Below is my column on Fox.com on the birthright citizenship case. Republicans in Congress have already submitted legislation for both a new constitutional amendment and specific bars on birth tourism. The legislation will obviously move more quickly and, if challenged, could give the Court another opportunity to address the issue. However, the most direct way of addressing the issue remains a 28th Amendment.
Here is the column:
Today, Folarin Balogun secured a spot on the American soccer team for the World Cup…for a second time.
That may be the most positive spin I can offer to those upset by today’s 5-4 decision in favor of birthright citizenship. Balogun, one of the stars on our team, was born to Nigerian parents visiting the United States and then raised in England.
According to the Supreme Court, he is — and was always intended to be — a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is a conclusion that divided the court 5-4, but, as in soccer, a one-point win is as good as a nine-point win.
Roberts wrote for the majority that “The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
The victory for birthright citizenship was due to the joining of Chief Justice John Roberts (who authored the decision) and Justice Amy Coney Barrett with the three liberal justices. They found the language and history of the amendment to be clear and, relying on prior rulings dating back decades, concluded that birth alone in this country is enough to confer citizenship — even if born to a tourist or someone briefly on our soil.
It is a view that is rejected by the vast majority of countries, which rightfully view birthright citizenship as bonkers, including some which followed the practice and then rescinded it. The United States remains one of the outliers in maintaining this ill-considered practice.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, effectively arguing that this is the invention of the Court, which refused to reconsider its lazy prior analysis. That included the Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which expanded birthright citizenship beyond what the Reconstruction Congress had ever “contemplated.” He noted that the Court could have resolved the case on narrower grounds consistent with the 14th Amendment: “Wong Kim Ark addressed only the citizenship of a child born to parents who were lawfully and permanently domiciled in the United States.”
The 5-4 decision unleashed another furious broadside on social media against Barrett, particularly after she authored the 5-4 decision on mail-in ballots again, this time with Roberts and her liberal colleagues.
Barrett hit a nerve as one of the three Trump appointees, whom many hoped would be more in the vein of Alito or Thomas. Instead, she often writes with Roberts.
The attacks on Barrett ignored that there are good-faith arguments on both sides of the birthright citizenship case. They also ignore that she regularly voted with the conservatives and for positions of the Administration. For example, she voted to support states in requiring transgender athletes to compete with their biological sex. She previously was the most vocal justice in rejecting transgender status as a protected class akin to race or religion.
President Trump has lashed out at his nominees over their adverse rulings. However, they remain one of his most impressive and positive legacies. President Trump said that he wanted independent and principled conservatives. He got them in Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. They are all extraordinary jurists who have dramatically elevated the Court’s intellectual discussions.
When I testified at Gorsuch’s confirmation in the Senate, I told the senators that they were wrong to pigeonhole the nominee: he would go wherever his convictions took him. That has proven to be the case, and it is a great credit to Trump that he selected such independent minds.
On birthright citizenship, the matter now rests not with the court but the country. We have never truly had a national debate over the practice. The basis and future of birthright citizenship have remained matters almost exclusively for the courts.
We must now decide whether to pursue such a debate as a constitutional amendment.
While Congress can pass legislation cracking down on birth tourism, there is only so much that such laws can do in questioning why particular births occurred in the United States, such as the birth of Balogun.
I can think of no more appropriate debate to have as we celebrate our 250th anniversary than what it means to be a citizen of this unique republic.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Thank you, Justice Kavanaugh for writing a Concurrence that is very easy to read and understand, asserting that Congress calls the shots as far as eligibility criteria for US Citizenship.
John Roberts’ digging through the graveyard of English common law for “historical precedent” — while summarily ignoring that England phased out birthright citizenship with The British Nationality Act of 1981 — shows a level of phony, conniving scholarship completely aloof to, and dismissive of the circumstances surrounding the 2020s case controversy.
The cold, detached way Roberts fails to address the major concerns of the dissenters exposes the logical weakness of his opinion. It’s legal posturing dug up from the graveyard of legal museum pieces offers no contemporary, well-reasoned arguments.
. . . ignoring that England phased out birthright citizenship with The British Nationality Act of 1981
Just curious: why would an event from 1981 be relevant to the interpretation of 14A’s text written more than 100 years earlier?
pbinca
You completely misunderstand Kavanaugh’s position, and Kavanaugh himself does not present a rational argument for his position.
Kavanaugh came up with an absurd convoluted argument that Trump’s EO violates 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), a statute that defines as citizens certain people born OUTSIDE the U.S. He argues that since Congress has been able to enact a statute that in certain circumstances defines citizenship, then all they have to do is amend that statute to say that children born in the US to foreign parents are NOT citizens.
This is completely absurd reasoning, and simply confirms that Kavanaugh is nothing more than a drunken, political hack.
The statute in question, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), starts with this statement:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
This is simply a restatement of the 14th amendment.
The following 7 sub-sections then define groups of people born OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the US, who by virtue of a connection to a US citizen parent are to be considered as citizens.
Kavanaugh seems to think that 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) somehow modifies the 14th Amendment and therefore all that needs to be done is to amend it to further modify the Amendment. In fact the statute simply affirms the 14th Amendment, and says absolutely nothing else about children born WITHIN the jurisdiction of the US beyond that.
Kavanaugh’s problem is that 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) in no way, shape or form modifies the 14th Amendment. Indeed the very first sub-section of 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), is simply a reaffirmation of the Amendment, and all the following sub-sections simply refer to children born OUTSIDE the US in circumstances that include at least one citizen parent.
Any attempt to amend 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) to exclude from citizenship any child born in the US to alien parents would on its face be a direct violation of the 14th Amendment.
Kavanaugh has come up with an utterly absurd opinion that could easily be rebutted by any first year law student.
Yes, that’s why Congress has the power to propose and by great majority, completely and unequivocally REPEAL a/o annihilate the 14th Amendment, along with a good majority of states who agree. I think I learned that as a first year law student.
That may well be. The Constitution can be amended by super majorities of two thirds in the House and Senate, followed by two thirds of the state legislatures, but that is not what Kavanaugh proposes.
He apparently believes that it is just a matter of Congress amending 8 U.S.C. § 1401 to exclude the children of aliens born in the US from citizenship.
That is an absolute absurdity, as any first year law student will tell you.
That was not what you originally said early today. You haVe toned it down quite a bit. The game you play, Learned to do that in first year remedial classes for Constitutional Law I ???
Strongly worded and combative comments don’t win in court, chum. In fact, you simply copied and lifted from another comment within the last half hour or so. Please try to be original and argue your own thoughts, not others’
why dont you send a letter to Kavanaugh and tell him about his absolute absurdity. Tell him how you got all your info from AI, and that you rewrote it with StealthGPT and Grammarly and that Turley, OldMan, Farmer, Lin, JOhnSay and several others are all ignorant and you are so much smarter than other members of COngress and SCOTUS (I do not dismiss the idea that you might be an ignorant member of congress yoourself, or of of one’s staff, looking for new ideas and trying to belittle others’ postings on a political basis. YOu really can’t be as dumb as some of your remarks..
Here is Kavanaugh’s summary of his opinion in his own words.
You can find this on page 61 of the attached link.
“For those reasons, to reiterate, the Executive Order does
not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does
contravene 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Consistent with the
Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could amend §1401(a) or
otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to
birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens
unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has
not yet done so.”
Kavanaugh explicitly states that simply amending 8 U. S. C. §1401(a) by legislation could exclude children born to foreign citizens
unlawfully or temporarily in the country from citizenship.
This is a legal absurdity.
The meaning of the Constitution cannot under any circumstances be changed, altered or amended by Congressional legislation.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf
You cannot possibly be a lawyer YOu are scaring me if you are. Or if you are a member of Congress. YOU CONVENIENTLY ELIMINATED the first five words with Kavanaugh’s statement, “Consistent with the
Fourteenth Amendment,” Congress could amend…..”
Of course, dearie, the 14th Amendment is part of the CONSTITUTION.
You conveniently and erroneously interpreted those words to conclude that Congress could go around any Constitutional understanding, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a) basically reiterates what is in the Constitution. Kavanaugh’s prefatory five words shoot down your shallow argument like the wet frisbee it is.
Moreover, SCOTUS (Roberts), not the Constitution, has somewhat interpreted what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means here. To remind you, SCOTUS has revised, amended, differentiated, and even reversed itself as new information warrants over time.
I’m not going to be stupidly arrogant as you have been in your quest for validity. aNd your own dysfunctional ego has warped your own view. But MY interpretation of what Kavanaugh said puts you to bed.
Nonsensical, self-contradictory gibberish.
I quoted Kavanaugh’s words, “consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment” right there in my comment. (Did you even bother to read my comment?).
And those words are the very words that render Kavanaugh’s theory to be nonsensically absurd.
It is simply not possible to amend 8 U. S. C. §1401(a) in any manner whatsoever. The Constitution cannot be amended by simply passing an act of Congress. That idea is insanity.
The original purpose of 8 U. S. C. §1401(a) was to clearly define ALL GROUPS of people who qualify as citizens of the United States, NOT just those born WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.
It starts with a re-statement of the 14th Amendment saying that:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”.
It continues by defining 7 further groups of people BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, who qualify for citizenship by virtue of having a US citizen parent. In addition it defines, as citizens, certain Native Americans who were born within the United States, but who had previously been erroneously denied that citizenship because they had been born on a tribal reservation that theretofore had otherwise been considered to be a foreign nation.
The purpose of 8 U. S. C. §1401(a) was make it clear that children born OUTSIDE the US are citizens if at least one parent is a citizen. It clarifies that birth in the US is not the ONLY requirement for citizenship as delineated in the 14th Amendment. In that sense it is INCLUSIVE, it says nothing about EXCLUDING children born to aliens.
Kavanaugh falsely believes that 8 U. S. C. §1401(a) can simply be amended to say that children born WITHIN the US can be excluded from citizenship if neither parent is a citizen. This would be a direct, and unquestionable, violation of the clear meaning of 14th Amendment.
Roberts rejected Kavanaugh’s theory and roundly criticized him for that absurdity.
Roberts emphasized that the text of the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be downgraded to a mutable statute. By declaring that children born on U.S. soil are unconditionally citizens at birth under the Constitution, Roberts explicitly closed the absurd legal loophole Kavanaugh tried to provide to lawmakers. Roberts went on to target the claim that parental legal status or temporary “domicile” alters constitutional mandates, labeling those theories as having “scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view.”
gibberish like yours comes from a feeble attempt to mend together isolated words and phrases to further your argument. It includes moving the goalposts and modifying a/o making subsequent arguments, then accusing others of doing the same. Thanks for giving us a good example.
Your ORIGINAL comment to which was originally responded, was :
“He [Kavanaugh] apparently believes that it is just a matter of Congress amending 8 U.S.C. § 1401 to exclude the children of aliens born in the US from citizenship.”
There is nothing equivocal in your statement.
Enough. I will not argue with a defensive, manipulative clown who simply cannot walk away.
I will be the big man to walk away.
and then anonny REPEATED IT later. for a SECOND time:’
“Kavanaugh explicitly states that simply amending 8 U. S. C. §1401(a) by legislation could exclude children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country from citizenship.”
Again, he left off the prefatory clause,
If the USA were really a Judeo-Christian nation the ruling would have been 9-0 in favor of treating immigrants humanely.
The vast majority of immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America are devout Christians. The American Christians are treating the foreign Christians in a very cruel sadistic manner.
The real evil here is Congress and Trump could this week create humane immigration practices consistent with American values.
You can’t support Trump and be a real Christian.
That’s complete and total BS. Christianity does not primarily relate to political structures or the role of government. Christians even invented the separation of church and state – a concept that does not exist in the Islamic world, BTW.
Christians are required to be generous in their private dealings with other individuals. That doesn’t mean they are required to usurp the machinery of government to steal other people’s money and use it to fund a charitable cause for the entire rest of the world.
Letting in millions of unvetted immigrants who will rape and kill the citizens of the nation, plunder its resources, engage in drug trafficking, and child sex trafficking, is anti-Christian. It is what the “Joe Biden” cabal did. The role of government is first and foremost in regard to the people who are already citizens of the nation.
That was a swing and a miss on your part. Care to try again?
“Christians even invented the separation of church and state”
Oldman, from a static view, I think you are correct, and I cannot disagree; but isn’t the concept evolutionary?
In my view, it traces back to Moses and Aaron’s dual leadership: Moses, the civil executive, and Aaron, the religious authority. Is that not history’s original prototype of divided government?
Meyer – you might be right. I never considered of it in terms of Moses and Aaron. That merits some thought.
“Christians even invented the separation of church and state . . .”
In terms of intellectual history, that is very misleading.
