Making sense of Trump v. Barbara and Trump's E.O. "Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship"

johnwk

Platinum Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
5,338
Reaction score
2,875
Points
930
With regard to the question “Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?", the obvious answer is no, since Congress, the people’s elected representatives, are granted exclusive authority “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”, and by Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the people’s elected representatives are also delegated the power to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation.

The current case Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365) challenging Trump’s E.O. ”Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship” asks the court to strike down the E.O., claiming the order directly violates the Constitution, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens".

The executive order, signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025, seeks to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal entrant foreign national parents, or those in the country on temporary visas.

It is asserted by Petitioners that United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) has already settled the question of whether or not children born in the U.S. to illegal entrant foreign national parents are natural born U.S. citizens upon birth, and yet, the circumstances surrounding the Wong case are by far, extremely different from whether or not children born in the U.S. to illegal entrant foreign national parents are automatic U.S. citizens.

The facts surrounding the Wong case are, Wong’s parents were permitted in the United States under the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, they were legally domiciled residents in the United States at the time of Wong's birth in 1873; had been settled in the U.S. for quite some time; they were carrying on a lawful business; and Wong's parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth. By the above stated facts, Wong’s parents, for all intents and purposes, seemingly placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as it was understood by its crafters.

The simple truth is, an exhaustive review of the debates during the making of the Fourteenth Amendment is void of any evidence whatsoever to conclude its drafters, or the people when adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, knowingly and willingly intended it to include within the meaning of a natural born citizen, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated or subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States. Answering this question one way or the other turns out to be a political matter, and one to be determined by the people’s elected representatives, their Congress or President, and is a non-justiciable matter under the United States system of government and its separation of powers.

Let us not forget that our system intentionally provides for elections in order for the people to change existing public policy. Currently, unwritten federal policy, and only unwritten policy, now recognizes the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, as a natural born citizen of the United States.

Are we to forget, the good people of the United States endured and suffered under the Biden Administration’s open-border policy for four years? If a majority on our Supreme Court decides to create a new category of natural born citizenship, extending it to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, they will have nullified the very reason for which our Founders provided elections, and they will be undoing what a majority of voters voted for when electing Trump as their new President.

Considering the above stated facts, our Supreme Court, in accordance with their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution, must apply the reasoned approach in Luther v. Borden, and affirm that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority to decide, and must be decided by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and President, or the people themselves under Article V.

JWK


”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
 
Last edited:
Trump does not decide what is the law on citizenship, so why should anybody bother to listen defenses of his nonsense?
 
The writers of the 14th amendment did not anticipate that millions of third world people would illegally cross our border.
The racist and corrupt Democrat Party is conducting a demographic war against American citizens.
The phrase "under the jurisdiction" means that for birthright citizenship to apply at least one of the parents must be an American citizen.
 
The writers of the 14th amendment did not anticipate that millions of third world people would illegally cross our border.
The racist and corrupt Democrat Party is conducting a demographic war against American citizens.
The phrase "under the jurisdiction" means that for birthright citizenship to apply at least one of the parents must be an American citizen.
Yeah, subject to the jurisdiction thereof seems pretty clear to me, too. If they’re here illegally, they’re essentially jurisdictional phantoms.
I expect democrats to do a semantic twisting of that and start highspanic riots in support.
 
The writers of the 14th amendment did not anticipate that millions of third world people would illegally cross our border.
The racist and corrupt Democrat Party is conducting a demographic war against American citizens.
The phrase "under the jurisdiction" means that for birthright citizenship to apply at least one of the parents must be an American citizen.
Let's see if SCOTUS agrees with you and Roshawn.
 
It is not afraid of Trump, if that is what you mean, Blaster.
 
