Below is my column in the Hill on the argument this week in Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case. There are good-faith arguments on both sides and lawyers are divided on the question. For that reason, the most notable brief may have been the amicus brief of the American Bar Association, which filed a strident defense of birthright citizenship.
Here is the column:
The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in the historic birthright citizenship case. It is a hearing that has been over 150 years in the making, since the ratification of the 14th Amendment. It is not just a long-debated question that has divided the nation, but it has divided many lawyers as well.
For that reason, there was one brief that stood out before the court: the amicus brief of the American Bar Association.
The ABA filed its “friend of the court” brief to argue that the matter is clear: Anyone who gives birth on our soil, even if here illegally or only briefly, may claim U.S. citizenship for their child.
Most nations on Earth, including many of our European allies, reject birthright citizenship, and many of us in this nation believe that it is a foolish policy. Yet, even as someone who opposes birthright citizenship, I have long believed and argued that there are good-faith arguments on both sides of this debate.
The sponsors of this language clearly disagreed on the issue at the time of its enactment. Some stated at the time that the language did not allow for birthright citizenship.
The debate comes down to six poorly chosen words: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those words were not in the original draft, but were inserted by an amendment. Thus, they were not superfluous or casual verbiage, but an intentional condition. They were placed in the middle of an otherwise clear statement that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens of the United States.”
For more than a century, many have argued that the words reflect an intent to limit the amendment to citizens and legal residents who are subject fully to the jurisdiction of the United States.
That brings us back to the bar association. Regardless of how one comes out in the fascinating historical and constitutional debate, this is a case one would expect the ABA to sit out. It clearly does not speak for all lawyers on the issue, yet, it filed a strident brief and laid out a parade of horribles about what would happen if the Supreme Court were to reject birthright citizenship.
I found the brief to be one of the least compelling submissions to the court. But, once again, the media will portray the brief as speaking for American lawyers, even though the ABA represents less than two out of every ten attorneys.
I previously wrote a column on these pages on “the rise and fall of the American Bar Association,” exploring how the ABA has alienated many lawyers with its partisan advocacy. When it was founded on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, the 75 lawyers present from 20 states (and the District of Columbia) wanted an organization to create a national system of standards for “the advancement of the science of jurisprudence, the promotion of the administration of justice.” It was created to focus on professional accreditation, education, and training.
That changed in 1990, when advocates overrode earlier votes to remain neutral on the constitutional interpretations supporting the right to abortion. The adoption of a pro-abortion position shocked many and fundamentally changed the culture at the ABA. (It is worth noting that the very arguments embraced by the bar association were later rejected by the Supreme Court in the Dobbs decision.)
Since that time, the ABA has become fully captive to partisans who use the organization to support liberal and often Democratic Party positions. The result has been a steady decline in membership.
Today, there are roughly 1.3 million lawyers in the U.S. Even if the ABA represented just half of that number, it would have 650,000 members. As recently as 2015, it still had 400,000. But more recently, membership has fallen to 227,000, or just 17 percent of the bar.
Despite complaints that the ABA has become a partisan organization, its leadership has doubled down with positions and programming that are echo chambers for the left. During Trump’s terms, the ABA has uniformly opposed him and his policies.
The ABA brief in favor of birthright citizenship is signed by ABA President Michele Behnke. It simply declares the language and history clear and resolved. It then predicts a virtual meltdown of order and due process in this country if birthright citizenship is not upheld.
The decline of the ABA to the point where it does not speak for most lawyers has followed a familiar model. The media also abandoned neutrality in covering such stories, with many journalism schools now teaching students that they are advocates for social justice. Likewise, academia largely purged its departments of Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians, as it increasingly prioritized advocacy over education.
All three of these groups have one thing in common beyond their liberal ideological bias and advocacy: They are all increasingly unpopular. Higher education and the media have plummeted in public trust to record lows. Like the ABA, which can no longer claim to speak even for most lawyers, there is little indication that the loss of trust is causing the leadership to do any soul-searching.
