S.C. will hand down its opinion in Trump v. Barbara tomorrow, some fundamental questions are:

[Care4all]

There is no law to be cited which bestows the priceless privilege of U.S. natural born citizenship upon the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals or temporary visa holders. Unwritten policy, not law, now recognizes the citizenship in question.

There is NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION that excludes them fom ALL PERSONS.....mentioned in the amendment.

An Amendment is needed for us to change it.

 

[martybegan]

Jurisdiction was addressed....?

Jurisdiction thereof means having the legal power, authority, or right to exercise official control and apply the law within a specific territory, over a specific group of people, or regarding a particular subject matter.

Not really. This current case is about that in more detail.

To me, congress has to define the concept of "under the jurisdiction thereof" in this case.

The left should think hard about opposing ending birthright citizenship for illegals via congressional act. If things continue to go bad for the left, our side might go the amendment route, and an amendment would be able to ignore ex post facto and go back decades if people are pissed enough.

 

[martybegan]

There is NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION that excludes them fom ALL PERSONS.....mentioned in the amendment.

An Amendment is needed for us to change it.

Nope, just a law to clarify what "under the jurisdiction thereof" means in this situation.

 

[Care4all]

The Constitution says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Traditionally it is the congress that defines legal jurisdiction based on how they craft laws, particularly when it comes to definitions for the terms they use.

But can you even imagine illegals NOT being under our jurisdiction? Subject to our laws while on our territory?


Jurisdiction thereof means having the legal power, authority, or right to exercise official control and apply the law within a specific territory, over a specific group of people, or regarding a particular subject matter.

 

[Rawley]

It's already been addressed, hasn't it... in the Elk vs. Wilkins and Wong Kim Ark cases?

nope

 

[johnwk]

There is NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION that excludes them fom ALL PERSONS.....mentioned in the amendment.

You have ignored the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

 

[johnwk]

But can you even imagine illegals NOT being under our jurisdiction? Subject to our laws while on our territory?


Jurisdiction thereof means having the legal power, authority, or right to exercise official control and apply the law within a specific territory, over a specific group of people, or regarding a particular subject matter.

We are talking about the definition as understood by those who framed the Amendment, not your defintion.

 

[Care4all]

Gemini Al

Does subject to the jurisdiction thereof have meaning in other legal systems in other countries? Is it um a common legal phrase term?



While the exact phrasing "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is uniquely tied to the U.S. Constitution, the core concept of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of a state is incredibly common and highly standardized in both international law and the legal systems of other countries.
However, in international law, it usually has a more straightforward, literal meaning than the political debate happening in the United States.
1. The Global Meaning: Who Rules You?
In international law and foreign legal systems, "subject to jurisdiction" simply answers one foundational question: Which government has the authority to make, decide, and enforce laws over you at this exact moment?
International law generally breaks this down into three types of jurisdiction:
Territorial Jurisdiction (The Default): If you are physically standing inside the borders of France, you are subject to the jurisdiction of France. You must obey French traffic laws, pay French sales tax, and can be arrested by French police.
Nationality Jurisdiction: A country still retains some jurisdiction over its citizens even when they travel abroad (e.g., the U.S. requiring citizens abroad to file tax returns).
Diplomatic Immunity (The Main Exception): Foreign ambassadors are physically present in a country but are legally exempt from its local jurisdiction.
Because most of the world relies on territorial jurisdiction, the vast majority of foreign courts view anyone inside a country's borders (with the exception of diplomats or foreign armies) as being fully subject to that country's jurisdiction.
2. A Major European Example: The ECHR
The most heavily litigated use of this phrase outside the U.S. is found in Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which states that member countries must secure human rights for everyone "within their jurisdiction."
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has spent decades defining this, mapping out two primary models:

Legal ModelHow Jurisdiction is DefinedExample
The Spatial ModelTotal de facto (actual) physical control over a geographic territory or area.

If the UK military occupies a specific base or region in Iraq, anyone in that area is "within their jurisdiction."



The Personal ModelDirect authority or physical control over a specific human being, regardless of location.
If state agents arrest someone abroad or hold them on a state-flagged ship, that person is "subject to their jurisdiction."



Summary
To a foreign lawyer or an international judge, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" isn't a complex philosophical question about a person's emotional allegiance or whether their parents had the right paperwork. It is a practical, geographical fact: If you are within a nation's borders and they have the muscle to enforce their laws upon you, you are subject to their jurisdiction.

 

[johnwk]

Gemini Al

Does subject to the jurisdiction thereof have meaning

Constitutional construction 101, requires the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to be in harmony with the meaning as understood during the debates of the 39th Congress.

“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result which was intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it. . . . A construction which should give the phrase “a republican form of government” a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution in any other particular. This is the rule of interpretation adopted by all commentators on the Constitution, and in all judicial expositions of that instrument. . .” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872)

 

[Dekster]

So, when did Congress define "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " as granting natural born citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders? The fact is, existing unwritten policy, and only policy, now recognizes the citizenship in question.

Fact: A President has power to change current policy. The very purpose of our elections is to allow for change to existing policy!

Fact is the president does not have the power to change current law. Only the COngress or courts can and the Donald is facing a Big L.

 

[jacksonlamb]

I think trump has 4 solid votes against birthright citizenship, 3 solid libs for, with roberts and barret unknown till they wake up that morning with a wet finger in the air

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lean towards the status quo.

I think only Alito and Thomas will vote for Trump.

 

[jacksonlamb]

The majority in Wong Kim Ark concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized the English common law concept of jus soli, and yet, there is not a shred of evidence to be found in the debates of the 39th Congress to support Congress adopted jus soli. Justice Horace Gray made that crap up out of thin air.

