Judge Boardman ignored facts when blocking Trump’s E.O. “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”.

[d0gbreath]

You got the cash?

I'm a little short right now.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You are stupid. Immigrants have to take the oath of office to become citizens because they weren't born here. It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction part of the 14th Amendment. Everyone in this country, legal or otherwise, on vacation or residing permanently, is under the jurisdiction of the United Sates except for the designated few who are not under our jurisdiction due to agreements of diplomatic immunity. Babies born here have to take no such oath because they have what's know as jus soli. The right of soil.

Native Americans are specifically designated as not "under the jurisdiction" of the USA. So illegal aliens wouldn't be either.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Native Americans are specifically designated as not "under the jurisdiction" of the USA. So illegal aliens wouldn't be either.

That is a fallacy of false equivalency.

 

[j-mac]

I'm a little short right now.

I bet…

 

[johnwk]

GREAT NEWS​

Amicus Curiae Brief filed (03/13/2025) supporting Trump’s Executive Order [14160] Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship on birthright citizenship

.

Here is supportive confirmation that unwritten federal public policy, and only policy, not "law", now recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American Soil as United States Citizens upon birth.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Plaintiffs – Appellees, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants – Appellants

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS … i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES … ii
INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE… 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT … 2
ARGUMENT … 3
I. The Executive Order More Closely Adheres to the Original
Meaning of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. … 3
A. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 Clarifies the Intent of
the Citizenship Clause … 3
B. Legislative Debates Demonstrate That Birthright
Citizenship Was Not Universal … 6
II. Birthright Citizenship Requires Full Political
Jurisdiction. … 9
A. Territorial vs. Political Jurisdiction … 9
B. Historical Exclusion from Birthright Citizenship … 12
III. Supreme Court Precedent Does Not Support Universal
Birthright Citizenship. … 14
A. The Slaughterhouse Cases and Elk v. Wilkins … 15
B. Misinterpretation of United States v. Wong
Kim Ark … 16
C. Historical and Legal Consensus Post-Wong
Kim Ark. … 18
IV. The Executive Order Preserves the Integrity of American
Citizenship … 20
CONCLUSION … 22

.

The good people of the United States suffered the consequences _ in many instances which resulted in assault, rape, and even murder _ under four long years of the Biden Administration’s unwritten federal, open border “POLICY”.

And now that the American People have decided to change federal public policy by their constitutional guarantee of elections, Judge Boardman flagrantly tells the American people that existing unwritten federal public policy, recognizing the offspring born to illegal entrant foreign nationals on American soil as citizens of the United States, is “law”, and does so without substantiating her outlandish and omnipotent assertion, when in fact it is only unwritten federal public policy, not “law”, which recognizes the offspring born to illegal entrant foreign nationals on American soil as citizens of the United States.

Boardman has misrepresented and lied about facts in granting her injunction, has made a mockery of the very purpose of our elections, has ignored the rule of law, and in doing so has flaunted the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

There are no 'jurisdiction' or 'intent' as you would like, johnwk.

Anchor baby citizenship is law, not policy.

You will lose in Scotus by 9-0 or 8-1.

 

[TimFitz]

As will be demonstrated below, US District Judge Deborah Boardman misrepresented actual facts when issuing her preliminary injunction against President Trump’s Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”.

Judge Boardman writes:

“The President’s novel interpretation of the Citizenship Clause contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflicts with 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent. At the turn of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), resolved any debate about the scope of the Citizenship Clause and the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Wong Kim Ark forecloses the President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.”

The truth is, Judge Boardman suspiciously ignores the following facts surrounding Wong Kim Ark:


(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in the United States legally;
(2) had been settled in America for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

Trump’s Executive Order is directed at the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as distinguished from the parents of Wong Kim Ark.

So, contrary to Judge Boardman assertion that, “. . . Wong Kim Ark forecloses the President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. . .”, the truth is, Wong Kim Ark did not decide if the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are granted citizenship upon birth.

In fact, there is no Supreme Court case which Judge Boardman can cite which took up the question and confirmed, a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

Judge Boardman also writes: “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”

The truth is, there is no “appropriate legislation” enacted by Congress under its exclusive Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 authority, which Boardman can cite as "law", declaring a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil is granted citizenship upon birth.

