access to weapons of war.

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-01-23 05:30 PM

It's the Constitution, stupid!

#23 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-01-23 05:36 PM

To be clear this EO is a clear violation of the Constitution, hence my response.

#24 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-01-23 05:36 PM

this EO is a clear violation of the Constitution,

The constitution is in violation of Trump's decree.

You wanted a king, you're getting one.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-01-23 05:39 PM

"Now it will goto SC and affirm it."

It was a given that it would go to the SC, in fact that was probably the intention, but I'm doubtful that they'll affirm it.

#26 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-01-23 05:48 PM

this EO is a clear violation of the Constitution, hence my response.

#24 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

A clear violation everyone was sure would happen, except people like you.

Donald is behaving like a dictator. Told you so.

The judge that ruled against him needs to stay away from windows.

This is no joke.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2025-01-23 06:02 PM

#24 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

If frustrations such as this pile up for Donald, he'll take us into the mysterious accidental death phase of modern American politics.

#28 | Posted by Zed at 2025-01-23 06:08 PM

To be clear this EO is a clear violation of the Constitution, hence my response.

#24 | Posted by BellRinger

You weren't so worried about the constitution when trump attempted a coup, or ran for office again after that.

#29 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-01-23 06:12 PM

You weren't so worried about the constitution when trump attempted a coup, or ran for office again after that.

Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-01-23 06:12 PM | Reply

Nope he sure didn't. He even voted for him too.

#30 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-23 06:14 PM

#26 | POSTED BY SENTINEL


To be clear this EO is a clear violation of the Constitution, hence my response.
#24 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

No its not, read the history of the 14th amendment, and relate that to the current SC.

Its possible you don't understand the argument, do you actually imagine Trump just signed it thinking "NAH no one will contest it"?

The issue is the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", now some people believe its "jus soli".

Reading back on the reason for the act, and its purpose, it was to allow Black slaves to become citizens, and also keep non-citizens from becoming citizens. Remember America is a racist country.

So in the case of lets say an India parent have a child on US. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would imply that the child was not subject to ANY other jurisdiction. Well it would appear that the child is under India's jurisdiction due to the laws "Indian Citizenship".

According to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1956 (as amended in 1992 and recently in 2004) (hereinafter the "Indian Citizenship Act"), a person born outside India on or after December 10, 1992 shall be a citizen of India by descent if either of his/her parents is a citizen of India at the time of his/her birth.

Ergo the child is an Indian citizen and not a US citizen because the child isn't "subject to the "complete" jurisdiction thereof"

#31 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 06:19 PM

My comments.

It is HIGHLY likely that the SC will accept much of -------- arguments and birthright citizenship will be changed.

------- is arguing that an invading army should not have BC. That is why he has been making that the center of his arguments about immigration for decades. Jeff will UNDOUBTEDLY be agreeing with this obvious desecration of the 14th when the SC rules.

Our nation NEEDS a robust immigration program, because of capitalism.

You see, the free-market morons rely on a model of growth.

If that growth does not occur, recession and depression are the results.

Our populace is getting older and having fewer children (thank Dobbs for spurring that along).

So, if we want workers, we need to import them.

Quiz:

What will be the effect on the US economy when there is a shortage of workers entering the job market?

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-01-23 06:22 PM

Did you know that if a birth of a baby is born on an airplane over US territory that baby automatically gets birthright citizenship no matter who the parents are. Just a tidbit of information to stew upon for you haters.

#33 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-23 06:26 PM

Just a tidbit of information to stew upon for you haters.

Sounds like there's a market for flying maternity wards.

#34 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-01-23 06:31 PM

For reference another example where the "jus soli" and "subject to the "complete" jurisdiction thereof" don't fully align easily.

Some one in the diplomatic corp is not "subject to the "complete" jurisdiction thereof" even though on the "soli".

ergo "jus soli" is an incorrect interpretation of "subject to the "complete" jurisdiction thereof".

From my reading, and the example above, there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction, and a more complete allegiance-obliging jurisdiction of citizenship.

