S.C. believed to lack 5 votes to affirm non-conditional, U.S. birthright citizenship

[martybegan]

THat's the big deference. The decisions in Brown and Dobbs had a personal, life changing impact on tens of millions of Americans.

Correcting this erroneous interpretation will have, literally, zero impact on any American. Zero.

Assuming they don't retroactively apply it to those who were already born here under the assumed rules.

To me the difference is Dobbs and Brown were able to overturn a discrete bad decision, Roe and Plessey respectively.

 

[Rawley]

Assuming they don't retroactively apply it to those who were already born here under the assumed rules.

To me the difference is Dobbs and Brown were able to overturn a discrete bad decision, Roe and Plessey respectively.

No way would it be applied retroactively.

 

[johnwk]

Yes, MAGA, you have to abide the Constitution.

It is agreed that all are bound to abide by our Constitution. And the fact remains,
there is no wording in our Constitution, nor a federal statute, or a Supreme Court ruling, which pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth. Current public policy, and only “policy” not “law”, now recognizes the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

The policy making authority of our President found in Article 2, is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate for change of existing public policy.

It seems abundantly clear from the above, that President Trump’s E.O., "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” is not only constitutional, but is specifically designed to effectuate public policy change which an overwhelming number of American citizens voted for when electing President Trump. And thus, our S.C. members must not get involved in this policy making change authority, except to educate the public how our system works, and that elections have consequences, and one of those consequences is the setting new federal public policy which no longer recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, as citizens of the United States upon birth.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Wong disagrees, JohnWK, until SCOTUS And that won't happen Happen until the lower courts Have argued the merits further.

 

[ThisIsMe]

"and subject to the jurisdiction of" merely means a person has to be in the US to be under US law in order to be able to get the citizenship.

Can you link a supporting article to where you came to that definition?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, you have United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) which said:

"[T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

So, everyone gets to be citizens who are born in the US, except for those who are being imprisoned during times of war, ie, prison of war camps and those who are diplomatic kids.

The former are not "legally" in the US, they're POWs. They're not subject to US law, they cannot demand due process, they cannot get anything. They can't get up and walk around and do whatever they want. The second have diplomatic immunity, they're not under the jurisdiction of US law.

So, all babies born under US LAW are given birth citizenship, if they want it.

But the senate debates over the 14th amendment said that "subject to the jurisdiction of" meant "complete jurisdiction " meaning owing no allegiance to any other country nor any other country being able tk claim jurisdiction over you.

The parents would have been subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, and by extension, the baby would take the jurisdiction of the parents.

A baby can't decide if they want citizenship or not, so their parents would be who's citizenship they would take.

In the case of automatic citizenship, some countries do not allow dual citizenship, so if a couple had a baby here, they might not be able to get citizenship in their own country for their baby, and the US does not allow parents to renounce citizenship of their baby.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Can you link a supporting article to where you came to that definition?

Yeah, I did it already, I used the SUPREME COURT in post 5 and 6.

I'll post it again
Well, you have United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) which said:

"[T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

So, everyone gets to be citizens who are born in the US, except for those who are being imprisoned during times of war, ie, prison of war camps and those who are diplomatic kids.

The former are not "legally" in the US, they're POWs. They're not subject to US law, they cannot demand due process, they cannot get anything. They can't get up and walk around and do whatever they want. The second have diplomatic immunity, they're not under the jurisdiction of US law.

So, all babies born under US LAW are given birth citizenship, if they want it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But the senate debates over the 14th amendment said that "subject to the jurisdiction of" meant "complete jurisdiction " meaning owing no allegiance to any other country nor any other country being able tk claim jurisdiction over you.

The parents would have been subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, and by extension, the baby would take the jurisdiction of the parents.

A baby can't decide if they want citizenship or not, so their parents would be who's citizenship they would take.

In the case of automatic citizenship, some countries do not allow dual citizenship, so if a couple had a baby here, they might not be able to get citizenship in their own country for their baby, and the US does not allow parents to renounce citizenship of their baby.