As memberships and revenues decline, the use of these institutions for advocacy remains personally beneficial. Behnke is leading an organization that is a shell of its former self, but she (like academics and journalists) is lionized for taking these positions.
Ironically, Behnke has a role in two of these areas, as a board member for the University of Wisconsin Law School and the University of Wisconsin Foundation and Alumni Association Board.
Faced with an ABA doubling down on these controversial positions, various states are moving to do away with its historical role in bar memberships.
The brief reaffirmed for many lawyers that the ABA is no longer a neutral and fair representative for all lawyers. It will continue to represent a dwindling faction of lawyers who look at the association as more of a stridently ideological than a strictly professional organization. That is why, whatever the outcome in Trump v. Barbara, the American Bar Association is likely to be the loser.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Citizenship is derived from allegiance, and a citizen cannot have legiance to two lieges.
Dual citizenship is not possible.
Illegal aliens and their babies are subject to the jurisdiction of their countries of origin, not a country where they made an invalid entry.
Nope. It’s amazing how ignorant you are
Mexican illegal aliens are not called to jury duty because they are not “subject to the jurisdiction.”
Babies of illegal aliens are considered “Mexican Nationals” by Mexico, and dual citizenship is not possible because allegiance is the basis of citizenship, and one cannot have ligeance to two lieges.
I love headlines…
“Trump Republicans are self-destructing through ‘bottomless stupidity’: report”
WINNING!
You need to attend a Minnesootan Learing Center.
Democrats have stretched the meaning of illegal immigrant to the absurd where lawless behavior is not only accepted but protected.
It writes law, GW. Not the legislators…
It’s below normal IQ so I watch it like a TV show, mindless. It’s a criminal show like law and order or matlock.
Prof. Edward J. Erler wrote on this topic in the July 2008 issue of Imprimis. The article, “Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny”, contains the following two paragraphs that provide a good explanation as well as some comments made by Senators during the debate over passage of the 14th Amendment:
“Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. We have somehow come today to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction. But this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous and without force. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably they would simply have said that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are thereby citizens.”
“Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits; but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.”
Almost never mentioned in discussing the 14th Amendment is that there was at the time a well accepted path to citizenship for immigrant children. During their parents’ Naturalization, those children under age 21 automatically gained US citizenship (Citizenship by Derivation – the child derives citizenship from the Naturalizing parents).
This way of doing things was not a bit controversial in 1866 or 1868. It was standard practice throughout the post-Civil-War era. Nobody at the time questioned it (maybe because it doesn’t split status within the family?).
The first time it was questioned was by Wong Kim Ark’s lawyer in the famous 1898 Court case, as a possible loophole to acquire WKA’s citizenship.
I hope the question comes up Wednesday, “When was the first time any lawyer in a US court claimed that Birthright Citizenship under 14A should apply to illegal immigrants? And “Why did it take so many decades after 14A’s Ratification for Citizenship by Derivation to begin being questioned?” “Surely that delay indicates that NOBODY in 1868 who ratified the 14th thought that was what they were changing”.
BTW, we still have Citizenship by Derivation for legal immigrant children. And that is exactly what will replace the idiotic process now about to be phased out by the Supreme Court.
there was at the time a well accepted path to citizenship for immigrant children
For immigrant children; NOT for children born here after their parents’ immigration. Those were NEVER included in their parents’ naturalization.
That’s the kind of reasoning that is so logical and historically well supported that it will be rejected out of hand by at least three Supreme Court Justices, probably four. This case will be decided by whether it is also ultimately rejected (after some mumbo jumbo) by one or two of the remaining Justices.
I wonder if any mention will be made of a little known, but fairly common, legal maneuver made on behalf of illegals charged with capital crimes. It is not uncommon for police and prosecutors not to know precisely who the suspect illegal really is or where that person came from. But let the possibility of being charged with a crime that could potentially lead to the death penalty and suddenly some lawyer from or on behalf of the consulate or embassy of that person’s actual home country will show up to argue that the U.S. has violated the illegal’s rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and therefore should not be subject to such a harsh sentence. And that is because the illegal is not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S., which gets right back to what Senators Howard and Trumbull were saying back in 1866 during those debates. Any children those very same illegals may have had in the U.S. are also not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. according to the meaning given by those Senators and so should not have U.S. citizenship.