#35 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 06:32 PM

It is HIGHLY likely that the SC will accept much of -------- arguments and birthright citizenship will be changed.

Given my reading this is highly probable.

#36 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 06:33 PM

You weren't so worried about the constitution when trump attempted a coup, or ran for office again after that.

Posted by SpeakSoftly

No one was really worried about the constitution then.

Only pant -------, attempt to use it as leverage in the place of an actual argument.

#37 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 06:34 PM

If I'm reading this correctly. If a baby is born over international waters. That baby becomes the citizen of the country where that airplane is registered at.

#38 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-23 06:34 PM

What will be the effect on the US economy when there is a shortage of workers entering the job market?

Higher wages!

#39 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 06:35 PM


Our populace is getting older and having fewer children (thank Dobbs for spurring that along).

You mean abortion, the African American population should be upset with the racist abortionist.

#40 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 06:36 PM

Is there anything 1LUMPYSHHT posts that isn't misinformation, gaslighting, or just a straight up lie?

#41 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-01-23 06:38 PM

No. He gets his "news" from x.com.

#42 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-01-23 06:38 PM

This is Republican Big Government programs to drive people our of their jobs, their homes, and the country who's Constitution promised that children born here could stay.

Now we have retroactive retribution against immigrating peoples who ANY real economist will show you on paper are a NET ASSET to the US economy each and every year... and always have been.

I'm beginning to think that Trumpers are really Turders... they just can't spell.

That's what they want to turn people's lives into in order to make them feel like REAL White Men!

Orangish Turds that they are.

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2025-01-23 06:38 PM

Without immigrant farmworkers, farmers would face significant challenges, including:
Increased food prices: Farmers would have to pay more for labor, which would lead to higher prices for consumers.
Reduced agricultural output: Farmers would produce less food, which could lead to shortages.
Damaged rural economies: Farmers would face disruption, which could damage rural economies.
Damaged the U.S. economy: The U.S. economy would lose the contributions of immigrant workers, which could lead to job losses.
Threatened food security: Farmers would be unable to produce enough food, which could threaten food security.
Why do farmers need immigrant workers?
Immigrants are essential to the U.S. food supply.
Immigrants make up a large portion of the agricultural workforce.
Immigrants are needed to pick fruit and vegetables, milk cows, and process and deliver food.
What could be done to help?
Improve the H-2A and TN visa programs
Create better conditions to attract and retain workers
Train and retrain farmworkers
Pass immigration reform to allow more agricultural workers to stay in the U.S.

#44 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-23 06:39 PM

Considering the constitutionality of -----. ------- is threatening prosecution of Joe Biden. Seems he hasn't heard about the immunity decision. No one should explain it to him.

#45 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-01-23 06:41 PM

"The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would imply that the child was not subject to ANY other jurisdiction. Well it would appear that the child is under India's jurisdiction due to the laws "Indian Citizenship"."

That's nonsense. The U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction over foreign or dual citizens when they're on U.S. soil? Of course they do, unless they're official diplomats. I really doubt the Supreme Court is going to grant diplomatic immunity to illegal immigrants.

Trump knows this too. This is all just distraction from the confirmation hearings and probably several other things as well.

#46 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-01-23 06:42 PM

What will be the effect on the US economy when there is a shortage of workers entering the job market?

Higher wages!

#39 | Posted by oneironaut a

Incomplete answer.

Imagine 20 jobs and 10 workers.

How does that effect the economy?

Consider production

Consider income

Consider profit

Consider taxes

Consider services provided by taxes.

Poor old Grandpa Bob will have to work till he's 80 cause those tax dollars and corporate profits won't make themselves.

#47 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-01-23 07:06 PM

You weren't so worried about the constitution when trump attempted a coup, or ran for office again after that.

Posted by SpeakSoftly

No one was really worried about the constitution then.

Only pant -------, attempt to use it as leverage in the place of an actual argument.

#37 | Posted by oneironaut

No RUSSIANS or FASCISTS were worried about the constitution in that moment. Everyone else was.