Where did they say this? As in, post the source.

 

[Winston]

How many times do you twits have to be reminded that Wong didn’t address the issue relative to illegal aliens.

Smarten up, ******* weirdo.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases – children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State – both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

==SNIP==

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | Constitution Center

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: United States v. Wong Kim Ark

constitutioncenter.org

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The arguing above is an excellent example of why the SCOTUS sent the case back down for arguing on the merits of the case.

 

[johnwk]

So, all babies born under US LAW are given birth citizenship, if they want it.

What you, and the court in Wong, deliberately ignore is, the law of England as it relates to birthright citizenship, was rejected by adoption of " . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " found in the 14th Amendment.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Good, JohnWK.

 

[g5000]

.
See: Supreme Court doesn't have 5 votes to uphold birthright citizenship: ex-AG

6/29/2025

"Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during an interview on Sunday speculated that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against nationwide injunctions in a landmark case as a compromise after failing to secure five votes on the issue of birthright citizenship."

The next paragraph in your link:

Gonzales, who served in former President George W. Bush's administration, admitted that he had no basis for his speculation, but found it interesting that the Court declined to rule on the "substantive issue" of birthright citizenship put before the justices.


So, basically, Gonzales is speaking out of his ass.

You know who Gonzales is, right? You know how he gained his infamy, right?

 

[Godboy]

"and subject to the jurisdiction of" merely means a person has to be in the US to be under US law in order to be able to get the citizenship.

Youre saying thatt the wording of the 14th amendment means "born in the US and the person has to be in the US"? "Subject to the juridiction" means merely being IN the US? So again, youre saying you have to be both BORN in the US and also BE in the US? Your interpretation make the writers look like redundant fools. Why the **** would you possibly believe that was their intent?

 

[g5000]

I'm not sure what the hesitancy is. Correcting this erroneous interpretation will effect the lives of literally zero Americans.

Wrong. It will affect (not effect) the lives of every birthright American.

The only effect will be to deter the lure of illegals to come here and have their anchor babies.

There is absolutely no benefit to the US with this current policy.

"Anchor baby" is a made up term created by bigots.

A newborn citizen cannot sponsor their parents until they are 21 years old.

 

[Rawley]

Wrong. It will affect (not effect) the lives of every birthright American.

How?

"Anchor baby" is a made up term created by bigots.

Meaning anyone that disagrees with your opinion

A newborn citizen cannot sponsor their parents until they are 21 years old.

But they can claim Federal $$$$$$$ until they become 21. Like the Democrats, these folks play the long game.

 

[johnwk]

Youre saying thatt the wording of the 14th amendment means "born in the US and the person has to be in the US"? "Subject to the juridiction" means merely being IN the US? So again, youre saying you have to be both BORN in the US and also BE in the US? Your interpretation make the writers look like redundant fools. Why the **** would you possibly believe that was their intent?

I believe the poster has a motive to make the constitution mean what he/she wants the constitution to mean, rather than what its text, and documented legislative intent confirms, which gives context to its text, and actually means.

 

[johnwk]

"Anchor baby" is a made up term created by bigots.

CBS News is bigoted?

 

[g5000]

Youre saying thatt the wording of the 14th amendment means "born in the US and the person has to be in the US"? "Subject to the juridiction" means merely being IN the US? So again, youre saying you have to be both BORN in the US and also BE in the US? Your interpretation make the writers look like redundant fools. Why the **** would you possibly believe that was their intent?

It is very simple, and the creators of the 14th Amendment explained it very simply.

EVERYONE born in the US is automatically a citizen, with the exception of those not under the jurisdiction of the US. And they explained those not under the jurisdiction of the US are obviously diplomats and ambassadors.

I hope this clears your confusion and you are finally able to catch up.

 

[g5000]

CBS News is bigoted?

Your kind of stupidity should be painful. Maybe it is, I don't know.

Nowhere in that video do they use the term "anchor baby".

Only the bigoted asshole like you put that title on the video he pasted.