A successful shift in legal tactics to class action suits has the desired result.

[jc456]

FYI:

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.

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

That's why

 

[Zincwarrior]

Judge Laplante has circumvented SCOTUS' ban on nationwide injunctions by declaring anyone on earth 'deprived' of US citizenship is part of a class in order to reinstate his nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO. It effectively includes every person on earth who is not a US citizen.

Thats how class actions work.

 

[jc456]

What does that phrase mean to you? At first blush, it just looks like the person is subject to the laws of the country.

it means the illegal is subject to the laws of their country, the place of their birth. That's how. It isn't fking rocket science. ONe merely needs to pull their heads out of demofks asses.

 

[BackAgain]

There is.

Just read the 14th, the distinction is born here and not part of a diplomatic mission.

WW

Wrong. It obviously excludes diplomats and staff.

But it includes only those who are subject to our jurisdiction

No matter how many times you ignore it, that phrase does mean folks who have established their allegiance to our land, such as by taking the required oath. And people who sneak in have broken the law from jump street. They have no demonstration of allegiance to America.

 

[BackAgain]

Okie dokie!

Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant.

 

[Mac1958]

Now you get it
“Persons” applies to anyone born here regardless of their parents status
The distinction is that anyone born here is a citizen

Given the way things are, and the setup of the Supreme Court, I'd say the GQP has a decent chance here. Obviously that's where this will end up, and we know that one phrase in the Amendment will be at the core of their argument.

If they were to win there, imagine how far back they could go. Pretty amazing.

 

[sartre play]

Not into destroying.
Can not imagine being born in, or brought to the USA at an early age.
living and learning, then working as an American. toward its dreams.
Then being discarded because of what your parents did.
We need to rethink the humanity needed to care about these children,
many now hard working American loving people.

 

[Billiejeens]

"If they were to win there, imagine how far back they could go. Pretty amazing."



Can't really imagine anyone thinking that the ruling would be retroactive.

 

[jc456]

Not into destroying.
Can not imagine being born in, or brought to the USA at an early age.
living and learning, then working as an American. toward its dreams.
Then being discarded because of what your parents did.
We need to rethink the humanity needed to care about these children,
many now hard working American loving people.

your ridiculousness is so demofk.

 

[BackAgain]

"If they were to win there, imagine how far back they could go. Pretty amazing."



Can't really imagine anyone thinking that the ruling would be retroactive.

Agreed. It could not be given retroactive application.

 

[Care4all]

Wrong. It obviously excludes diplomats and staff.

But it includes only those who are subject to our jurisdiction

No matter how many times you ignore it, that phrase does mean folks who have established their allegiance to our land, such as by taking the required oath. And people who sneak in have broken the law from jump street. They have no demonstration of allegiance to America.

None of our foreign immigrant ancestors had to sign an oath for our ancestors to bear citizens when born here.

 

[BackAgain]

None of our foreign immigrant ancestors had to sign an oath for us to bear citizens when born here.

Legal migrants take an oath.

 

[jc456]

None of our foreign immigrant ancestors had to sign an oath for us to bear citizens when born here.

They did after 1782

 

[rightwinger]

...to freed former slaves in the 19th century, yes.
Not applicable to pregnant ILLEGAL ALIENS.
No jodas.

They understood the meaning of words back then.

They specifically referred to former slaves in the 13th and 15th amendments.
In the 14th they chose the word “persons”

 

[Seymour Flops]

A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a contentious executive order ending birthright citizenship after certifying a lawsuit as a class action, effectively the only way he could impose such a far-reaching limit after a Supreme Court ruling last month.

Ruling from the bench, Judge Joseph N. Laplante of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire said his decision applied nationwide to babies who would have been subject to the executive order, which included the children of undocumented parents and those born to academics in the United States on student visas, on or after Feb. 20.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/07/10/us/trump-news

They did exactly what the USSC said they would allow them to do, so I cannot give those lawyers a lot of credit for coming up with a brilliant legal strategy.

How great would it be for the country if we can get a ruling on the EO's constitutionality? I haven't seen any cogent arguments made to suggest a prez can alter the Constitution by executive fiat.

This court does not want to rule on that, and will do everything it can to avoid doing so. No one can force them to take a case. Therefore, the executive will manage immigration policy, as was always intended by the founders and the Constitution.

If the Dems ever win a presidential election again, they can reverse Trump's actions on BR citizenship, and restart the birth tourism industry with a bang. They can also re-open the border, so there are plenty of new, non-English-speaking citizens.

I doubt they will use that plan in their in their campaign ads, though . . .

 

[Seymour Flops]

Then why oh why, isn't that mentioned in the constitution?

Dems are always finding things in the Constitution that aren't there. Now, you're pissed about it?

 

[SeaMajor7]

They understood the meaning of words back then.

They specifically referred to former slaves in the 13th and 15th amendments.
In the 14th they chose the word “persons”

AGAIN, the whole world is full of PERSONS.
The whole world is NOT guaranteed RIGHTS in the United States of America.
GTFOH

 

[Care4all]

Legal migrants take an oath.

Back in the founders time? There were no legal or illegal immigrants. There were foreign immigrants, no oath or law made them illegal vs legal, there were no Visas?

 

[Kondor3]

What does that phrase mean to you? At first blush, it just looks like the person is subject to the laws of the country.

There is Transitory Jurisdiction and there is Sovereign Jurisdiction.

While you or I are in Mexico, Mexico has a Transitory Jurisdiction over us, but the US has Sovereign Jurisdiction.

It is the NATURE of that Jurisdiction that tells the tale.

While Illegal Aliens are on US soil we have Transitory Jurisdiction over them for purposes of law enforcement.

But their country-of-origin still has Sovereign Jurisdiction over them.

Between the original intent of the 14th being to ensure that the children of slaves automatically became US citizens, and the abuse of the 14th as a Loophole for Birth Tourism and Birth Trespassing, and the dual nature of Jurisdiction, and given the size of the Invasion...

It will be convenient for the courts to eventually land on the side of caution and stick to the Original Intent of the 14th as a limitation.

And, while that may very well strike you as a "stretch"...

It would merely be using one Loophole (the nature of the jurisdiction) as an excuse and convenience to close ANOTHER Loophole.

Personally, I'm totally OK with that particular application, if the courts end-up leaning on that.

 

[Care4all]

Dems are always finding things in the Constitution that aren't there. Now, you're pissed about it?

Huh?