#48 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-01-23 07:43 PM

No its not, read the history of the 14th amendment, and relate that to the current SC.

#31 | Posted by oneironaut

The recent history of the 14th amendment is that the 14th amendment can be completely ignored, as we ignored it when an insurrectionist was allowed on the ballot.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-01-23 07:45 PM

The recent history of the 14th amendment is that the 14th amendment can be completely ignored, as we ignored it when an insurrectionist was allowed on the ballot.
#49 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

What insurrectionist? Was it proven in a court of law, and not just your political opinion?

#50 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 08:06 PM


No RUSSIANS or FASCISTS were worried about the constitution in that moment. Everyone else was.
#48 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

No you weren't really worried. Go change your pants.

#51 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 08:06 PM


Incomplete answer.
Imagine 20 jobs and 10 workers.
How does that effect the economy?

Higher Wages, it also removes lots of BS work done by desk jockeys.

Stream lines systems, its all good for the economy and peoples work ethic.

Keep trying.

#52 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 08:08 PM

The U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction over foreign or dual citizens when they're on U.S. soil?

Again it depends upon the use of the word jurisdiction. For example there are certain situations the Federal government doesn't have jurisdiction.

In the case of the constitutions and it use as, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", implies "complete", and complete doesn't just mean "jus soli".

Take the India example, is a prefect example where the citizenship/loyalty jurisdiction of the child is under another sovereign nation.

#53 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 08:21 PM

@#53 ... In the case of the constitutions ...

Plural, and not even capitalized?

#54 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-01-23 08:29 PM

A dual citizen is subject to the jurisdiction of both countries they hold citizenship in, meaning they are legally obligated to obey the laws of each country, even if they are residing in one of them; essentially, they are under the jurisdiction of both nations simultaneously.

I don't see anything in the text of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that implies it has to be sole jurisdiction.

#55 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-01-23 08:33 PM

#55 that is what it means

Why do you think they put it in the constitution, wouldn't be redundant?

#56 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 08:38 PM

Dual citizenship would require you to go through the process of becoming a naturalized citizen.

At least this is how I have read it described.

#57 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-23 08:40 PM

1Lump isn't just an open borders liberal, he's also a constitutional scholar.

#58 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-01-23 08:48 PM

Dual citizenship did occur when a member of the US Navy along with his wife was stationed in Bermuda, a Brittish Island and the wife delivered a baby there as did happen with one of my brothers so, at birth, he had dual citizenship.

#59 | Posted by danni at 2025-01-23 08:49 PM

"Dual citizenship would require you to go through the process of becoming a naturalized citizen."

Nope. You can get automatic citizenship by both birthplace and descent in many countries.

Here's a map of all the jus soli countries: en.wikipedia.org

In fact, someone could be born with triple citizenship if you take both of these into account.

#60 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-01-23 08:55 PM

Abolish dual citizenship.

#61 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-01-23 08:59 PM

@#60 ... You can get automatic citizenship by both birthplace and descent in many countries. ...

Yeah, so when Pres Trump has said that the US is the only country offering birthright citizenship, he was lying,.

www.npr.org

... Asked about legal challenges to the birthright citizenship order -- which were widely expected -- Trump acknowledged as he signed it that it could be challenged but said, "We think we have good grounds" to move ahead.

"We're the only country in the world that does this" with birthright citizenship, he said on Monday. ...


So we seem to have an occupant of the Oval office that is clueless about, not only the Constitution, but other Countries he seems to speak for?

#62 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-01-23 09:03 PM

-What insurrectionist? Was it proven in a court of law,

"Last year, one court in the nation (the Colorado Supreme Court) ruled that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump had engaged in insurrection in the 2021 attack on the Capitol and thus could not run for the Presidency in that state.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court last March ruled overturned that decision, ruling that only Congress had power to enforce the constitutional disqualification and thus put Trump back on the ballot.