Some, e.g., Williams, did support that idea. Others, e.g., the entire Dark Ages, did not. More importantly, that idea is a child of the Renaissance and Enlightenment convictions of the sanctity of reason and the value of individualism — both of which are wholly *secular* ideas.
I predict that you will not have the courage to watch what illegal immigration did to this American mother and her daughter. Why? You’re too caught up in your ideological “gotcha” world, a real brave incel keyboard warrior typing from your mother’s basement. Why do only Republicans care about American children, and want them not to get raped and murdered? With Democrats it’s always, “Yeah I guess that’s not great, but . . .”
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/2072046226531389741
https://x.com/RealAmVoice/status/2072098834860109899
Can you be a real Christian and remain anonymous?
And would a Christian father allow criminals into his house to rape and kill his family because . . . humaneness, or some such BS?
Anon: How many do you have in YOUR house to ‘treat human;y’?
All that sympathy for the devil is so grand till it gets t0, uh say, Martha’s Vineyard or YOUR house.
Maybe we should tell the illegals they should not steal.
🙂
SamnFox
The other anon was trying to make some sophomoric point that Christians are hypocritical. They’re not. The other anon is a rank amateur in this type of discussion, and not a very bright one at that.
The one kicker here is that DJT fatuously presumes that “independent and conservative” automatically and totally equals what we might describe as ‘Trumpist’, which is not the case at all. DJT presented himself as a ‘conservative’ primarily in the sense that he ran and was elected as a Republican; but while he embraced some vital and legitimate ‘conservative’ issues he has also rather clearly demonstrated that he is also and perhaps primarily conducting a Trumpistical agenda. Chez Odysseus 2.
This could be the Bee headline:
Democrats celebrate Supreme Court ruling making it easier for foreigners to become citizens of the world’s most racist nation
Closest I could find:
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-furious-trump-would-make-haitians-leave-most-racist-country-on-earth
In light of this decision the most logical thing to do is to keep the border closed as tight as possible so no illegal immigrants can gain access to our country and possibly create American Citizens. Also to add a stricter policy on Visas to restrict anyone that is more than 3 months pregnant from gaining a Visa to entry the US until we can pass the common sense legislation to eleiminate birthright citizenship. Also eliminate “dual” Citizenship. People must choose what counytu they will be loyal too and not try and take benefits from both countries. One or the other!
U.S. Code 0000.0000 No foreign citizen may enter the U.S. while pregnant.
I am trying to understand how Barrett missed the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Amendment & the setting & circumstance of that time frame.. At that time, an aside was written SPELLING OUT that foreigners were NOT meant to be included in the legislation. It is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS that Barrett got this wrong. She HAS to know that the USA is now under attack from within & that illegal immigration is one of the battlefronts! Her & the other four votes mean that the 5 have aided & abetted those who use illegal immigration as an an attack on the USA. The motive & desire of the communist dimm & RINO left is to use non-citizens as voters. Conferring citizenship on anyone born here gives false citizenship to children of our deadly enemies like the Communist Chinese, most of the dimm leadership party & RINO sellouts to thousands of future anti-USA voters.
Barret knows all that. If she doesn’t she isn’t fit to be a SCOTUS member.
Therefore it is my opinion that Barrett & The 4 have performed treason against the USA by aiding & abetting those who seek to destroy the USA as we were founded. We knew the three other, obvious leftist, females & squish Roberts would probably betray the Nation.
But Barrett…she’s a heart break. I thought she was a fair minded honest Constitutional original intent jurist….
guess I was wrong. Using today’s politics to decide this matter is NO EXCUSE!!!
Siding with & supporting the enemies of the USA…
SHE IS TOO INTELLIGENT TO NOT KNOW BETTER!!
SamFox
JT: You have a kind heart. I watch you on TV & have heard you speak. You are honest & do try to think the best of people. That is a strength. Please don’t let suicidal empathy turn your kindness into blindness. Your enemies will have no quarter for you or anyone who loves the USA. They have said so. With the J6 charade, arresting parents at school board meeting & older people praying at abortion clinics & more, they have shown that. ‘Suicidal empathy’ is another way of saying ‘sympathy for the devil’. Don’t be trapped by that emotion. That the USA is under very serious attack by those who would give US over to the NWO via communists & radical Islam is not a theory. It’s a FACT being played out & happening NOW!!
Has to be coercion either positive or negative. The opinion is ignorance and they aren’t that.
The Supreme Court arbitrarily and high-criminally amended the Constitution and must be impeached and convicted.
“Jurisdiction” is not qualified in the 14th Amendment and, therefore, constitutes FULL jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction, the FULL jurisdiction, and nothing but the FULL jurisdiction, so help you God.
Illegal aliens, Chinese Birth Tourists et al. are not “subject to the [FULL] jurisdiction thereof.”
They may be subject to territorial jurisdiction, but they are not subject to the unqualified and full jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court failed to exercise JUDICIAL POWER and, rather, illicitly exercised LEGISLATIVE POWER.
No power to amend the Constitution is vested in the judicial branch; the judicial power means to judge only whether actions comport with law.
The Supreme Court engaged in treason, as “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” by supporting “Chinese Birth Tourism,” illegal alien invaders, etc.
Xi Jinping and Chinese officials know they are the enemy, while the U.S. Supreme Court may not, which is entirely implausible.
“THROW OFF”
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Prof. Turley, you say a Constitutional Amendment is needed.
Explain how Congress had the power to overrule the Dred Scott Supreme Court precedent with the Civil Rights Act of 1866?
How was it possible for Congress to overrule Elk v. Wilkins (1884, ruling Indians could not become US Citizens) by simply passing the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (which wasn’t even challenged in the Courts)??
Look a little deeper into Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Congress owns Citizenship (Nationality) eligibility rules. They’ve used this power starting in 1790, exercising it more than a dozen times, the last being in 1965.
The Supreme Court has no comparable explicit power to shape eligibility and pathways to Citizenship. As a Constitutional Law professor, I expect you to know this.
Stop erecting unnecessary barriers to sensible reform.
Congress tried to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but the entire nation recognized that a simple law could not overrule a Supreme Court constitutional precedent. Even the Radical Republicans who wrote the law were terrified the courts would strike it down as unconstitutional under Dred Scott. That is the literal, historical reason why they drafted and passed the 14th Amendment. They knew they needed a constitutional amendment to permanently enshrine birthright citizenship and override the Court.
That’s not quite true. In Dec. 1866, blacks who had been previously denied US citizenship became Citizens.