Yeah, subject to the jurisdiction thereof seems pretty clear to me, too. If they’re here illegally, they’re essentially jurisdictional phantoms.
I expect democrats to do a semantic twisting of that and start highspanic riots in support.
The simple truth is, an exhaustive review of the debates during the making of the Fourteenth Amendment is void of any evidence whatsoever to conclude its drafters, or the people when adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, knowingly and willingly intended it to include within the meaning of a natural born citizen, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated or subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States. Answering this question one way or the other turns out to be a political matter, and one to be determined by the people’s elected representatives, their Congress or President, and is a non-justiciable matter under the United States system of government and its separation of powers.
 
The writers of the 14th amendment did not anticipate that millions of third world people would illegally cross our border.
The racist and corrupt Democrat Party is conducting a demographic war against American citizens.
The phrase "under the jurisdiction" means that for birthright citizenship to apply at least one of the parents must be an American citizen.
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
 
Creating a new category of U.S. natural-born citizens is not within the Supreme Court's lawful power


Getting back to the subject of the thread, (Making sense of Trump v. Barbara and Trump's E.O. "Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship"), one thing is beyond dispute. The crafters of the 14th Amendment, and those who voted for it, never, by any stretch of the imagination, knowingly and intentionally by the terms of the amendment, to be granting natural-born citizenship status to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.


If a majority on our Supreme Court rules in a manner asserting the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are natural-born United States citizens, they will, in effect, have created a new category of natural-born United States citizens in addition to the natural-born citizens created by the 14th Amendment.


Keep in mind that Congress, the people's elected representatives, are granted exclusive power "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and with reference to the 14th Amendment Section 5, Congress, the people's elected representatives are delegated the "power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of" the 14th Amendment.


In exercising its exclusive authority to regulate Naturalization (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.) Congress passed, on June 2, 1924, the Snyder Act, creating a new category of U.S. natural-born citizenship for Indians.


Prior to the adoption of the Snyder Act of 1924 (also known as the Indian Citizenship Act), Native Americans were not considered to be under the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.


The move to create this new category of natural-born United States citizenship for Indians was a political matter and decision, and one which is, by the terms of our Constitution, exclusively entrusted to the people's elected representatives . . . their Congress and/or President, but not within the judiciaries lawfully delegated authority.


And this is why our Supreme Court members, sitting in judgement in Trump v. Barbara to decide if Trump's E.O. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship is constitutional, are bound to apply the thinking in Luther v. Borden (1849), acknowledging political matters and decisions, such as creating a new category of natural-born United States citizens, are not within the province of Supreme Court members to decide. Our Supreme Court confirmed the above as follows:


The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government. U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)



JWK



”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [e.g., our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
 
15th post
It is asserted by Petitioners that United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) has already settled the question of whether or not children born in the U.S. to illegal entrant foreign national parents are natural born U.S. citizens upon birth, and yet, the circumstances surrounding the Wong case are by far, extremely different from whether or not children born in the U.S. to illegal entrant foreign national parents are automatic U.S. citizens.
I think that the 14th amendment settled that question by it's enactment.
Because it made citizens of the offspring of people in that very class.

whether or not children born in the U.S. to illegal entrant foreign national parents are automatic U.S. citizens.

Slaves imported after 1808 were by law, illegally within the country, and were foreign nationals of their country of origin.

Those slaves illegally imported after 1808 had their children made citizens at birth, just like slaves legally imported before 1808 had their children made citizens at birth.

And because the supreme court likes to use "historical precedence" as their guidance. The answer should be simple.
 
Last edited:
Everyone knows the 14th Amendment is being taken advantage of by the world. We have an entire industry devoted to flying women in for the express purpose of having their offspring on American soil.
We cannot sustain this kind of abuse of our laws.
 
Everyone knows the 14th Amendment is being taken advantage of by the world. We have an entire industry devoted to flying women in for the express purpose of having their offspring on American soil.
We cannot sustain this kind of abuse of our laws.
We also know the 1st amendment is being taken advantage of.
It allows anybody to wave any flag they want, even the NAZI flag.
But if you want to change it, get 2/3rds of congress and 3/4ths of the states to amend the constitution, and you can have it the way you want it.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom