Judge blocks Trumps EO to end birthright citizenship

[WorldWatcher]

Children are born of parents, children are subject to their parents, illegal parents are subject to the jurisdiction from which they’re from as are their children.
Make no mistake, we have been operating by some weird tradition and not by actual constitutional intent. This said tradition is just plain nonsensical and unsustainable….it always has been.

You have no clue about "constitutional intent", you have your desire to end birthright citizenship, so you warp "intent" to your liking.

The fact is this country has ALWAYS had jus soli (Birth of the Land) citizenship and for free persons the ONLY one it didn't apply to was diplomates and their families because they were not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Again, I'm fine with changing it so that one must be here legally, but to do that it would take an amendment not an EO.

WW

 

[BrokeLoser]

Again, I'm fine with changing it so that one must be here legally, but to do that it would take an amendment not an EO.

Just so we know we can take all the woke white guilt purple hair clowns seriously can you link us to your previous posts showing that you denounced the Kenyan’s executive action / creation of DACA?

 

[BackAgain]

To address one very real problem that stemmed from slavery, the civil war and the disgraceful (but official) treatment of black people here after the civil war, we get the 14th Amendment.

It imperfectly fair to claim that the purpose and scope of that Amendment has a vastly different than how it has been interpreted.

Up to now, it has been assumed (and I maintain that the assumption is misguided) that it mandates that children born here, of illegal aliens, magically acquire automatic citizenship. Since it seems to have never had any such purpose or intention behind it, the time has a now to address that issue.

The EO is such a start. And I believe we all see that it will get close judicial and legal attention. The outcome is not yet known.

This is a fine start, however.

 

[Billiejeens]

Not some lib judge.

Further and?

 

[Billiejeens]

That’s what our constitutions says. It’s how it’s always been. Don’t like it. Change it with legislation

It has never actually been adjudicated.

The first part is clear
The last part is clear.

The question is, why were the middle 6 words inserted into an otherwise clear amendment?

The SCOTUS will eventually have to decide that point.

 

[Billiejeens]

You have no clue about "constitutional intent", you have your desire to end birthright citizenship, so you warp "intent" to your liking.

The fact is this country has ALWAYS had jus soli (Birth of the Land) citizenship and for free persons the ONLY one it didn't apply to was diplomates and their families because they were not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Again, I'm fine with changing it so that one must be here legally, but to do that it would take an amendment not an EO.

WW

It has never actually been adjudicated.

The first part is clear
The last part is clear.

The question is, why were the middle 6 words inserted into an otherwise clear amendment?

The SCOTUS will eventually have to decide that point.

 

[Winston]

Birthright citizenship IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. It is an interpretation of a couple of words - an interpretation that is totally outside the contemplation of the people who wrote and voted for the Amendment.

Wayback Machine

Learn something.

 

[Billiejeens]

It was intended to do exactly what it states.

Fourteenth Amendment​

Fourteenth Amendment Explained

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.

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.
No relevance to this discussion.

 

[Edgetho]

You have no clue about "constitutional intent", you have your desire to end birthright citizenship, so you warp "intent" to your liking.

The fact is this country has ALWAYS had jus soli (Birth of the Land) citizenship and for free persons the ONLY one it didn't apply to was diplomates and their families because they were not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Again, I'm fine with changing it so that one must be here legally, but to do that it would take an amendment not an EO.

WW

That is supremely stupid.

SCOTUS can, and will, change it. The 1898 SCOTUS Ruling doesn't address whether a person here illegally can birth a citizen. That Chinese fellow was a legal Citizen and there was a stupid law aimed at Chinese immigrants.

If a Foreign Terrorist is here to damage our Military and our Country but has a kid while they're here..... That kid is a Citizen?

Have you any idea how stupid that is? And that scenario WILL be used at the SCOTUS hearing. Believe it

 

[XponentialChaos]

Further and?

I don’t know how to clarify this more for you.

What are you confused about?

 

[mudwhistle]

When a case commences in Federal Court, it can proceed much faster.