However, in doing so, the Court said nothing at all about the state court's explicit finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection."

lyldenlawnews.com

#63 | Posted by Corky at 2025-01-23 09:49 PM

insurrection
noun
insurrection in(t)-s'-rek-sh'n
Synonyms of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
insurrectional
in(t)-s'-rek-sh('-)n'l
adjective
insurrectionary
in(t)-s'-rek-sh'-ner-"
adjective or noun
insurrectionist
in(t)-s'-rek-sh('-)nist
noun

#64 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-23 09:54 PM

re: #64 LauraMohr

They banned science today, they're banning the dictionary next

#65 | Posted by hamburglar at 2025-01-23 10:00 PM

Has it occurred to the Buffoon and his idiot sycophants that the "concept" of illegal aliens not being "subject to the jurisdiction" means they can't be prosecuted for crimes they commit?

#66 | Posted by et_al at 2025-01-23 10:08 PM

illegal aliens not being "subject to the jurisdiction" means they can't be prosecuted for crimes they commit?

That's an interesting and probably very complicated point.

#67 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-01-23 10:10 PM

@#66 ... the "concept" of illegal aliens not being "subject to the jurisdiction" means they can't be prosecuted for crimes they commit? ...

I had not thought about it in that light.

Hmmmm...

Does that raise the question of what Pres Trump considers to be the "illegal" aspect of the immigrants?

And, as a follow-up question, when ICE is raiding these churches and schools, how does ICE determine that those they are targeting are "illegal?"

~Your identification, please.~

Is that what we have come to?

Maybe Mr Musk's salute was prescient?


#68 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-01-23 10:26 PM

That's an interesting and probably very complicated point.

Not at all. "Jurisdiction" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment is territorial. See Plyler v. Doe Though the case is about equal protection Texas argued illegal aliens can be denied an education in public schools because they are not "subject to" the State's jurisdiction. Justice Brennan quickly found them to be persons and subject to Texas law, "jurisdiction," by their presence in the state. Citing among others Wick v. Woo stating that jurisdiction is broad and territorial. Do a word search in Plyler for "subject" to read what the Court had to say.

For similar see a short law review by now Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho. https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

#69 | Posted by et_al at 2025-01-23 10:32 PM

Ends before SCOTUS 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of Trump. ABC will be the lone dissent on R side if it happens. The end.

#70 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-01-23 10:37 PM

@#69 ... See Plyler v. Doe ...

OK. (and, btw, thx for the link)

...
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

Primary Holding

A state cannot prevent children of undocumented immigrants from attending public school unless a substantial state interest is involved.
...



OK, this case seems to show that a state cannot override a Federal law regarding immigrants.

Did I read that correctly?


#71 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-01-23 10:43 PM

One more thing, for a brief legal overview of the Citizenship Clause. See this Congressional Research Service article discussing its background and relationship to English common law that excluded citizenship at birth to certain persons. crsreports.congress.gov

#72 | Posted by et_al at 2025-01-23 10:45 PM

@#72 ... See this Congressional Research Service article ...

Whoa.

An interesting read.


thx.

#73 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-01-23 10:51 PM

#71

No. I provided the context and gave instructions on how to get to the language I was discussing.

The straight forward holding of Plyler is that states cannot deny equal protection to illegal aliens. To get there the Court had to address whether illegals are "subject to" state jurisdiction.

#74 | Posted by et_al at 2025-01-23 10:51 PM

Clench down hard!
#18 | Posted by ClownShack

Then swallow.

#75 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2025-01-23 11:07 PM

@#74 ... No. I provided the context and gave instructions on how to get to the language I was discussing. ...

Thanks for that reply.

To be honest, I intentionally misinterpreted your comment to try to get you to post another comment.

Stated differently, your knowledgeable opinions are something I look forward to reading, even though I may disagree with them from time to time.

I offer my apology for that deception, and I will also say that I will not do that again if you continue to proffer your opinions here on a more regular basis.


#76 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-01-23 11:10 PM

"Ends before SCOTUS 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of Trump"

Because the Constitution can be overruled by any current SCOTUS? In what bizarro world?!?

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-01-23 11:17 PM

The end.
#70 | Posted by Bluewaffles

Your fandom is noted.