In practice, in many states, this law was implemented and respected. It was only in the Southern States that lawyers and State Courts worked to nullify the Civil Rights Act. Their defiance based on SCOTUS Dred Scott precedent was convenient to their cause, but not based on a deeply held governing principle.
The fact is that the 14th Amendment as understood by its Ratifiers was about giving full citizenship to the former slaves. It had nothing to do with babies born to immigrants (until 30 years later, WKA case). The proof is that there was a process called Citizenship by Derivation whereby the offspring (under 21) of immigrants gained citizenship automatically on the same day their parents Naturalized.
That system was not controversial, or thought to being changed until 1898.
Therefore, the revisionist interpretation of the 14A wording never went through ratification, and has never enjoyed the broad public consent required of changes to the Constitution. Therefore, the interpretation in Barbara and WKA carries faint legitimacy. That creative wordsmithing to change the Constitution’s meaning and impact while circumventing public approval of an imagined feature is a conniving violation of Article V (Amendment process which requires mustering a show of public support).
Pbinca, You literally admitted the problem in your own comment: Southern lawyers and state courts used the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott precedent to nullify the Act. That is exactly why the Radical Republicans drafted the 14th Amendment. They knew a standard statute passed by Congress could not overrule a Supreme Court constitutional precedent. They drafted the Citizenship Clause to elevate birthright citizenship into the supreme law of the land, making it permanently immune to both Southern nullification and future congressional whims.
Your idea that the ratifiers never intended or “contemplated” that the 14th Amendment would apply to the children of immigrant is false.
During the 1866 Senate debates, strict-constructionist senators explicitly objected to the 14th Amendment because it would grant automatic citizenship to the children of Chinese and European immigrants born on U.S. soil. The author of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard, and prominent architect Senator Lyman Trumbull openly responded and confirmed that yes, that was exactly the intent. Trumbull explicitly stated that the child of an immigrant born in the U.S. would automatically be a citizen because they are subject to our laws. The history is written in black and white in the Congressional Globe.
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30867/m1/12/
“Citizenship by Derivation” existed for the under-21 children of naturalized immigrants, nobody thought American-born immigrant babies were citizens until 1898.
You are confusing two entirely separate legal tracks: jus soli (citizenship by birth on the soil) and jus sanguinis (citizenship by bloodline/naturalization).
“Citizenship by Derivation” was a statutory tool passed by Congress strictly to handle children who were born abroad to foreign parents, and later brought to the U.S. before turning 21. It had absolutely zero bearing on children born inside the United States, who never needed “derivation” because they were already citizens by virtue of being born on the soil.
The Supreme Court didn’t circumvent Article V in Trump v. Barbara; they enforced it. The text of the 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.”
Accusing the Supreme Court of “conniving” for reading the literal words of the Constitution isn’t a legal argument—it’s just pure political cope because a text-first approach destroyed your preferred policy outcome.
First – while a huge issue in the eyes of many people – this is a MINOR decision otherwise.
It is inconsequential compared to the other decisions in Trump’s favor this term.
The real impact of this decision is mostly inconsequential.
Further from the begining this case was a win-win for Trump.
SCOTUS ruled against him – Still a win. Trump delivered on his promise to do something and was thwarted by congress.
Further the immigration and citizenship issue has gotten more public attention – and that is good for Trump and Republicans.
All losses in the supreme court are NOT losses in politics.
The majority opinion is constitutionally and textually incorrect.
But that does into alter the FACT that Birthright citizenship – even with a few problems is on NET an extremely GOOD thing.
That said the Text of the 14th amendment is NOT sufficiently clear for SCOTUS to claim that citizenship tourists and the children of illegal immigrants are automatically citizens.
Indians were specifically excluded – though Congress later granted them citizenship. The operative clause in the 14th amendment is “subject to the jurisdiction of”.
I Personally think that DOES include the children born in the US of illegal immigrants – but I do NOT think it includes the children born int he US of Tourists.
Regardless, it is not perfectly clear and the majority opinion is far broader than it ought to have been.
It is NOT in the presidents power to change the constitution or the law – and the majority is actually correct that THE LAW has given citizenship to the children of tourists and illegal immigrants for a long long long time. But the law is not the constitution.
I highly doubt that Republicans can pass a law codifying Trumps executive order. But if they can, SCOTUS should find it constitutional – atleast with respect to tourists.
Illegal immigrants to a very large extent come here to stay – whether they do so legally or not, they want to be here – not for a week or a month but forever.
That does not create a right to be here, but it does meet “subject to the jurisdiction of” to me – Tourists are not looking to come here forever.
At most they are looking to get the benefits of US citizenship for their children. While there is nothing wrong with that wish – it is not the same as Their actually seeking to be permanently in the US.
Rewarding citizenship upon the children of law breakers is wrong. As wrong as allowing the kids to keep the money their parents stole robbing a bank.
The act of being born is not a crime. The constitution only recognizes the act of being born within our borders as a full automatic right. That’s our law. We can change that by proposing an amendment. It cannot be done by congress making a law or the president issuing an executive order.
“The act of being born is not a crime.” It is to the pro-choice crowd. Killing the child for it’s crime of being unborn is also wrong.
Receiving money from one’s parents isn’t a crime either. I think you misunderstood JAFO’s analogy.
Anon—It wasn’t receiving money GIVEN BY parents that was referenced. It was ‘money parents stole by robbing a bank.’
SamFox
The parents stole it, then gave it to the children. So it was both.
One can’t give what one never owned.
Is that natural born citizen? Ah, who cares.
DACA exists. Obviously there are avenues to citizenship already for DACA. Legal avenues to this end are available. It involves naturalization. The key to understanding immigration is naturalization cannot be skipped.
Freed slaves were stateless. They are the only group exempted. At the time all people addresses natural born citizens jus sanguinas.
I give up. 😂. I’m condemned to the jurisdiction and jus sanguinas.
^^The opinion is a disgrace. It’s hard to get ice water.
I would not presume to foist citizenship upon newborns of foreign nationals. I cannot in good conscience do so.
John Say, preventing the executive branch from unilaterally redefining who is an American citizen is one of the most consequential separation-of-powers rulings in modern history. There’s nothing “minor” about it.
The text IS crystal clear. You are trying to inject qualifiers that the text deliberately leaves out. The 14th Amendment specifies exactly who is excluded from automatic citizenship by birth: foreign diplomats (who possess sovereign immunity) and, historically, sovereign Native American tribes (“Indians not taxed”). Because the Framers explicitly wrote down exceptions, a strict textualist reading dictates that no other hidden exceptions exist. Anyone else physically present on U.S. soil—whether a tourist or an undocumented immigrant—is fully subject to U.S. laws and jurisdiction meaning they can be arrested, taxed, and prosecuted by American courts.