As I see it, the legitimacy of Trump's E.O. boils down to a question involving whether or not a President has authority to set new public policy.

Get over that you are going to lose.

 

[Meister]

What world are you living in?

Do you even know what it is you are responding to?



Will you please just

The word 'intent' is beyond your comprehension, troll.

 

[Care4all]

Not really. This current case is about that in more detail.

To me, congress has to define the concept of "under the jurisdiction thereof" in this case.

The left should think hard about opposing ending birthright citizenship for illegals via congressional act. If things continue to go bad for the left, our side might go the amendment route, and an amendment would be able to ignore ex post facto and go back decades if people are pissed enough.

An amendment is needed to change the constitution.

That's NOT MY OPINION...that's fact.

If you take the trump court argument which includes an allegiance argument as part of it....illegals would make the list because they gave up their houses and their livelihoods, and their friends, families, neighbors, church and government in their home countries by choice, only taking what they can carry on their backs to make it to the United States to live here.....so yes, their allegiance is to us, vs their home country which they abandoned to be here in the USA which they chose to establish their residency.

Temporary TOURISTs never establish permanent residency here ...and already have restrictions under our laws, that apparently we are not enforcing well....pregnant women are suppose to be denied temporary visa entry unless for medical reasons from all that I have read on it.

 

[Oddball]

Tomorrow, 6/30/26 our Supreme Court will hand down its decision in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), evaluating the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship, which changes existing policy recognizing birthright citizenship for children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders.

Some fundamental questions which arise are:

Is the case, Wong Kim Ark, 1898, applicable to citizenship for children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders? It is essential to note the circumstances of Wong Kim Ark’s parents’ presents in the U.S. at the time of Wong’s birth do not match those of children who are today born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders.

It is also important to note in 1898 when Wong was decided, there was no such thing as illegal entrant foreign nationals, nor U.S. temporary visa holders. If any restrictions on immigration existed, it was regulated by State authority. These facts lead to a conclusion that the Wong case is not applicable to children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals on American soil, or temporary visa holders.

The above facts also confirm the 39th Congress never took up the political question of birthright citizenship as applied to illegal entrant foreign nationals or temporary visa holders, as neither existed during the debates which framed the 14th Amendment, and thus, granting such citizenship, which is a policy making decision, by the terms of our Constitution is left to the States under Article V, or to the people’s elected representatives . . . Congress or the President, and apparently beyond the purview of our unelected S.C. members.

It is also important to note there is a qualifying phrase in the 14th Amendment ‘. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . “, which must be meet to receive the priceless privilege of U.S. citizenship.

It is currently established that the following do not meet the qualifier:

Individuals born to foreign ambassadors or ministers who possess diplomatic immunity.

Tribal members who owed allegiance to their independent tribal nations. This exclusion was solidified in the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins but was later modified when Congress exercised it legislative authority and granted them statutory citizenship via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Children born to a hostile invading force.

Children born aboard foreign state-owned ships (such as warships) while temporarily in U.S. territorial waters.

Finally, another fundamental question arises which involves the very nature of our system requiring consent of the governed. Since there is no S.C. case or statutory law acknowledging the offspring of illegal entrants born on American soil are granted U.S. citizenship, or such citizenship is granted to temporary visa holders, and by the terms of the Constitution policy making decisions of such nature are left to the States under article V, or to the people’s elected representatives (Congress or President), it is hard to imagine our S.C. handing down a majority opinion which, out of thin air, would henceforth recognize natural born birthright citizenship to a new identifiable group of persons (children born to illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders).

Considering the above stated facts, it seems obvious that our Supreme Court members, in accordance with their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution and our system’s separation of powers, 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, and must be decide by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and/or President.

If the President’s newly adopted policy found in his E.O. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship is found to be objectionable by Congress, Congress is authorized under Section V of the 14th Amendment to overrule that policy.

The shitweasels Roberts and ACB will find a way to side with the three crackpots.

Mark it down.

 

[Meister]

So Trump understands the Constitution better than all the Supreme Court justices in the history of the USA?

oh brother......
It's been proven through the years that the Justices don't know the Constitution
better than the FF's who wrote it, troll.

 

[martybegan]

An amendment is needed to change the constitution.

That's NOT MY OPINION...that's fact.

If you take the trump court argument which includes an allegiance argument as part of it....illegals would make the list because they gave up their houses and their livelihoods, and their friends, families, neighbors, church and government in their home countries by choice, only taking what they can carry on their backs to make it to the United States to live here.....so yes, their allegiance is to us, vs their home country which they abandoned to be here in the USA which they chose to establish their residency.

Temporary TOURISTs never establish permanent residency here ...and already have restrictions under our laws, that apparently we are not enforcing well....pregnant women are suppose to be denied temporary visa entry unless for medical reasons from all that I have read on it.

you don't have to change the constitution to define what "under the jurisdiction thereof" means.

 

[johnwk]

Fact is the president does not have the power to change current law. Only the COngress or courts can and the Donald is facing a Big L.

There is no "law" granting natural born citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders. Policy, and only policy, now recognizes them as U.S. citizens.

 

[jacksonlamb]

The shitweasels Roberts and ACB will find a way to side with the three crackpots.

Mark it down.

And either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh or both.

 

[jacksonlamb]

There is no "law" granting natural born citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, or temporary visa holders. Policy, and only policy, now recognizes them as U.S. citizens.

A SCOTUS decision does. Fact.