And that is because the illegal is not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S., which gets right back to what Senators Howard and Trumbull were saying back in 1866 during those debates.
Again, that is an outright deliberate LIE. In the debates on the 14A, in 1868, they were clear that only those with immunity to US law were excluded. As Trumbull said in the debate: “Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court?”
“Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and
other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in any just sense? They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them.”
Estoppel. . How do ya spell that omfk
Let us pray.
oldman, my guess is the Justices will wake up Wednesday morning knowing they have one job to do. And we’ll find out later that it wasn’t to determine the original intent, but to rewrite it to fit the politics of the moment.
Olly – we know how the three Liberals will vote, and Roberts too. It will come down to whether the other five, who are reasonable some of the time, can all be reasonable at the same time, as they did with Dobbs. And if so, hopefully we won’t, yet again, get a liberal Justice’s staff member leaking the opinion in an attempt to get one of the five assassinated.
Not so Alito and Thomas and Barrett will make a narrow opinion on a single point. Certainly the 3 witches will legislate.
OMFK – The administration and others have done an excellent job of trying to make a plausible argument that ithe children of illegal immigrants do not have citizenship by brith.
But I expect this will be a loss for Trump.
While correctly pointing out that MORE than just being born in the US is required, the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” only excludes people who parents are in the US directly or indirectly representing foreign governments.
People who are legally here on tourist visa’s. People who are here illegally are still “Subject to the jurisdiction of the US”
They are fully obligated to obey US laws.
Further while the issue of “birthright citizenship” is popular on the right, it is NOT a significant real problem. The number of children with US Citizenship because they are born in the US of parents who are here illegally is SMALL.
Nor is the “anchor baby” issue real – or more accurately it is a matter of policy – NOT constitutionality.
The fact that illegal immigrants have given birth to a child who is a US citizen does NOT prevent their deportation – and in fact Trump is deporting numerous illegals who have US citizen Children. The parents have to decide how they will deal with their child – which as a strong supported of parental rights is how it should be.
Often the parents take the child home with them. That Child when it becomes and adult CAN choose to come to the US. That is going to be more than a decade later having lived in their parents country all that time. Alternately the parents can give custody to people who are in the US legally.
Regardless, the numbers are small, and the birth of a child in the US does NOT constitutionally protect the parents from deportation.
That is myth.
Next as practical matter nations without birthright citizenship have far worse problems with immigration than the US.
If you deny birth right citizenship to children born in the US of parents who were here illegally – and you applied that rretroactively – which is also not happening.
Possibly as much as 15% of current US citizens would lose their citizenship.
While this would not be applied rhetroactively – this problem exists in Europe – tens of millions of people who who were born in Europe, or parents born in Europe but who are not citizens who do not have the rights of citizens and as a result have little connection to the country they were born in. This amplifies the problems of terrorism in European countries.
You do not want to creaqte a situation where eventually tens of millions of people who were born here – possibly of parents who were boern here are essentially stateless people – the US is the only contry they have ever known, but they have no citizenship rights and no loyalty of attachment to the US.
That is a recipe for very bad things.
The 14th amendment granted citizenship to freed slaves under very similar circumstances – the alternative was to ship them all back to Africa – and there WERE people who wanted to do that – Including Lincoln.
Trump has effectively Closed the borders to illegal immigrants – I celebrate that – we should always celebreate govenrment enforcing the law.
He is deporting large numbers of those here illegally – I support that. I would likely as a PRACTICAL matter, limit that to people who committed crimes in the US, or have been unable to support themselves or have not been in the US illegally for long.
There are potentially 35-45 M illegal immigrants in the US right now – many have been here for decades.
We are not deporting that many people – it is just not happening.
The reasoning of those opposing birth right citizenship – is much better than I had expected.
But in the end I do NOT think it is strong enough to carry a majority. I do not think Trump will lose 9-0,
but I think this could be a 7-2 or 6-3 decision against Trump.