The constitution does not treat the children of tourists and illegal immigrants differently. There’s absolutely nothing in the 14th amendment making that distinction. The Constitution does not care about a person’s “intent” or subjective desires. It cares about geography and jurisdiction. The phrase “All persons born… in the United States” is absolute. The Supreme Court settled this over a century ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), ruling that birth on the soil is the supreme factor. The Court cannot slice the 14th Amendment into pieces and invent a two-tiered system based on whether a parent has a vacation visa or no visa at all.
You claim that if Republicans pass a law codifying Trump’s executive order regarding tourists, the Supreme Court should find it constitutional. The key word “should” is about as far as it can get.
This is impossible under our system of government. In Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court ruled that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right established by the 14th Amendment. A standard act of Congress cannot overrule, restrict, or rewrite the Constitution. To change who gets citizenship at birth, Republicans cannot just pass a normal law—they legally must pass a 28th Amendment. Professor Turley floated the idea of proposing an amendment to deal with the ruling. But with the political climate as it is it will never happen.
The true originalists and textualists of the court had clear understanding of what the 14th amendment explicitly said. Many conservatives seem to be upset with this because they expected the justices to concoct a workaround and redefine meanings to arrive at their preferred conclusion. It would be a complete abdication of their strict interpretation philosophy.
AI Hallucinations Are Exploding In U.S. Courts, New Study Finds
https://www.laine.ai/ai-legal-error-hotspots-where-court-filings-go-wrong/
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
If Repubs are smart, we’ll demand a total reset on Birthright Citizenship.
Forget about English common law. Study the British Nationality Act of 1981, because that’s the modernized version of our across-the-pond heritage. It’s time to stop fighting each other, and learn from other successful countries who went through this process 30-40 years ago!
Whoever thought the Constitution would render the USA dysfunctional on an issue dozens of other countries were able to solve decades ago? Turley is foolish to erect a new Amendment as the price of a policy change favored by the majority.
Congress: study how other 1st world nations went through their reforms, with every detail covered. Then write a legislative proposal based on all those details. You DON’T need to reinvent the wheel.
30 countries have birthright citizenship in their books. It’s not a rarity and we are certainly not an outlier.
Anon–Please list the 30 countries. So far it’s been o
ut there that very few OTHER countries are still as stupid as US dimms & RINOs.
SamFox
You’re free to look them up. It’s not difficult.
My one comment on this post, which I thought was within acceptable bounds, was removed. What happened?
Diogenes – sometimes it looks to me like a comment was removed, then if I refresh the screen, poof!, it shows up again. Have you tried that?
Kansas, yep. It’s still gone. I think the CCP hacked Darren’s keyboard!
Hm. Then I don’t know.
I think the CCP hacked Darren’s keyboard!
Could be. The CCP has bots that comment here every day, so.
Internet glitches, spastic connections, filters on wordpress, the sun is aligned with the moon while Venus rises and X / Gigi howls at Jupiter while rolling around in the gutter in LA
who knows? it happens all the time to me. If you want to write, send me a couple of pages, single spaced, 12 point, using highly cited original research articles, on the molecular mechanisms of viral proteins (any RNA or DNA virus will do) interacting with vascular endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells and cardiomyocytes, and how these provoke endothelial dysfunction, hence atherosclerosis. I’m serious. I’ll add your name as an author in the manuscript before I submit it to Circulation Research. How’s that for keeping you busy? you can use your Denton Cooley connections
/s
A towering Cardiologist died just recently, an immigrant Jew, arrived with his family illegally (warning trigger words), amazing story how his mother outwitted the Nazis, and became the greatest Cardiologist of the 20th Century.
Eugene Braunwald’s legacy: ‘The father of modern cardiology’ changed all of heart care
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2026/04/27/eugene-braunwalds-legacy
We need more immigrants in this country preferably free of pathogens. I mean, we let X into the country, and look how that went for him/her/dem? Neurosyphilis is a terrible thing to have…right, Gigi George / X / Wally / Concerned Citizen / Esquire ad nauseaum
Estovir,
Thank you for posting that link about Dr. Braunwald. Very interesting.
👍🏽
Yes, he justifies all those murdered in the US. Thank you.
WordPress is run by the CCP which is endeavoring to cause America to crash.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/c-4T42b9Jgw
I skip ll of Anonymous’ comments.
Me too! Therefore, I didn’t read your comment.
I didn’t read your comment either, but I gave it a like 😉
Much obliged 👍🫡
Was that “Anonymous’ Comments Eleven” not dissimilar to Ilhan Omar’s World War Eleven (WWII)?
The textualist breakdown of the ruling reveals how the Court arrived at this conclusion,
A strict textualist approach focuses entirely on the words chosen by the lawmakers. As scholars pointed out on SCOTUSblog, the text of the Citizenship Clause focuses entirely on the status of the child, not the parent: “All persons born… in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” The text specifies birthplace, not bloodline or parental immigration status.
The irony is so rich. The conservatives and MAGAs opposed to this ruling are calling for stacking the court, sterilizing women at the border, stopping foreign women from entering the country, forcing women to take pregnancy tests, etc. pretty wild stuff. You can bet it’s the ‘great replacement’ theorists and bigots who are upset “their” judges didn’t rule their way. Because they were conservative and they should have ruled for the team. Never mind the fact that they had to abide by their strict textualist and originalist interpretation. The uber, textualists and originalists, Alito and Thomas were ready to discard those principles to side with the president.
During oral arguments, even the liberal justices noted that the text says nothing about a parent’s allegiance or permanent home. Historically and textually, anyone physically present on U.S. soil is subject to U.S. laws and jurisdiction (meaning they can be arrested and prosecuted by American courts). That’s what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. Subject to U.S. laws.
AI Hallucinations Are Exploding In U.S. Courts, New Study Finds
https://www.laine.ai/ai-legal-error-hotspots-where-court-filings-go-wrong/
George X’s AI Hallucinations Are Exploding On Turley’s blog, commenters state.
If the Citizenship Clause were referring to newborns at the time of their birth, wouldn’t its drafters have used the more specific word “newborn”?
