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

[Mac-7]

We can't discriminate. The constitution grants equal protection. So it can't treat people differently.
Whether they entered illegally in 1826 or in 2026, they get the same privileges and immunities.

Yes we can

America can choose what's best for America

We owe illegal aliens NOTHING

 

[jacksonlamb]

Yes we can

America can choose what's best for America

We owe illegal aliens NOTHING

That's true, but we have to do IAW the law.

 

[Moonglow]

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

I didn't suffer under Biden.

 

[Mac-7]

That's true, but we have to do IAW the law.

We have so far

 

[postman]

Yes we can

America can choose what's best for America

We owe illegal aliens NOTHING

Of course we can choose, but it takes 2/3rds of congress and 3/4ths of the states to make that choice.

 

[johnwk]

But Congress does not have the legislative power as interpreted by Ark. You forget that.

Wong Kim Ark is not applicable to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who have invaded our borders and broke our laws upon their entry into the United States.

What U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK 169 U.S. 649 (1898) confirmed was:

“That said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom…”

Wong’s parents “were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States”, “had been settled in the U.S. for quite some time” . . . “they were carrying on a lawful business” . . . “having previously established and [were] still enjoying a permanent domicile and residence therein at San Francisco” when Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873

And, “The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: '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.”

Just Gray in conclusion wrote: For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

The bottom line is,

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 henceforth natural-born United States citizens upon their birth, they will have created a new identifiable group of natural-born United States citizens, which is not within the lawful powers delegated the United States Supreme Court members, and they will be making a political determination which is exclusively within the powers of the people’s elected representatives, Congress, and the people’s elected president.

 

[jacksonlamb]

johnwk once again presents an incredibly weak and illogical case against Ark.

 

[Mac-7]

Of course we can choose, but it takes 2/3rds of congress and 3/4ths of the states to make that choice.

To change the Constitution in reality it does

But not what you wish it to be but isnt

People who are here illegally can be deported in spite of your goal to flood America with shoeless foreigners demanding handouts

 

[johnwk]

johnwk once again presents an incredibly weak and illogical case against Ark.

Stating the facts as found in Justice Gray's opinion is a ". . . weak and illogical case against Ark."?

If so, then what is your rebuttal? Are you here to simply naysay?

 

[postman]

The bottom line is,

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 henceforth natural-born United States citizens upon their birth, they will have created a new identifiable group of natural-born United States citizens, which is not within the lawful powers delegated the United States Supreme Court members, and they will be making a political determination which is exclusively within the powers of the people’s elected representatives, Congress, and the people’s elected president.[/B]

Actually the 14th amendment, as written by congress and ratified by the states is the supreme law of the land, and both it's clear wording, and intent upon it's creation must stand. They made no delineation between those here legally or illegally, as long as both are under it's jurisdiction.

 

[postman]

To change the Constitution in reality it does

But not what you wish it to be but isnt

People who are here illegally can be deported in spite of your goal to flood America with shoeless foreigners demanding handouts

And you've stumbled onto why those here illegally, have birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment.

It covers everyone under the jurisdiction of the US.

And as you pointed out. They can be deported, which puts them under our jurisdiction to impose deportation.

The exceptions are diplomats and invading armies, which clearly we do no have the authority to deport, which makes them outside of our jurisdiction.

 

[Godboy]

Actually the 14th amendment, as written by congress and ratified by the states is the supreme law of the land, and both it's clear wording, and intent upon it's creation must stand. They made no delineation between those here legally or illegally, as long as both are under it's jurisdiction.

We only have jurisdiction over US citizens. If we had "jurisdiction" over every living person in the US, the line "under the juridiction thereof" would be redundant.

If youre saying that illegals are included, then who ISNT under our jurisdiction? If youre answer is "no one", then why would they add that confusing line when they could have simply and clearly just said "any person born in the US is automatically a citizen"?

 

[johnwk]

Actually the 14th amendment, as written by congress and ratified by the states is the supreme law of the land,

And the 14th Amendment's qualifier ". . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " requires a "complete" jurisdiction as confirmed by our very own Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
And how may an alien who has entered the United States nullify their allegiance to their home country and submit themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, so a child born to such a person becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth?

By taking the following Oath Of Allegiance as prescribed under our law.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and

that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God”

By this oath an alien becomes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and a baby born to such an individual while on American soil would then be a citizen of the US because its mother owes her allegiance to the United States, may be required to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, and is therefore subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment!

 

[postman]

We only have jurisdiction over US citizens. If we had "jurisdiction" over every living person in the US, the line "under the juridiction thereof" would be redundant.

We have jurisdiction over alll we survey and everything within what we survey.
All US territories are under our jurisdiction, and their residents have birthright citizenship.

Remember when they said, the power to TAX is the power to CONTROL.

We can lay and collect TAXES on everyone within our jurisdiction. Except diplomats, and invading armies. Everybody else, regardless of their legal status, has to pay TAXES.

Undocumented immigrants in the United States contribute significantly to public revenue, with a 2024 analysis estimating they paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022.

 

[postman]

And the 14th Amendment's qualifier ". . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " requires a "complete" jurisdiction as confirmed by our very own Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
And how may an alien who has entered the United States nullify their allegiance to their home country and submit themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, so a child born to such a person becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth?

The 14th does not require not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

The slaves given birthright citizenship did not have political allegiance, they couldn't even vote. And only those who joined he Union Army to win their freedom had any allegiance to the country.
Yet every one of them, was covered by the 14th amendment.

 

[johnwk]

The 14th does not require not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

The slaves given birthright citizenship did not have political allegiance, they couldn't even vote. And only those who joined he Union Army to win their freedom had any allegiance to the country.
Yet every one of them, was covered by the 14th amendment.

And?

We are talking about how the 14th applies to those other than slaves, such as Indians, and which Congress had to pass the Synder Act to grant natural-born citizens status to.

 

[jacksonlamb]

To change the Constitution in reality it does

But not what you wish it to be but isnt

People who are here illegally can be deported in spite of your goal to flood America with shoeless foreigners demanding handouts

Of course they can. But their children born here will always be citizens like you.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Stating the facts as found in Justice Gray's opinion is a ". . . weak and illogical case against Ark."?

If so, then what is your rebuttal? Are you here to simply naysay?

Support Ark as it was written is what I am about.

It is solid work, and that court will not overturn it, and neither executive nor legislative have the power to end it.

 

[Mac-7]

Of course they can. But their children born here will always be citizens like you.

The anchor baby loophole is a problem MAGAs hope to fix someday

 

[johnwk]

Support Ark as it was written is what I am about.

Which did not take up the question involving the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on American soil, as being natural-born United States citizens upon birth.