In any event, at least President Trump got the ball rolling. Fast.

They can accomplish the same type of thing they did with abortion.

Send it where it belongs.....in the trash heap of history.

 

[BrokeLoser]

It has never actually been adjudicated.

The first part is clear
The last part is clear.

The question is, why were the middle 6 words inserted into an otherwise clear amendment?

The SCOTUS will eventually have to decide that point.

WorldWatcher and Slade3200 are refusing to consider Founder intent which is what most believe compels the opinions of this 6/3 Trump court.
If they wrap those pesky six words with intent they’d know 14:1 as we practice it goes buh-bye

 

[Billiejeens]

What are you confused about?

Your feeling that it is important

 

[Billiejeens]

WorldWatcher and Slade3200 are refusing to consider Founder intent which is what most believe compels the opinions of this 6/3 Trump court.
If they wrap those pesky six words with intent they’d know 14:1 goes buh-bye

It depends on what Roberts thinks, if he is still there.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Your feeling that it is important

It refutes the claim made that this was some liberal judge.

Are you still confused?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end the granting of American citizenship to children born to foreigners in the U.S.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/23/judge-blocks-trump-order-on-birthright-citizenship-00200267

During a hearing Thursday in Seattle, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order preventing Trump from carrying out his order aimed at ending birthright citizenship.

“This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour said in court, according to The Associated Press.

Leftist kook judge from Seattle. Shocker.

 

[Winston]

And then figure out what amendment means. An amendment is an addition or a taking away from the power of the Constitution. It is not the Constitution. Amendments can be changed without changing the Constitution. If Congress wants to amend + or - it can and does.

An amendment, once ratified, becomes part of the Constitution. Good God Almighty, the ignorance in this thread is overwhelming.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It has never actually been adjudicated.

The first part is clear
The last part is clear.

The question is, why were the middle 6 words inserted into an otherwise clear amendment?

The SCOTUS will eventually have to decide that point.

While I agree that it's never been adjudicated in reference to those in the country illegally.

There is no real question regarding the middle 6 words ("and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") it extends back to both the birth of the country and English and international law at the time. Diplomates and their family that where part of diplomatic missions where not subject to the jurisdiction of the host country. Children born to a diplomate were not jus soli citizens of the host country.

Again, I'm fine with changing it so that one must be here legally, but to do that it would take an amendment not an EO.

WW

 

[BrokeLoser]

This is an unconstitutional order that should get should should really not even be heard by the Supreme court. But if they end it, Trumps children will have to become naturalized.

The judge that called it unconstitutional was appointed by Reagan.....

You drama queen weaklings amuse me, the simple obvious explanations are never acceptable to you twats are they. No, we must instead dream up hysterical conspiracy fantasies as Trump has taught you all to do.

What a bunch of weasels

It’s pretty straight forward if you read the constitution. Guarantee Yrump hasn’t

The court will say that it's unconstitutional. We don't change the Constitution, we only uphold it. An amendment is what you're seeking. We don't do those here either.

maybe they should be deported. Father broke the law so many times.

Yeah, sure stuuuupid fuckup.

The words of the document are "very clear".

Now put your bagina down and back away.

Psst - Birthright citizenship was the norm since the country was created by the founders.

In the late 1700's there was no limit to immigration, if you came here and had children they were citizens.

(Except for diplomates of foreign countries not under the Jurisdiction of the United States.)

WW

Reagan-appointed judge.

Hey America haters….Want to really piss your pants?
What happens if the high court renders a retroactive ruling?

 

[BackAgain]

The Founders recognized jus soli (birth of the land) citizenship with the exception being those not under Jurisdiction of the United States. That means diplomates and their immediate family admitted as part of diplomatic missions.

At the time this country was founded (and since) jus soli was and has been the standard.

Wanna change it? Fine, I can even go along with that (i.e. require legal presence for jus soli to apply), but the President doesn't get to change the Constitution by EO.

WW

He still isn’t changing the Constitution.