It is true that Congress has exercise its exclusive power in the past, e.g., in 1924, and granted birthright citizenship to Indians born on American soil by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

But as it turns out, Judge Boardman misrepresents the truth when saying that our “law” commands that every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth.

Judge Boardman also asserts "The government will not be harmed if enforcement of the Executive Order is enjoined."

But the truth is, American citizens will, and are now being harmed, by granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who are born on American soil. American citizens are paying the price to provide social and economic needs for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, while the children of American citizens suffer as needed and limited resources are diverted for the use and enjoyment of children of illegal entrant foreign nationals.

Today, nothing more than unwritten federal policy, not "law" recognizes the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Although Judge Boardman has expressed her compassionate views in support of granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, her views are certainly not the “law” and only reflect existing public policy which a President, under his Article 2 authority, can lawfully change.

Let us keep in mind the policy making authority of our President is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government guaranteed by the terms of our Constitution, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate change of existing public policy.

Since our Constitution does not explicitly grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, nor has Congress acted to grant such citizenship, nor is there a Supreme Court case where the Court was called upon to decide if the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are granted United States citizenship upon birth, and that nothing more than unwritten federal policy has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States, President Trump, elected by the good people of the United States, is free to exercise his administrative policy-making power, so long as it does not violate any provisions of our Constitution, and he may change existing federal policy which has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States upon birth.

Elections have consequences!



The bottom line is, US District Judge Deborah Boardman has misrepresented facts in granting her injunction, has made a mockery of our county's rule of law, and in doing so has flaunted the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

JWK


“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
.

“The truth is, there is no “appropriate legislation” enacted by Congress under its exclusive Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 authority, which Boardman can cite as "law", declaring a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil is granted citizenship upon birth.”

Which refutes the rest of your post entirely.

The President does NOT have the power to arbitrarily dictate what is in the Constitution or what it means. Period.

 

[TimFitz]

Only according to you and those who ignore our county's rule of law.

The truth is Judge Boardman was in total error when writing: “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”
Firstly, Boardman has failed to cite a "law" passed by Congress under its Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 exclusive authority granting United States citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. There is no such "law" to be cited.

Additionally, although Richard Greisser was born in Ohio in 1867, it was determined by our Department of State that his father was at the time a German subject and therefore, ". . . so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth of the same nationality as his father" and was thus denied a United States Passport. See the letter from the State Department from Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester which explains why Richard Greisser was not entitled to a U.S. Passport . . . American citizenship being required.

What is so troubling at this time is, our elections are intended to have consequences, and for Judge Boardman to put her finger on the scale as she has done, not only ignores the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and its legislative intent but is a deliberate subjugation of the very purpose our Constitution guarantees elections.
.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

I am not familiar with the Richard Greisser case, and therefore have no knowledge of how the State Department arrived at their conclusion.

I found NO court records regarding this case, either.

 

[johnwk]

The President does NOT have the power to arbitrarily dictate what is in the Constitution or what it means. Period.

And, found in the Fourteenth Amendment is a qualifier "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " which our Supreme Court summarized as follows:

"The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." ___ the Slaughter-House Cases.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And, found in the Fourteenth Amendment is a qualifier "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " which our Supreme Court summarized as follows:

"The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." ___ the Slaughter-House Cases.

So the conclusion is that illegals here are subject to jurisdiction of the US.

 

[johnwk]

So the conclusion is that illegals here are subject to jurisdiction of the US.

The good news is, the truth cannot be changed to what it is not and to this very date, there is not one judge, Justice or participant in this forum who has refuted the fact that unwritten federal public policy and not "law", has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on United States soil, as citizens of the United States upon birth.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The good news is, the truth cannot be changed to what it is not and to this very date, there is not one judge, Justice or participant in this forum who has refuted the fact that unwritten federal public policy and not "law", has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on United States soil, as citizens of the United States upon birth.

I am glad that you recognize your arguments on jurisdiction and intent will not be successful. You can't change the law's definitions.

After rereading Justice Thomas, I realize the Court will rule 9-0 against you.

 

[johnwk]

I am glad

So am I since the United States Supreme Court has confirmed:

"The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." ___ the Slaughter-House Cases.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That is a fallacy of false equivalency.

Wrong, the logic is that their first allegiance is to their tribes just like illegal alien’s first allegiance is to their home country. The logic follows.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Wrong, the logic is that their first allegiance is to their tribes just like illegal alien’s first allegiance is to their home country. The logic follows.