#78 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2025-01-23 11:17 PM

#76 | Posted by LampLighter

Agreed. Looking forward to ET_AL reemerging more often in the near future.

#79 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2025-01-23 11:19 PM

What insurrectionist? Was it proven in a court of law, and not just your political opinion?

#50 | Posted by oneironaut

This is how dumb you have to pretend to be to be a modern republican.

The one who sent the mob of deluded morons and fascists to the capitol as part of his elaborate coup attempt.

#80 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-01-23 11:36 PM

Has it occurred to the Buffoon and his idiot sycophants that the "concept" of illegal aliens not being "subject to the jurisdiction" means they can't be prosecuted for crimes they commit?

#66 | Posted by et_al

I'd be careful with that argument. If they are not subject to the jurisdiction and can't be prosecuted, they are therefore a foreign combatant and subject to the War on Terror rules.

#81 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-01-23 11:38 PM

ABC will be the lone dissent on R side if it happens. The end.

#70 | Posted by Bluewaffles

You don't see the problem there do you?

No, you're not bright enough.

#82 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-01-23 11:39 PM

OK, this case seems to show that a state cannot override a Federal law regarding immigrants.

Did I read that correctly?

#71 | Posted by LampLighter

The EMTALA case will soon put a dagger in the heart of Federal supremacy.

#83 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-01-23 11:40 PM

I'd be careful with that argument. If they are not subject to the jurisdiction and can't be prosecuted, they are therefore a foreign combatant and subject to the War on Terror rules.

I am careful with what I write. Unlike persons who ignorantly conflate disparate legal subjects. Subject to jurisdiction deals with presence. "Foreign combatant" deals with war.

#84 | Posted by et_al at 2025-01-24 12:16 AM

Because the Constitution can be overruled by any current SCOTUS? In what bizarro world?!?

#77 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2025-01-23 11:17 PM | REPLY

They already ignored section 3 of the 14th amendment.

#85 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-01-24 01:15 AM

No. They said one branch can enforce.

#86 | Posted by et_al at 2025-01-24 01:49 AM

interesting discussion and that's weird considering a couple of the "players" involved.

#87 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2025-01-24 07:02 AM

Suppose Trump unilaterally deems all undocumented immigrants to be an "occupying force" and denies citizenship to their offspring based on that. Crazy? Yes, but those who wanted to be liberal with applying the insurrection clause to deny citizens from running for office were playing with the same fire.

#88 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-01-24 07:51 AM

I don't see how Trump can use an executive order to override a constitutional amendment. I'm curious to see where this goes. I'm totally in favor of getting rid of Jus Soli, but when I read the language in the 14th amendment, it seems pretty clear.

Germany's policy on birthright citizenship seems like a pretty solid model that could be followed if the 14th amendment were overturned.

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-01-24 10:10 AM

I'd be careful with that argument. If they are not subject to the jurisdiction and can't be prosecuted, they are therefore a foreign combatant and subject to the War on Terror rules.

I am careful with what I write. Unlike persons who ignorantly conflate disparate legal subjects. Subject to jurisdiction deals with presence. "Foreign combatant" deals with war.

#84 | Posted by et_al

I have heard arguments that ------- is planning on using an argument that the undocumented immigrants constitute an invading army and thus not eligible for BC. Combine that with his designating cartels as terrorist organizations, what do you get? Central and South American immigrants being treated like Al Queda.

I KNOW it sounds absurd, but here we are. (Maybe I am not so ignorant after all)

I have been saying our country is on the precipice of radical change. This is part of it.

#90 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-01-24 10:12 AM

"Has it occurred to the Buffoon and his idiot sycophants that the "concept" of illegal aliens not being "subject to the jurisdiction" means they can't be prosecuted for crimes they commit?"

As a lawyer, how to you interpret the use of the term "jurisdiction." When I read the language, it looks like it is saying that any person born in the US is a citizen, and therefor subject to US jurisdiction. And this is absolutely true. Regardless of where you go after you are born, so long as you're a US citizen, you are expected to pay taxes to the US government.

