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

[johnwk]

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

It certainly is a problem and has made U.S. citizens taxed slaves to support the economic and social needs of illegal entrant foreign nationals.
.


.

 

[Godboy]

We have jurisdiction over alll we survey and everything within what we survey.

If every person in the US is automatically under our jurisdiction, why would they bother putting in that "jurisdiction" line? Why not just say "every single human born in this nation is automatically given citizenship"?

It says... "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Why is there an "and" in there if being born here already means youre under our jurisdiction? So first you need to be born here... AND you also must be under our jurisdiction. Those are two totally seperate requirements, clearly.

 

[jacksonlamb]

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

You have the right to attempt an amendment fix.

 

[jacksonlamb]

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.

There is no question. That was decided 128 years ago.

 

[johnwk]

There is no question. That was decided 128 years ago.

And did not cover the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

 

[jacksonlamb]

And did not cover the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

SCOTUS will say, "Sure did, little one."

 

[johnwk]

SCOTUS will say, "Sure did, little one."

According to you who has yet to offer an intelligent rebuttal.

 

[jacksonlamb]

According to you who has yet to offer an intelligent rebuttal.

You have offered nothing to rebut of worth.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Does Congress have to follow the Constitution when making laws, or does the Constitution have to follow Congress's laws when it... does whatever the Constitution does?

 

[johnwk]

Does Congress have to follow the Constitution when making laws, or does the Constitution have to follow Congress's laws when it... does whatever the Constitution does?

Now that's a excellent question to be presented to our big-media journalists who project the notion that Humpty Dumpty's theory of language is property applied to our Constitution by certain members of our Supreme Court:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

 

[jacksonlamb]

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

This is exactly what johnwk does.

 

[johnwk]

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

This is exactly what johnwk does.

Your unsubstantiated and adolesent accusation is noted.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Your unsubstantiated and adolesent accusation is noted.

johnwk you offered us nothing that indicates this SCOTUS will do anything more than turn it down 9-0 or 8-1.

 

[johnwk]

johnwk you offered us nothing that indicates this SCOTUS will do anything more than turn it down 9-0 or 8-1.

According to you who ignores adhering to the terms and conditions set forth in our Constitution, terms and conditions which I do support.

 

[jacksonlamb]

According to you who ignores adhering to the terms and conditions set forth in our Constitution, terms and conditions which I do support.

Your opinion is worthless compared to that of SCOTUS.

 

[johnwk]

Your opinion is worthless compared to that of SCOTUS.

But what is yours worth?

 

[jacksonlamb]

But what is yours worth?

Considering I have gotten every major vote but one right, pretty good.

Now, mind you, I don't agree with them on five or six of them, but I called them.

 

[postman]

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.

Native Americans were considered to be rightful owners of the land (until we kicked them off) and Nations unto themselves. Which is why we had to write treaties (ratified by the senate) with the Indians, just like any other foreign nation

Yes, between 1778 and 1871, the U.S. Senate had to ratify Indian treaties for them to be formally binding, acting under the Constitutional power requiring two-thirds of senators to concur. Approximately 370 treaties were ratified, while over 45 negotiated treaties were never ratified,

 

[postman]

And did not cover the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

Actually it did. As I have noted,

In the United States, the law banning the importation of slaves is the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, which was signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson on March 2, 1807.The law went into effect on January 1, 1808,

All slaves who were smuggled into the country after 1808 were "illegal aliens" by todays modern term. As they were foreign (african) nationals , illegally within our country.

And congress by the clear text, and universal grant of birthright citizenship covered all slaves, independent of their legal status to be in the US.

 

[d0gbreath]

There is a meaning to american citizenship, but if I can't sell mine on eBay, there is no value.