A good argument is NOT the same as the BEST argument.
“Not subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not mean – your parents entered the US legally. It means what it says – that it is unlikely that you will be prosecuted for failing to obey US laws – that is people in consulates, and embassies, and foreign military who are in the US but literally serving the interests of a foreign govenrment.
It does not mean people who are in the US on a tourist visa.
It does not mean people who are not legally in the US
I would separately note that this case is a win-win for Trump.
While the left will celebrate if SCOTUS shoots him down – It WILL fullfill a promise to Trump’s base, and outside those on the far left the rest of the country will NOT see this as some horrible lawless act on Trump’s part.
One of the things those on the left should consider about the fights they choose is that something are win-win or loser-lose.
Democrats keep choosing fights were even if they win – they lose politically alienating voters.
There is not some huge cohort of people who see the citizenship of children of people whose parents came here illegally as the hill the want to die on.
There are far more people who strongly support Trump on this than strongly oppose – though the majority just does not feel strongly.
Losing this will not hurt Trump – it may even hurt some democrats.
Did you address native Americans, Indian nations within the jurisdiction, JS?
If those quotations and that understanding of the debates are historically solid, then there really is no serious constitutional question left to decide on the text and original meaning. On that record, a straightforward Court ought to be 9–0. The only “second stage” would be the now familiar Roberts Court move, where they accept the legal premise, then slide into a kind of improvised immigration reform from the bench to mitigate Congress’s dereliction and the political fallout.
HEY HEY I KNOW! Subject to the jurisdiction– could it be, could it be there are people not subject to it? OMG, WHO? ARGHHH
Mexican illegal alien babies are considered “Mexican Nationals” and remain subject to Mexican “Personal Jurisdiction” when outside the country.
When they return, they will again be subject to both “Personal and Territorial Jurisdiction,” or Full Jurisdiction of Mexico.
They cannot have allegiance, the basis of citizenship, to two nations; they cannot have dual citizenship; they cannot have legiance to two lieges, which is impossible.
Dual citizenship as Robert E. Lee faced when he told Lincoln he’d have to fight with his kith and kin in good conscience and did fighting those loyal to the United States?
Today’s friend tomorrow’s enemy…
AI Overview
A child born in the United States to at least one Mexican parent is considered a Mexican national by birth and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of Mexico.
A Mexican must provide documentation to leave Mexico and a pregnant Mexican on a plane must provide documentation regarding her pregnancy.
A pregnant mother and child leaving Mexico on a plane are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico until the aircraft exits Mexican airspace.
An undocumented immigrant in the United States remains subject to the personal jurisdiction of Mexico while being simultaneously subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
“THE BABY IS CONSIDERED A MEXICAN NATIONAL”
Mexican illegal aliens who cross into America are subject to the full jurisdiction of Mexico.
Mexican illegal aliens who cross into America are subject to only the territorial jurisdiction of America while remaining subject to the full, personal and territorial jurisdiction of Mexico.
Mexican illegal aliens are never subject to the jurisdiction of America, meaning the full jurisdiction of America.
The American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) followed the exact same IDENTICAL path as the ABA. And that, like the ABA, is really too bad. It tanked their overall support and membership. I was always a huge supporter of the ACLU, same with the ABA (and California Bar), but once the politics set in (and by “politics” I always mean straight up lefty, fruitcake, tree hugging, wingnut positions) I determined it was time to cut my ties…Until some ADULTS get put n charge of these once outstanding stellar professional organizations their will continue in their Death Spirals….Until it is too late…. And some other start up person or organization steps up to fill that void of non-partisan, play it straight down the middle Stewardship.
@Stitch
Yup. They are a joke. I do not argue with the logic of their founding, but just as with seemingly every other modern progressive organization, they have been captured and turned, and personal or civil rights are the last things on their minds; just an agenda that they must mindlessly carry the flag for (and often in great comfort). This is actually a problem now that could be described as kinetic; it’s the whole chain, from cradle, to oblivious parents, to modern education, to workplaces. Mix in a generation(s) that felt left out because they missed all of that and hence manufacture crises where before them there had been great *actual* progress – it’s an ugly stew.
