Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

[AZrailwhale]

Quote my words which you assert are not a fact.

Ther was also no welfare state or social safety net in those days. Immigrants were free to starve or die from disease in the streets. A welfare state like we have is incompatible with open immigration.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Minors do not get rent subsidies. Sheesh. Like any other minor citizen they do get to go to school. Why this would bother you is beyond me.

Their parents get them in their names. I've worked in the barrios, I know how the system is taken advantage of.

 

[pknopp]

Their parents get them in their names. I've worked in the barrios, I know how the system is taken advantage of.

Illegal parents do not get them in their name. Not that you'll stop lying about it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

1. The far left prog and the teapartyMAGAts are the weirdos in America.

2. Only an Amendment will resolve this.

3. SCOTUS won't hear pro-Trump filings on this issue.

 

[JohnDB]

Collateral Arrests?
Ummmmm.....color me now officially concerned.

 

[theHawk]

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

Illegals aren’t subject to our jurisdiction. They are foreigners, illegally here. They don’t have the rights of citizens, they don’t pay taxes, they don’t vote.


Thanks for playing.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Illegals aren’t subject to our jurisdiction. They are foreigners, illegally here. They don’t have the rights of citizens, they don’t pay taxes, they don’t vote.


Thanks for playing.

You are really struggling with this. What crimes did the babies commit ? What taxes arent they paying ?
You have a tax dodging president so you are cool with that anyway.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Tommy Tainant]

yes it does
the reason why the birth right citizenship amendment was made was to protect the offspring of freed slaves
it was not made for people who illegally crossed the border
it's just a fact

Sigh. Where does it say that in the constitution.?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Whether the parent are illegal entrants are irrelevant with respect to the legislative intent . . . they are covered by the overall legislative intent:

It has been clearly established that children of " . . . parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty..." as stated by John A. Bingham, are entitled to United States citizenship. But an illegal entrant foreign national who gives birth on American soil owes their allegiance to their home country, and thus, their offspring as indicated by Bingham, Senator Trumbull, SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, and Elk v. Wilkins, are not entitled to United States citizenship upon birth.

Except that illegal aliens owe allegiance to their home countries. That can be shown by foreign citizens who acted as spies or returned to their home countries to serve against the USA in wars. The case is simple, if you are a citizen of a country you "owe allegiance" to that country. Illegal immigrants, faux asylum seekers and actual asylum seekers are never forced to renounce their citizenship in their home countries unless they apply for US citizenship.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Or, Roe v Wade

The SC can change its mind

Plessey and Brown vs Board of education as well. SCOTUS changes its mind all the time.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Illegal parents do not get them in their name. Not that you'll stop lying about it.

Yes they do, I have personal experience and you don't.

 

[pknopp]

Yes they do, I have personal experience and you don't.

Well that settles it. Laws don't matter, you have personal experience. Rules don't matter, you have personal experience.

Obviously the world bows to your "personal experience".

 

[Couchpotato]

I don't think you can change the constitution by EO.

Post where the Constitution says the words birth right citizenship. We’ll wait.

 

[pknopp]

Post where the Constitution says the words birth right citizenship. We’ll wait.

Post where the 2nd says AR-15?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Post where the Constitution says the words birth right citizenship. We’ll wait.

Nothing to do with effective EOs.

 

[Nobody911]

It's likely the Supreme Court will not make the policy great again. Well, no policies are perfect, right?

Donald Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship, a policy that grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status. This action fulfills a campaign promise and reflects a belief that U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants should not automatically receive citizenship. The order has sparked immediate legal challenges from multiple states and civil rights organizations, arguing it violates the 14th Amendment and established Supreme Court precedents[1][2][3][6]. Critics assert that the move undermines a fundamental constitutional principle and could affect hundreds of thousands of American-born children[3][4].

sources:
[1] States sue to stop Trump's order blocking birthright citizenship
[2] https://www.axios.com/2025/01/21/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment
[3] 18 states challenge Trump's executive order cutting birthright citizenship
[4] Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship, Explained
[5] Trump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, Explained
[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/01/20/trump-birthright-citizenship-immigrants/
[7] First raft of lawsuits target US birthright citizenship, other Trump orders
[8] Birthright citizenship and other Trump executive actions likely to face pushback from the courts
[9] Attorney General Platkin Leads Challenge to Unconstitutional Trump Executive Order Ending Birthright Citizenship - New Jersey Office of Attorney General
[10] https://www.aclu.org/publications/briefing-paper-president-trumps-attack-on-birthright-citizenship
[11] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyjqgl2erzo

The 14th Amendment defines birthright citizenship through its Citizenship Clause, stating, "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." This principle, known as jus soli (right of the soil), grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, with exceptions for children of foreign diplomats. The amendment was established to ensure equal rights and rectify past injustices, particularly following the Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to African Americans[1][2].

sources:
[1] Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship, Explained
[2] https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/topics/birthright-citizenship
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States
[4] https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/birthright-citizenship-united-states
[5] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-1-1/ALDE_00000811/
[6] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
[7] https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

The Wong Kim Ark case (1898) was a landmark Supreme Court ruling that established birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was denied re-entry to the U.S. after visiting China, as authorities claimed he was not a citizen due to his parents' nationality. The Supreme Court ruled that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status, reinforcing the principle of jus soli (right of the soil) and setting a crucial precedent for future citizenship rights in America[1][3][5].

sources:
[1] https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/wong-kim-ark-case/
[2] https://exhibits.stanford.edu/riseup/feature/wong-kim-ark
[3] https://encyclopedia.densho.org/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
[5] https://immigrationhistory.org/item/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898/
[6] https://constitutioncenter.org/the-...ase-library/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898
[7] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649
[8] https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2024/05/22/aapi-exclusion-and-the-case-of-wong-kim-ark/

 

[Couchpotato]

Nothing to do with effective EOs.

Sure it does. He’s asserting that birthright citizenship is in the Constition and therefore can’t be changed via EO. So post the words.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Thats tbe relevant passage the issue will be whether a baby born in the US to noncitizens is “subject to US jurisdiction”. The EO is obviously being signed to force a case in front of the SCOTUS. The ACLU or anyone else would frankly be stupid to bring a case. Ignore it and you can overturn it in 4 years potentially. Take it to court and lose and you may never overturn it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Sure it does. He’s asserting that birthright citizenship is in the Constition and therefore can’t be changed via EO. So post the words.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Thats tbe relevant passage the issue will be whether a baby born in the US to noncitizens is “subject to US jurisdiction”. The EO is obviously being signed to force a case in front of the SCOTUS. The ACLU or anyone else would frankly be stupid to bring a case. Ignore it and you can overturn it in 4 years potentially. Take it to court and lose and you may never overturn it.

You just restated what we know.

 

[initforme]

Can american born citizens born to american citizens be deported?