#91 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-01-24 10:13 AM

No. They said one branch can enforce.

#86 | Posted by et_al a

That branch already having a mechanism to deal with the situation-impeachment.

So, they created something out of nothing to make the 14th 3rd essentially toothless.

You will see something similar in this case, I doubt complete overturning of the 14th 1st, but I see a major restructuring granting the Executive Branch significant discretion in enforcement.

#92 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-01-24 10:14 AM

"born in the US is a citizen, and therefor subject to US jurisdiction"
~ Mad

Lets revisit the sentence: "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"

Rephrase using pseudo code.

IF Born & Naturalized in US AND subject to the jurisdiction of the US, THEN they are a citizens

The jurisdiction of the US, is in reference to citizenship or political loyalty of the new born.

If your statement was correct, and its ONLY "jus soli" there's no need for the "subject to the jurisdiction" AS it already stated "in the United States".

#93 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-24 10:59 AM

"IF Born & Naturalized ... "

Not "and" ... OR. Either works.

" ... AND subject to the jurisdiction of the US, THEN they are a citizens"

Not subject to jurisdiction would mean they could murder or speed without repercussions. Of course they're "subject".

#94 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-01-24 11:08 AM

"Has it occurred to the Buffoon and his idiot sycophants.."

Only if a brave reporter asks him about it.

It didn't even occur to the Buffoon to look to see if Biden had left the traditional "exit" letter in his top desk drawer. Until a reporter asked him to check.

Even though he had left one there for Biden.

#95 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-01-24 02:25 PM

ICE agents in Chicago tried to enter an elementary school today. The principal kept them out.

Trumpers are sick people.

#96 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-01-24 04:37 PM

Imagine being so stupid as to refer to this having an impact on "American families" when both parents aren't even citizens. ------- lying media

#97 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-01-24 06:04 PM

Imagine having no soul. Like "thebull"

#98 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-01-24 07:26 PM

Birthright citizenship doesnt exist to make America better or great. Trump will change this to our benefit.

#99 | Posted by Robson at 2025-01-24 09:02 PM

So change the 14th amendment. Legally.

Otherwise, Trump is violating the constitution AGAIN.

#100 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-01-25 02:56 AM

Otherwise, Trump is violating the constitution AGAIN.

Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-01-25 02:56 AM | Reply

Like he cares about the Constitution.

#101 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-25 02:58 AM

#100

That's my thought as well. I totally support an end to birthright citizenship, but right now that's how the constitution says it is.

#102 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-01-25 07:55 AM

Trump will change this to our benefit.

#99 | POSTED BY ROBSON

To whose benefit? White nationalists?

And Trumpy isn't changing birthright citizenship. It's not gonna happen.

But I welcome him spinning his wheels and wasting his time and energy on it. That just means he won't get to do something else horrible for our country while his wheels spin in the mud on this lost cause.

#103 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-01-25 01:10 PM

"To whose benefit? White nationalists?"

What does white nationalism have to do with birthright citizenship?

Objectively, it's sort of a ridiculous concept. Its roots are in English common law, which may have made more sense in the days of William the Conqueror. It's an outdated precept, which is why it's no longer the law of the land in most places.

#104 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-01-26 04:07 AM

The only downside might be less potential taxpayers. If you are a US citizen, you're obligated to pay US taxes even if you don't live in the US.

#105 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-01-26 04:08 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

DOGE to Rapidly Rebuild Social Security Codebase (49 comments)

DOGE Is Trying to Gift Itself a $500 Million Building (48 comments)

CNN: Liberals Win Wisconsin Court Majority (43 comments)

Tariffs Announced (42 comments)

Cory Booker Breaks Record (33 comments)

When Did the Betrayal Begin? (31 comments)

Mass Murderer Believed He Was Fulfilling Trump's Wishes, his Attorney says (27 comments)

Trump's 'Liberation Day' Sows Confusion (26 comments)

Maryland Resident's Deportation 'removal was an error' (23 comments)

A $6 Trillion Trump Tax Increase? (22 comments)