The progressive cancer is playing the long game, and successfully. I sure wish people would wake up and realize they have to live in the world (or at least country, or state) they are creating with their reticence, too. We’ll see if Texas flips at the midterms. I will eat crow if I’m wrong (and I’d love to be), but it isn’t far fetched.
I just assumed all lawyers were expected to be ABA members, and I wondered why more of them didn’t protest the obvious Democrat Party bias they exhibit with every case.
Yet the ABA actually represents only about 17% of practicing lawyers.
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
And kudos to those who quit that anti-American cesspool.
And I hope the SCOTUS does the right thing. (This means you, Roberts.)
Here, here. I’m all for reassessing the appropriateness of the Amendments in modern society. If the 14th can be overturned, so can the 2nd. Let’s go.
Reassessing the appropriateness is not what this is about. It’s about interpreting the meaning of the language. Typical left-wing idiocy from an idiot.
To change the meaning and impact of the Constitution through Plaintiffs going to Court in hopes of policy power via “re-interpretation” of decades-old language — that is a violation of Article V (Amendments process). It is an attempt to circumvent the rigor demanded of Constitutional change, specifically, the requirement to amass broad consensus around the proposed change.
In this Birthplace Citizenship case, there is no possible way broad consensus could be built for the practice of Birth Tourism. Similarly there is scant support for splitting family immigration status by giving foreign newborns US citizenship.
The Court is here being used by ACLU and activists to obtain a policy OPPOSED by the overwhelming majority. It is the antithesis if “the consent of the governed”.
The very concept that someone born here is automatically a United States citizen is disturbing to me in the extreme. I have studied the rationale for the Constitutional inclusion and its interpretation over the years. Still, I view the concept pure folly for a sovereign state. To present opposition to it as racist is disingenuous and downright galling. Arguments pro birthright citizenship seems always tenuous at best. Thus, resorting to racism accusation tactics naturally follows. Secondarily, I must admit real confusion over why the ABA would intervene so vociferously in the matter. To what purpose? A legitimate issue of legal principle, or carving out a place at a future table where profits are to be gained? The former appears to be less a rationale than the later.
Please consider two principles: consent and asset forfeiture.
As for consent, we cannot compel anyone to become US Citizens. For example, some Native Americans choose citizenship with their tribe, even though we recognize and consent to their right to US Citizenship.
If a criminal is convicted we have the right to seize the goods obtained illegally. We recognize that US Citizenship is a valuable asset. Thus, a person who is here illegally, without our consent, and gives birth, their offspring are not entitled to the asset of US Citizenship any more than a drug lord can pass on his money, autos, paintings, real estate, or cash obtained illegally.
Once again, a tiny, very vocal minority dictating the narrative for many who will see, ‘ABA’ (could just as easily be NEA or AMA, or NAACP, or ADL etc.; it’s time to cease ascribing prestige to institutions based on their former lineage, universities should be a pulsing neon sign in that regard), and just assume someone that knows more than they do decided something. We have to continue to pierce the veil, because the leadership in these areas are intent on keeping it in tact, and in 2026, it is thinner than cellophane and twice as transparent.
From the beginning of the U.S., Congress defined a clear path to Citizenship for immigrant family children.
On the same day the parents swore allegiance to their new country (and renounced allegiance to their birth country), all their children under age 21 automatically became US Citizens. It’s called Citizenship by Derivation.
The shrill howls from the left that Trump’s Exec Order is “taking away kids’ citizenship” should be met with calm, resolute rebuttal: A path to citizenship for these infants is defined, but depends on the parents following US Immigration law:
1) Entering the country on a Permanent Resident Visa through a Port of Entry
2) Completing the 5-year Residency requirement without getting in trouble with the law
3) Applying for US Citizenship to include minor children (Citizenship by Derivation)
4) Swearing allegiance to the US in front of a Federal Magistrate in a Naturalization ceremony
Those children at that moment automatically become US Citizens.