Their choice of the word “person” says to me, the 14th Amendment refers to persons already alive in 1868. The CC is waving a 1-time wand over all black persons in America, the same was done in the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The proof that 14A had nothing to do with newborns of immigrants is simply the fact that there was a well-established, uncontested, unquestioned process for those children to obtain US Citizenship — getting it automatically the same day their parents Naturalized (Citizenship by Derivation). Nobody at the time of the 14th in 1866 thought that a new process for immigrant children was being created. No parents asked for their baby to be a US Citizen at birth (before they themself became one) — everyone waited for the parents to become Citizens.
Therefore, it’s legally fraudulant to assert that the 14th Amendment established a new pathway to citizenship for immigrant newborns and children. If it was, why did nobody claim it right after Ratification?
Obviously not any of the Barbara case litigants or Judges seem to know the history, because Citizenship by Derivation is never mentioned in any brief, oral argument, or written opinion. Everybody got together and forgot it existed, starting with a clever lawyer representing Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
Pbinca, You are completely ignoring the immediate verb that follows the noun. The text says: “All persons born or naturalized…” A “person born” is, by literal definition, a baby at the moment of birth. The Framers used the word “person” because it is a broad legal term that encompasses human beings at any stage of life—whether they are a one-second-old infant or a 50-year-old adult. Claiming “persons born” excludes newborns requires a deliberate refusal to read the entire sentence.
If the Framers wanted a one-time fix for existing people, they would have used the past tense (e.g., “all persons who have been born”). Instead, they used the present/future-facing text “born or naturalized” to create a permanent, ongoing constitutional rule for the nation. While correcting the horrific Dred Scott decision was the immediate catalyst, the authors of the amendment explicitly stated during the 1866 congressional debates that the rule would apply moving forward to the children of all people born in the country, including Chinese and European immigrants.
The reason “Citizenship by Derivation” was not used for children born on U.S. soil is because they didn’t need it. Under English common law—which America inherited—anyone born within the territory was automatically a natural-born citizen (jus soli). Derivation” was a statutory tool passed by Congress to grant citizenship to children who were born abroad to foreign parents who later moved to the U.S. and naturalized. People absolutely claimed birthright citizenship immediately after ratification.
So, what you’re saying is to ignore the “text?”
Wait, that is precisely what the Supreme Court has done since 1860:
Because secession is not prohibited, secession is prohibited.
“…and subject to the [FULL] jurisdiction thereof….”
Illegal aliens are subject only to territorial jurisdiction and may not be citizens.
“A strict textualist approac”
By someone who has no clue about textualism.
” Citizenship Clause focuses entirely on the status of the child, not the parent:”
False – first the same clause does NOT confer citizenship by birth to Indians.
Whether you like it or not – the plain text is not “Children born in the US shall be citizens”
Textualism REQUIRES that we give meaning to ALL words in a law or he constitution
As the text clearly has provisions beyond those needed for YOUR prefered reading – it CLEARLY means something atleast slightly different.
The qualification clause int he 14th amendment – which the entirelty of the court, and all parties accepted precludes foreigners in the US representing foreign govenrment.
Are you debating that ? No one else on the left is trying to claim that the children of foreign embassy employers or foreign soldiers in the US are citizens.
Whether you like it or not “subject to the the jurisdiction thereof UNARGUABLY means the status of the parents Matters.
YOUR interpretation – would make people that both parties, and every single justice agrees are NOT citizens into citizens.
Whether you like it or not the text “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – is a constitutionally accepted constraint of citizenship.
The US does NOT have automatic citizenship SOLELY by virtue of being born here.
Further “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – both historically and textually MUST refer to the status of the parents – the children of foreign govenrment employees are nut US citizens because of the status of their PARENTS.
Personally I think birht right citzenship for the children of illegal aliens is a good idea.
I also think that as Kavanaugh and the majority point out – it is true today BY LAW.
As I have said repeatedly Trump would lose this case because no matter what the text of the 14th amendment – the power to grant or limit citizenship is NOT an executive power.
Kavanaugh’s opinion should have been the majority opinion.
“The irony is so rich. ”
What irony.
The majority while reaching the correct decision with respect to presidential powers incorrectly read the 14th amendment.
“The conservatives and MAGAs opposed to this ruling are calling for stacking the court,”
Not that I have heard. Through MAGA world the ONLY argument I have ever heard for Stacking the court is to make it even harder for democrats to stack the court later.
Conservatives – despite occasionally getting pi$$ed at a conservative justice are happy with 9 justices.
“sterilizing women at the border”
Have not heard anyone suggest that – however as we learned during Covid – Buck Vs. Bell is STILL the law of the land, absent SCOTUS reversing that which would slay all kinds of left wing existing laws, The federal government has the power to sterilize people – that LITTERALLY is progressive Lion Oliver Wendel Holmes opinion in Buck Vs. Bell.
“stopping foreign women from entering the country”
There is no right to come to the US unless you are a citizen.
There are myriads of reasons that we exclude people.
Nothing new there.
“forcing women to take pregnancy tests”
While not necescary – you do not likely need a pregnancy test to tell if a visa applicant is pregnant.
Regardless – not only can the State department require pregnancy tests to get a visa – but it does not need further law to do so.
“pretty wild stuff.”
For the most part I think this case is a “tempest in a teapot” – I have no personal problem with citizenship for the children of illegal aleins nor for the children of women traveling to the US to get thir children US citizenship
BOTH of those are reflections of the FACT that this is a GREAT country – People WANT to be US citizens.
Because unlike the views of those of you on the left – this is not a racist sexist h311hole looking to bring back slavery.
“You can bet it’s the ‘great replacement’ theorists and bigots”
How well did open borders work for “native americans” ?
Whether you like it or not ALL countries have the right to determine their own culture.
Diversity is ON NET a good thing – it is NOT however an absolute good.
The US need NOT allow criminals or pedophiles intot he country.
We have in the past and continue to do so banned specific ideologies.
We barred Nazi’s after WWII – though many snuk in – we have REVOKED Ctizenship of people who lied about Nazi affiliation.
We bar terrorists, and criminals.
Lots of people who if Born here we would be obligated to keep we are still free to preclude if they were born elsewhere.
I would further note that your massive socialist experiment in the EU is falling apart over forieng immigration – over changing the culture over “the great replacement”
” Never mind the fact that they had to abide by their strict textualist and originalist interpretation.”
Correct – in THIS case Kavanaugh alone got that correct. The rest of the majority as well as the dissent got it wrong.
“The uber, textualists and originalists, Alito and Thomas were ready to discard those principles to side with the president.”