Slaughter House does not apply. Everyone here except members of foreign diplomats' families are subject to jurisdiction.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Slaughter House does not apply. Everyone here except members of foreign diplomats' families are subject to jurisdiction.

Not according to the men who wrote the 14th. They specifically excluded any people with allegiance to other governments. In those days immigrants couldn't afford to go back and forth, they stayed and became Americans.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Not according to the men who wrote the 14th. They specifically excluded any people with allegiance to other governments. In those days immigrants couldn't afford to go back and forth, they stayed and became Americans.

Yes, according to the writers. They excluded specific groups. It is not inclusive. SCOTUS will reaffirm it.

 

[excalibur]

As will be demonstrated below, US District Judge Deborah Boardman misrepresented actual facts when issuing her preliminary injunction against President Trump’s Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”.

Judge Boardman writes:

“The President’s novel interpretation of the Citizenship Clause contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflicts with 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent. At the turn of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), resolved any debate about the scope of the Citizenship Clause and the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Wong Kim Ark forecloses the President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.”

The truth is, Judge Boardman suspiciously ignores the following facts surrounding Wong Kim Ark:


(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in the United States legally;
(2) had been settled in America for quite some time;
(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;
(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;
(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

Trump’s Executive Order is directed at the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as distinguished from the parents of Wong Kim Ark.

So, contrary to Judge Boardman assertion that, “. . . Wong Kim Ark forecloses the President’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. . .”, the truth is, Wong Kim Ark did not decide if the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are granted citizenship upon birth.

In fact, there is no Supreme Court case which Judge Boardman can cite which took up the question and confirmed, a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

Judge Boardman also writes: “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.”

The truth is, there is no “appropriate legislation” enacted by Congress under its exclusive Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 authority, which Boardman can cite as "law", declaring a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil is granted citizenship upon birth.

It is true that Congress has exercise its exclusive power in the past, e.g., in 1924, and granted birthright citizenship to Indians born on American soil by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

But as it turns out, Judge Boardman misrepresents the truth when saying that our “law” commands that every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth.

Judge Boardman also asserts "The government will not be harmed if enforcement of the Executive Order is enjoined."

But the truth is, American citizens will, and are now being harmed, by granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who are born on American soil. American citizens are paying the price to provide social and economic needs for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, while the children of American citizens suffer as needed and limited resources are diverted for the use and enjoyment of children of illegal entrant foreign nationals.

Today, nothing more than unwritten federal policy, not "law" recognizes the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Although Judge Boardman has expressed her compassionate views in support of granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, her views are certainly not the “law” and only reflect existing public policy which a President, under his Article 2 authority, can lawfully change.

Let us keep in mind the policy making authority of our President is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government guaranteed by the terms of our Constitution, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate change of existing public policy.

Since our Constitution does not explicitly grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, nor has Congress acted to grant such citizenship, nor is there a Supreme Court case where the Court was called upon to decide if the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are granted United States citizenship upon birth, and that nothing more than unwritten federal policy has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States, President Trump, elected by the good people of the United States, is free to exercise his administrative policy-making power, so long as it does not violate any provisions of our Constitution, and he may change existing federal policy which has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States upon birth.

Elections have consequences!



The bottom line is, US District Judge Deborah Boardman has misrepresented facts in granting her injunction, has made a mockery of our county's rule of law, and in doing so has flaunted the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

JWK


“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
.

Yep, Yick Wo was about a child of legal resident aliens, not a child of non-legal-resident aliens.

 

[johnwk]

Yes, according to the writers. They excluded specific groups. It is not inclusive. SCOTUS will reaffirm it.

Alien Enemies Act vests President with unobstructed discretionary deportation power.
Judge Henderson, in her WRITTEN OPINION, repeatedly took quotations out of their context, when the Alien Act was being debated and created, to support her conclusions.

Hopefully Trump’s lawyers, when appealing her ruling, document and expound upon her willful misrepresentations concerning the legislative intent of the Act.

The bottom line is, the very purpose and legislative intent of the Alien Enemies Act was to provide the President with extraordinary power, including unobstructed discretionary deportation power, to deal with and remove aliens on American soil who may pose a threat to the general welfare of the United States and her citizens.

Judge Henderson is a disgrace to our legal system.​

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Where does it say "unobstructed."

It does not.