Nothing is being “taken away”. Except perhaps a repugnant loophole, whereby for decades the requirement of the child’s parents to follow US Immigration Law was brushed aside as inconsequential.
On Wed., that artful circumvention of immigration law will be debated in the Supreme Court.
We need to add that immigrants not be on welfare. My brother lives in a western European country on a year-to-year visa. In order to obtain that visa from his previous tourist visa, he had to jump through many hoops, especially submitting sworn affidavits that he would never use a single Euro from the state. He has to maintain private health insurance, children (if he had any) must attend private schools, supply acceptable documents proving he was self-supporting, and provide multiple criminal background reports. The agreement is that should he attempt to take one Euro from the public he was subject to deportation. He has lived there over ten years with this understanding.
Good point. And there are other criteria for completing the 5-year Residency, such as not being a conduit for foreign influence, or just being declared Persona No Grata by the US Atty. Gen.
Pb, I’ve given up in weariness of ignorance, stupidity and crime where laws are corrupted and men are women. I can’t watch, listen to anymore protests.
Thanks for a moment of sanity, pb.
While I recognize that more than just Turley adhere to his racist position on birthright citizenship, it’s, frankly, a ludicrous position to take just on logical grounds alone…
The founders were immigrants themselves and wouldn’t have written the means to deport themselves into the Constitution. That’s why the language for it has to be created in the abstract, and that’s why it takes the mental gymnastics Turley deflects with in order to arrive where he is on the issue.
Hence, Turley’s job here is to schill for racist policy and he’s made his best effort to that end in trying to whip up you magats over it while concurrently trying to maintain the appearance of neutrality with this anti Constitutional trash piece.
. . . racist position on birthright citizenship
Right there you lost all claim to rational discourse. Nothing else you say after that is worth reading. You’re also unaware that the founders did not write the 14th Amendment. Can’t the Chinese Communist Party get better quality trolls these days? Sheesh.
Thanks for reading! The 14th ammendment was written to clarify the original intent of the Constitution.
But you’ll never understand that.
The 14th ammendment was written to clarify the original intent of the Constitution
That has to be the most ignorant statement I have seen on this message board. What a doozy!
P.S. I guess you think the Civil War never happened, moron
Aha…, you convince the blocking and tackling with the spirit of the law. But clearly, you’re an idiot, so there’s that.
Once again, thanks for reading!
you convince the blocking and tackling with the spirit of the law
Typical meaningless gibberish in an unknown language from a known moron, idiot, dunce, fool, imbecile, nitwit, simpleton, and dimwit.
Oh…it gets an exorcism and strokes the f$%k out when corrected. Moan on at the circle jerk, cretin!!
^ More gibberish in an unknown language making no sense whatsoever from a known moron, idiot, dunce, fool, imbecile, nitwit, simpleton, and dimwit.
You’re getting close, aren’t you? Lol. You need to wear head protection.
Racist immigration policy was formally repealed in 1965. That took place 61 years ago!
The current policy of chain-migration and the lottery?…how can any argument be made those they are racist?
Both the declared intention and results indicate exactly the opposite. It’s been a post-racial policy the past 3 generations.
Whereas, the illegal migration of peoples into America has been racially skewed, highly favoring Latin Americans.
In other words, the decision to not enforce immigration law was patently pro-Latino racist. The Trump shift back to legal-only immigration restores racial neutrality — the whole purpose of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act.
The challenge to birthright citizenship is nothing more than the current equivalent of the black codes.
It’s interpreting constitutional text, you blithering idiot.
It’s interpreting the Constitution like the racists who wrote the black codes did. F$%kwit.
The Black Codes were not part of the constitution, you f—ing moron doofus low-IQ idiot. The Reconstruction Amendments were written and adopted by the North after the Civil War, you complete and total ignoramus nitwit.
The 14th was in response, in part, to black codes in the south, Cletus. Big picture it was in response to bad faith efforts in the south to delegitimize the citizenship of a racial group under the thumb of fascist racist crackers such as yourself.