Alito and Thomas are completely correct in their criticism of the majority opinion.
Trump’s EO should have been found outside the executive powers ot the president – that is all.
“During oral arguments, even the liberal justices noted that the text says nothing about a parent’s allegiance or permanent home.”
Incorrect – the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause has ALWAYS been interpreted as refering to THE PARENTS, and it is why the children of foreign govenrment workers are not citizens.
” Historically and textually, anyone physically present on U.S. soil is subject to U.S. laws and jurisdiction (meaning they can be arrested and prosecuted by American courts). That’s what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. Subject to U.S. laws.”
False – first a very limited portion of Foreign embassy officials have diplomatic immunity – and are NOT “subject to” US laws. But even the remainder of foreign govenrment workers who ARE subject to US law do NOT get citizenship for their children if born in the US.
Whether you like it or not Textually and historically – “subject to the jurisdiction thereof ABSOLUTELY means something different from – can be arrested if they violate US laws.
While I absolutely agree with the court that the President has no power to change the rules regarding citizenship,
AND I agree that the CURRENT US LAW gives the children of illegal immigrant citizenship.
It is false – both as a matter of text and history that the 14th amendment does so. The 14th amendment bars congress from denying citizenship to anyone born in the US of Citizen parents. Pretty much everything else – including the status of native americans it leaves up to CONGRESS.
The Majority opinion and Kavanaughs concurrence does an excellent job of establishing that is the historical practice and the historical law.
But the majority confuses the 14th amendments grant of power to congress to specify the rules of citizenship for all EXCEPT the children of citizens, for something more than the text actually says.
Birth right citizenship is a good thing – Citizenship tourism and citizenship for the children of illegal aliens are a NET good thing.
MAGA correctly points out that they are NOT an ABSOLUTE good thing.
But the role of the courts is not to decide what is right or wrong, what is good or bad, but what is lawful and constitutional.
John Say, you are trying so hard to minimize a historic, text-based ruling by inventing definitions of “jurisdiction” that do not exist in American jurisprudence. It’s amusing.
“ The children of all foreign embassy workers and foreign soldiers do not get citizenship, even if they lack diplomatic immunity,..”
Completely wrong. Under federal law and international treaties, the only foreign government employees whose children do not get birthright citizenship are those who possess diplomatic immunity. If a foreign national works for a foreign consulate or government in a non-diplomatic role (like a clerk, security guard, or driver) and does not have diplomatic immunity, they are fully subject to U.S. laws, they pay taxes, and if they give birth on U.S. soil, their child is automatically an American citizen.
“ Native Americans (“Indians not taxed”) were excluded from birthright citizenship, it proves the text isn’t absolute and the status of the parents matters.”
You are proving the textualist point against yourself. The Framers of the 14th Amendment explicitly wrote the words “Indians not taxed” into the constitutional debates and apportionment text because Native American tribes were legally recognized as sovereign foreign nations living within U.S. borders at the time. Under strict textualism, when a legal document explicitly defines a highly specific exclusion (sovereign tribes and foreign diplomats with immunity), it legally blocks the government from inventing new exclusions. The text does not say “except tourists” or “except undocumented immigrants.” Because Congress chose not to write those exceptions into the text, they do not exist.
You really are failing at Textualism. Literally. It’s that bad. I’m showing you exactly what textualist interpretation is.
“ The 14th Amendment only bars Congress from denying citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. of citizen parents.”
You should read this to yourself out loud and see how idiotic that is. If the amendment only applied to children of citizens, it would be completely redundant. Children born to American citizens were already automatically citizens by right under existing common law. The entire historical purpose of the 14th Amendment was to expand citizenship to a massive class of people whose parents were explicitly denied citizenship status by the state (formerly enslaved people). Writing an amendment to say “citizens’ kids are citizens” would have been an exercise in futility.
That Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence got it right because he allegedly argued that Congress can just pass a law to end birthright citizenship for tourists. Is as stupid as it gets. You’re desperately trying to twist it into your own wishes. Not what he said.
Kavanaugh explicitly agreed that Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional. He mused in a separate concurrence about narrow, historical statutory loopholes regarding foreign diplomats—he did not state that Congress possesses a blank check to pass a standard law to strip constitutional birthright citizenship away from millions of babies born on American soil. You’re fantasizing an outcome that did not occur.
You claim that conservatives are “happy with 9 justices” and that the backlash isn’t a big deal, while completely glossing over the fact that the conservative majority used a strict, literal text-first approach to decide this case. Even Republican leadership, like Speaker Mike Johnson, openly admitted the ruling was a strict textualist and originalist view.
The real irony you are trying to dismiss is this: for years, the right has demanded that judges strictly interpret the literal text of the Constitution and ignore policy outcomes. But the exact second the conservative majority applied that exact textual standard to protect immigrant babies, parts of the MAGA movement threw their own philosophy out the window, complaining that the text was “bonkers” and demanding a workaround.
You can scream “ROFL” and drag in unrelated talking points about the EU, Covid-era sterilization cases, and immigration quotas all you want. It is a crappy attempt to change the subject because you cannot handle the fact that a strict reading of the text completely destroyed your preferred political outcome.
X – your “explanations” are both wrong, unconvincing and self contradictory.
The children of the employees of foreign government DO NOT get automatic citizenship.
There is a PATH to citizenship for SOME if they become legal permanent residents.
But they are NOT entitled to Birth Right Citizenship.
They are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” – whether they have diplomatic immunity or not.
Since you like AI
“U.S. Citizenship for Children of Foreign Government Employees
Automatic Citizenship Status
Children born in the U.S. to foreign government employees do not automatically receive U.S. citizenship at birth. This is because they are not considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. government.”
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof does NOT mean can be prosecuted for violating US laws.
That has NEVER been the case – you are shilling a red herring.
“The Framers of the 14th Amendment explicitly wrote the words “Indians not taxed” into the constitutional debates and apportionment text because Native American tribes were legally recognized as sovereign foreign nations living within U.S. borders at the time. ”
Incorrect and irrelevant. Sine before the 14th amendment Indians have been treated as subject to dual sovereignity – as YOU say – a nation in a nation. They WERE subject to US laws. They WERE NOT citizens until congress changed the law. TODAY Indians have birth right citizenship BY LAW – not the constitution. Just as my children are citizens BY LAW – not the constitution.
That said – even your claim that indians were the members of a sovereign nations living within US borders – that is no different from the children of foreign government employees – which YOU claim have birth right citizenship
If they do – then why did the 14th amendment exclude indians ? In YOUR exlanation indians are not different from foreign government employees.
