Obviously, we will never get a two-thirds majority on anything. Certainly in this case, it is never going to happen, since as WE ALL KNOW, the left wants America trampled to death by the rest of the world.
Making sense of Trump v. Barbara and Trump's E.O. "Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship"
- Thread starter johnwk
- Start date
Obviously, we will never get a two-thirds majority on anything. Certainly in this case, it is never going to happen, since as WE ALL KNOW, the left wants America trampled to death by the rest of the world.
- Thread starter
- #22
Well, thinking is an unsubstantiated opinion.
The simple truth is, an exhaustive review of the debates during the making of the Fourteenth Amendment is void of any evidence whatsoever to even remotely 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 United States citizen, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated or subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide that evidence.
Currently, unwritten federal policy, and only unwritten federal policy, not statutory law, now recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on American soil, as a natural born citizen of the U.S. (See: 8 U.S. Code § 1401(a), which begins:
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof")
An extensive review of the debates of the 39th Congress, which crafted the 14th Amendment, strongly indicates the qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " is a bar to bestowing natural-born United States citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please provide the documentation here.
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
postman
Diamond Member
- Feb 23, 2017
- 25,811
- 14,908
- 1,400
Everything you just said, about foreign nationals (africans) on American soil, who violated US statutory laws (the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, signed by President Thomas Jefferson) upon their entry into the United States.
The drafters of the amendment intended to grant their offspring birthright citizenship also.
So what's the difference between Africans illegally smuggled into the US and Mexicans, or South Americans illegally smuggled into the US?
Give us an iota of difference in their status.
postman
Diamond Member
- Feb 23, 2017
- 25,811
- 14,908
- 1,400
I think the best way to illustrate who, and who isn't subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Did you see the movie Lethal Weapon 2. Where the South African ambassador told the Detective (Mel Gibson) that he couldn't give him, so much as a parking ticket.
Under the jurisdiction means that our laws apply to you. As is clear that our laws don't apply to diplomats, or invading armies, or the native american indians (not taxed)
So the question, are illegal aliens subject to our jurisdiction?
Hell yes. Without being subject to our jurisdiction, they would be like the South African diplomat, that we couldn't detain, arrest, or even give a parking ticket to.
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 8,220
- 4,004
- 893
So you opinion is better. OK. Tink so.
postman
Diamond Member
- Feb 23, 2017
- 25,811
- 14,908
- 1,400
As with anything in the constitution, you can always say, they should have thought about that, when they wrote it.
When they wrote the 1st amendment, they should have envisioned the internet, and instant communication around the world.
When they wrote the second, in an era of muskets, they should have imagined citizens with weapons that could out shoot an entire platoon.
Or when they wrote the forth, that someone could carry their entire life's story, and fit it in their shirt pocket.
But none of that has a bearing the extent a right granted, based on historical changes.
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 8,220
- 4,004
- 893
None of that pertains to the citizen birthright question. It is over. It was decided 128 years ago. Nothing has changed.
wamose
Diamond Member
It's going to get much worse with the 20 million uneducated illegal aliens that Biden let invade our country. We're on the threshold of the AI era and all those menial labor illegals are about to become dependent on the taxpayer. They have already depressed wages, caused unemployment, overcrowded schools and hospitals, caused housing shortages and put a strain on our infrastructure. Birthright citizenship is unsustainable. It's a sure way to commit national suicide.
- Thread starter
- #29
.
Fortunately, unwritten public policy, and only unwritten federal “policy” not “law”, now recognizes the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil as a natural-born citizen of the United States.
A President has Executive authority under Article 3 to set new public policy, such as that found in Trump’s E.O. ”Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship”
One of the hallmarks of our system of government is, the people get to vote for change through our election process, and elections have consequences.
Are we to forget, the good citizens of the United States 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 for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, they will have nullified and subjugated 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.
Creating a new category of natural-born U.S. citizenship for an identifiably group such as, the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who have invaded our borders, broken our law upon entry into the United States and give birth on American soil, is a political matter to be addressed by the people’s elected representatives, i.e., Congress or the President, and not our judiciary.
The bottom line is, it would be a mockery and subjugation of our system of government which requires consent of the governed, for our Supreme Court members to arbitrarily and omnipotently render a decision creating a new category of natural-born citizenship status to an identifiable group of persons without the approval of the people’s elected representatives, i.e., Congress and President.
And that is why our Supreme Court, in deciding Trump v. Barbara, and in accordance with our Supreme Court members oath of office to support and defend our Constitution, they ought to apply the reasoned approach mentioned 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, and must be decide by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and President.
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
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 8,220
- 4,004
- 893
johnwk is going to be so disappointed.
- Thread starter
- #31
Seems to me that creating a new category of natural-born U.S. citizenship for an identifiably group such as the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who have invaded our borders, broken our law upon entry into the United States and give birth on American soil, which a majority of the members on our Supreme Court may essentially do in their Trump v. Barbara ruling, is in fact a political matter and decision to be addressed by the people themselves under Article V, (our amendment process) or by our elected representatives, i.e., Congress or the President (under their constitutionally delegated powers), but surely not our un-elected members who sit on our Supreme Court.
The following principle stated by our very own Supreme Court is essential to preserving our constitutionally limited "Republican form of government": …..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess. _________ELDRED et al. v. A S H C R O F T, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)
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
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 8,220
- 4,004
- 893
That won't happen. They will be same citizens as before.
- Thread starter
- #33
If a majority of the members on our Supreme Court issue an opinion in Trump v. Barbara under which the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on American soil, are natural-born United States citizens upon their birth, they will have created a new identifiable group of natural-born United States citizens, and be doing so without the consent of the people or the people’s elected representatives.
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 8,220
- 4,004
- 893
No, they will be the same old natural-born citizens as before. Boo!
There is another thread closely related to this topic, also worth a read;
Rand Paul introduces a Constitutional Amendment to end Birthright Citizenship
Rand Paul introduces a Constitutional Amendment to end Birthright Citizenship
Are We Subjects or Citizens? Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution
It is absurd to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens.
imprimis.hillsdale.edu
EXCERPT:
The citizenship clause was a late addition to the Fourteenth Amendment. The first draft merely stated that citizens were “persons born in the U.S. or naturalized by the laws thereof.” This language was referred to the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which reported back the language that became the citizenship clause. It is evident that the Joint Committee placed importance on the jurisdiction clause, which meant, at a minimum, that not all persons born in the U.S. were automatically citizens.
Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, who was the manager of the Fourteenth Amendment for the Reconstruction Committee, said the addition of the jurisdiction clause was “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and principal architect of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, joined Howard in agreeing that the “law of the land” meant that “subject to the jurisdiction” connoted “complete jurisdiction”—in other words, not owing allegiance to anyone else.
Under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has the power to define “by appropriate legislation” who is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make citizens of the Indians. Although the Indians were born within the nation’s geographical limits, Howard steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to the nation’s jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Howard pointed out, excluded not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
- Thread starter
- #37
Only under unwritten federal public policy, which Trump's executive order Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship is rightfully changing under Executive Powers, one of which is adopting new federal public policy.
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 8,220
- 4,004
- 893
That is only your interpretation that no authority accepts. Tough, but there it is.
- Thread starter
- #39
Changing existing federal public policy is exactly why we have elections.
Are we to forget, the good citizens of the United States lived 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 citizenship for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, they will have also 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.
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 8,220
- 4,004
- 893
You have two ways to change it, legally.
One, get an amendment through.
Two, SCOTUS.
Neither are likely.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Supreme Court rules mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day can be counted- Started by Zincwarrior
- Replies: 19
-