We see those same sentiments with the right’s challenge to birthright citizenship now. It’s the same warmed over racism from the Civil War and it’s aftermath. You know, the same tactics the Nazis studied to influence the 3rd reich when they sent their lawyers to study at U of Arkansas.
Best part is you morons are devotees of someone who the SCOTUS let slip by the guidelines of the 14th against ever regaining power again. I’m amazed at the levels of sheer racist stupidity on this blog, but I probably shouldn’t be.
This is so unfair. Trump gets a $400 million airplane, His net worth for his family goes up by $1.5 billion, This guy allegedly takes $100,000 and he gets arrested. I mean really? So unfair.
“A campaign accountant who served as the Maryland Republican Party comptroller since 2017 has been indicted, court records unsealed on Monday show.
The Baltimore Banner reported James Appel’s name is no longer included on the GOP’s website, and the details aren’t immediately viewable online, but the indictment shows that he is being accused of wire fraud and money laundering.
Appel had been questioned in February by the FBI after a discrepancy of more than $100,000 popped up in Maryland Del. Kathy Szeliga’s campaign finance account.”
Only the big law firms support the ABA now. It certainly doesn’t represent me and I haven’t been a member for at least 4 decades. It is almost certain that whatever the ABA supports, I am against. My own state no longer lets the ABA determine which law schools are accredited. As that grows, its power will completely atrophy. Another ten years and it will likely be defunct.
The much abused 14th. What part do the Indian nations play in this drama?
Adios Amiga, amigo, amicus 😂
Thanks, PT, Trump v. Barbara, Oyez
^^^Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.
What happens is grandparents were not naturalized, children born and again unnaturalized and by the time the grandchildren came along grands are passed away, parents never vote and never talk. Some are great grandchildren. None are citizens.
That’s the only problem existing in reality. Over and over the US forgives millions but it doesn’t change. Now they want the law rewritten just for them. The 14th isn’t applicable except in its NOT this or that meaning.
SCOTUS is aware but the liberals will rewrite or write legislation and conservatives will not. In arguments Watson v. RNC, KBJ wouldn’t let the border go over and over because she’s a political hack. She knows they’ve erred and want attorney for RNC to outline the error.
Many noncitizens are actually voting.
Adios amicus amicci
^^ What if a citizen and non citizen marry and have children. She or he must apply for permanent residency while obtaining citizenship. He or she can be deported. The spouse and children can follow. Divorce?
Noncitizens will define the laws for citizens lawbreakers. KBJ thinks Caitlin Jenner is a woman and so do you and everyone accepts the current definition of marriage or you would have removed it from state records but couldn’t do without the IRS classification, hypocritical baker, photographer 😂
Toodles
Did the baker delete his marriage from state records? His Christian marriage dictates that he do so or live a lie. Ah, NOT when it’s in his favor. I c.
OMG, watched part of PBS TV series about the 60s etc. What incredible lies, propaganda. It’s amazing.
It would be ironic if the $1 million+ Chinese tourist babies born on US Pacific islands and now being raised in China affected the Court’s decision.
…and Roe v Wade was “settled law” (i.e. corrupt law) for 50 years.
I asked Ai to define Citizen: A person who legally belongs to a state or nation and has specific rights and duties. Within the duties it sites Obeying Laws which should disqualify any illegal’s claim to birth rights. Are they not law breakers just by the very definition of the word ILLEGAL?
Then I asked Ai for the Oath of Allegiance:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Then I asked define Allegiance: loyalty, commitment, fidelity, bind, swear.
Illegal aliens are not allowed to vote, demonstrating that they are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The babies that illegal aliens bear are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents and, by extension, the country of origin of the parents.
Certainly parents retain legal control, or jurisdiction, of their babies and minor children until the age of 18.
Mexican illegal aliens are not called to jury duty because they are not “subject to the jurisdiction.”
Babies of illegal aliens are considered “Mexican Nationals” by Mexico, and dual citizenship is not possible because allegiance is the basis of citizenship, and one cannot have ligeance to two lieges.
Nice read on BRC.
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/about-this-birtright-citizenship?utm_source=publication-search
Should I purchase a paid subscription?