NYT: Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship

[Unkotare]

.... those children can get their parents into the USA on Expedited visas.

They couldn't even start to try until those "children" are 18. Around 24 before anything might happen.

 

[AZrailwhale]

They couldn't even start to try until those "children" are 18. Around 24 before anything might happen.

I don't think so, those children are American citizens eligible for passports issued by consulates which would be the basis for visas for the parents.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I don't think so, those children are American citizens eligible for passports issued by consulates which would be the basis for visas for the parents.

Besides, that is the stated intentions of the pregnant women who get arrested for “birth tourism”.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't think so, those children are American citizens eligible for passports issued by consulates which would be the basis for visas for the parents.

Nope.

 

[my2¢]

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.

If they're not subject to our country's jurisdiction then how can they be considered illegal?

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

If they're not subject to our country's jurisdiction then how can they be considered illegal?

How can foreign citizens visiting the USA who commit crimes be considered criminals and be punished for their crimes? It's the same logic.

 

[Zincwarrior]

So, an illegal alien mother or mother overstaying a visa gets deported and the American citizen baby goes to an orphanage?

Irrelevant to the question of whether or not the child is a US citizen.

 

[my2¢]

How can foreign citizens visiting the USA who commit crimes be considered criminals and be punished for their crimes? It's the same logic.

How is that the same? Foreign citizens who visit our country ARE under our jurisdiction. The only exception are foreign citizens given diplomatic immunity. Which is why children of foreign diplomats born here are not U.S. citizens.

 

[BackAgain]

No they're not; they are US citizens.

But only because people believe that’s what the 14th Amendment dictates.

It really doesn’t.

And if it gets interpreted properly by our SCOTUS, that will terminate US “birthright” citizenship.

 

[rightwinger]

But only because people believe that’s what the 14th Amendment dictates.

It really doesn’t.

And if it gets interpreted properly by our SCOTUS, that will terminate US “birthright” citizenship.

The Supreme Court will rule today

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Purposeful Disinformation That Us Does Not Have Policy Against Birth Tourism "

* Usurping Us Solvency Through Back Door Foolishness *

The Chinese anchor babies

There is no such thing.

It is called birth tourism and us government has policies against it that are also included in us legal immigration - Policies In Place Against Birth Tourism For Legal Migrants .

An obvious purpose for ensuring that the children born in the us to foreign diplomats cannot be given jus soli citizenship in us is to prevent foreign agency and allegiance to its potentates from infiltrating us political system .

A us visa is a diplomatic agreement by which a foreign national becomes a subject OF us jurisdiction , from THEREOF term in us 14h amendment , and providing a back door to admit foreign agency and allegiance to its potentates violates the obvious purpose for ensuring the children born in the us to foreign diplomats , which is also evident in the requirement to be a natural born us citizen to be president .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Likelihood Of Scotus Stupidity Is High "

* Expecting Incompetence *

The Supreme Court will rule today

This scotus has proven itself to be idiots on more than a few constitutionally critical issues , in large part because the legal communities and fee press assure that the public at large are equally as clueless , so confidence in scotus ability to make a competent and rigorous decision on the term THEREOF in us 14th amendment is low , when compared with its likelihood of issuing a politically expedient and completely stupid conclusion .

 

[rightwinger]

" Likelihood Of Scotus Stupidity Is High "

* Expecting Incompetence *

This scotus has proven itself to be idiots on more than a few constitutionally critical issues , in large part because the legal communities and fee press assure that the public at large are equally as clueless , so confidence in scotus ability to make a competent and rigorous decision on the term THEREOF in us 14th amendment is low , when compared with its likelihood of issuing a politically expedient and completely stupid conclusion .

SCOTUS has the opportunity to rule on birthright citizenship

The will punt and make the case about the ability of lower courts to make nationwide rulings

 

[DGS49]

It is truly quite tiresome to read Leftists claiming that the clear language of the 14th grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Whether you agree with the current reading or not, the language is both patently and latently ambiguous.

For example, the son of Israeli parents illegally in the U.S. is subject to being drafted by the IDF, even if he never sets foot on Israeli soil. That's what "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." means.

IF the USSC rules on the question today - something that is not a certainty - they are likely to leave things as they are, nullifying Trump's E.O., simply because it would be too messy to deal with the millions of people who are currently considered to be U.S. citizens, who manifestly should not be. Think of it as "inertia."

 

[rightwinger]

It is truly quite tiresome to read Leftists claiming that the clear language of the 14th grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Whether you agree with the current reading or not, the language is both patently and latently ambiguous.

It has been quite clear for 150 years

 

[BackAgain]

The Supreme Court will rule today

Not exactly.

But so far, at least they limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions.

 

[BackAgain]

It has been quite clear for 150 years

Obviously not.

 

[Kilroy2]

Yet its clear that Trump efforts and position on Birthrights is political

David Bier, of the Libertarian Cato Institute, posted on X the day Trump signed the order: "As I predicted, Trump's birthright citizenship EO includes a Kamala Harris clause, specifically designed to deny the legitimacy of her US citizenship as the child of someone with a temporary status."

Trump's order specifies that someone wouldn't be entitled to birthright if their mother was on a temporary visa ‒ like the student visa Harris' mother was on at the time of her birth ‒ and their father wasn't a citizen, as hers wasn't.

Thus this would exclude Harris from running for office

Kamal Harris

Vivek Ramaswamy Potential President Canidate, who also would have problems with Trumps order

Marco Rubio

Diane Guerrero - actress

Bruce Lee (not a polititian but hey who knows)
Bruce lee for President. - He would handle Putin with one move. Kick Putin ass with one kick. Trump would run away scared but not fast enough to avoid the kick.

From Bruce Lee to Marco Rubio: A list of celebrity birthright citizens

Many notable Americans are birthright citizens, from Secretary of State Marco Rubio to martial arts icon Bruce Lee.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Kilroy2]

Birthright citizenship is explicitly guaranteed to anyone born under the legal "jurisdiction" of the U.S. federal government by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States



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.

which makes since that the only native American would be the indians. So how do we spread it the newcomers.

Be born here or naturallized.

On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order that purports to end birthright citizenship for certain children.

which seems to go against the 14th Amendment and giving himself the power to make the detrmination.

It seems to me that he should not have been able to do that unless they used very vague language in the executive order.

So Trump was targeting immigrants who then had a baby in the US.

Which is what his family was in the early years, immigrants.

whatever does certain children mean?

But it seems to me he cannot do that concerning anyone born in the US or jurisdiction of the US



okay who are these certain chilldren and does Trump have the authority to make such a vague statement.

 

[Kilroy2]

The battle is on

Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell beat theTrump edict
President Donald Trump’s attempt to halt birthright citizenship for some babies born to immigrants will not take effect in Massachusetts,

The issue is red states, The battle is on

In a ruling on Friday, the nation’s highest court limited nationwide injunctions that for months had prevented Trump’s day-one birthright citizenship executive order from taking effect, and the high court stopped short of deciding whether the order itself runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

Instead, the court delayed Trump’s order from taking effect for another 30 days and returned cases challenging the policy to lower courts,

My god what a bunch of republican cowards in the SC

They know its wrong but are side stepping it and letting the locals handle it.

So if is left to the states to decide then it will be win some lose some

Fake Logic

how can logic be fake and fake be logic?

Oh I get it , it easier to select an icon than present a counter argument.

OK

Trump’s birthright citizenship order won’t go into effect in Mass., AG Campbell says

Andrea Campbell's statement echoes a sentiment that several other Democratic attorneys general have shared.

www.yahoo.com