While you are WRONG about a number of your claims – worse you are self contradictory.
Even if you were RIGHT – Indians which are no different from foreign government employees do NOT have birth right citizenship VY THE 14th amendment – they DO Today BY LAW.
And that is one of my to points – First is that subject to the jurisdiction of the United states CAN NOT mean subject to prosecution for violating our laws – because both untaxes indians and the children of the employees of foreign governments that do not have diplomatic immunity are NOT given birth right citizenship – but they ARE/WERE prosecutable for violating US law
I would note that the citizenship question – regarding the citizenship of children born in a country of parents working for a foreign country is near universal.
The Children of US Soldiers born abroad are citizens from birth.
John Say, you continue to demonstrate a woeful lack of comprehension and an inability to show your claims to be true. Your personal opinions are not facts. Back them up. Just saying so is not an argument.
You claim the children of all employees of foreign governments do not get birthright citizenship, whether they have diplomatic immunity or not. This is flatly, verifiably false under longstanding U.S. law. The only foreign government workers whose children are denied birthright citizenship are those who possess official diplomatic immunity (such as ambassadors and high-level ministers). If a foreign national works for a foreign consulate or government in a non-diplomatic role—such as an administrative clerk, driver, or security guard—they have zero diplomatic immunity. They are fully subject to U.S. law, they pay taxes, and if they give birth on American soil, their child is automatically a U.S. citizen from birth. Your broad claim is an invented rule that is entirely rejected by the State Department and federal regulations.
The federal law establishing that non-immune embassy personnel fall under U.S. jurisdiction and their children are citizens at birth is found in 8 CFR § 101.3, which distinguishes staff and consular workers from fully immune diplomatic officers. Furthermore, USCIS policy confirms that individuals not on the “Blue List” of full diplomatic immunity are subject to U.S. law, granting their U.S.-born children citizenship.
You claim Native Americans were subject to U.S. laws but weren’t citizens, proving that “jurisdiction” doesn’t mean being subject to prosecution. You clearly have it backwards.
Prior to the 14th Amendment, sovereign Native American tribes were legally classified as “domestic dependent nations.” They operated under their own tribal laws, and their allegiance was to their tribal chiefs, not the United States government. The phrase “Indians not taxed” was explicitly written into the constitutional framework because members of sovereign tribes were not subject to standard U.S. laws, taxes, or criminal jurisdiction. When an Indian committed a crime on tribal land, U.S. local courts had zero jurisdiction to prosecute them. Because they were legally exempt from ordinary U.S. jurisdiction, they didn’t get birthright citizenship.
If you were actually practicing textualism, you would understand the foundational rule of construction: expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the explicit mention of certain exceptions excludes all others).
The Framers of the 14th Amendment explicitly debated and listed who was excluded from the clause: sovereign tribes (“Indians not taxed”) and foreign diplomats with immunity.
They did not write down exceptions for “tourists” or “undocumented immigrants”. Because Congress chose not to write those exceptions into the text, they do not exist. You are violating the core tenets of textualism by desperately trying to insert words into the text to match your political biases.
It’s obvious you don’t know how to read legal text or comprehend how words are used in context. You don’t even understand what “jurisdiction” means.
You say my claims are wrong but you don’t show how or prove why they are wrong. You’re just saying so because you say so. That’s not an argument. That’s a personal misinformed opinion devoid of facts.
“You should read this to yourself out loud and see how idiotic that is. If the amendment only applied to children of citizens, it would be completely redundant. Children born to American citizens were already automatically citizens by right under existing common law.”
ROFL
Are you REALLY that clueless ?
“The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision held that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens and therefore lacked the right to sue in federal court. ”
SCOTUS held in Wong Kim Ark that the 14th amendment went BEYOND just african americans – but there has never been any douvt that the PRIMARY PURPOSE of the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves and to reverse Dredd Sc
ott.
As I have said REPEATEDLY – you reverse Supreme court decisions you do not like by amending the constitution.
But that DOES NOT WORK under left wing nut living constitutionalism – as the court can After the amendment just decide it does not mean whatever it says. While under textualism – the court is BOUND to the text of the new amendment.
Regardless you have been reading too much Roberts or Jackson and beleiving idiotically that what they wrote is historically accurate.
Not only is your common law citizenship claim FALSE – it is also irrelevant.
Prior to Wong Kim Ark which was decided in 1898 – more than 30 years after the Civil War – The children of Chinese parents born in the US were not citizens.
You are incredibly ignorant of US history.
John say, for someone shouting “ROFL” and calling others ignorant, you have managed to completely butcher basic constitutional history and contradict your own preferred judicial philosophy.
You just stated the primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves and reverse Dred Scott. Yeah, exactly.
The 14th Amendment was passed to explicitly fix that by stating that anyone born here is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ status. You previously tried to claim the amendment only applied to children of citizen parents. If that were true, it would have excluded the very people it was written to save, because the parents of newly freed enslaved people were explicitly not citizens under Dred Scott. Your own argument exposes your theory as a logical impossibility. I seriously doubt you really understand what you read.
You claim that the idea of common law birthright citizenship is false, and children of Chinese parents born in the U.S. were not citizens before 1898.
Under English common law—which the United States inherited at its founding—anyone born within the territory of the sovereign was a natural-born citizen (jus soli). In the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court didn’t invent a new law or rewrite the Constitution. Wong Kim Ark was a man born in San Francisco to Chinese commercial merchants. The Court looked at the text and history and ruled that the 14th Amendment simply affirmed the ancient common law rule that had always existed. The Court explicitly stated that the children of foreigners born on U.S. soil had always been citizens under common law, and the 14th Amendment permanently locked that rule in place.
It’s clear you don’t back up you claims with any evidence other than your personal view. Not facts.
You are completely upside down on the modern judicial landscape. The ruling in Trump v. Barbara was not a “living constitution” progressive decision. It was written by Roberts and joined by Barrett—two of the most prominent conservative textualists on the bench. Even Republican leadership, including Speaker Mike Johnson, openly conceded that the majority opinion was a strict textualist and originalist reading of the 14th Amendment. The text says “All persons born… are citizens.” It does not say “except the children of immigrants.” Strict textualists are bound to the text on the page, not the modern policy preferences of the MAGA movement. You’re clearly trying to rewrite a clear textualist interpretation because it did not align with your preferred outcome. Something so-called ‘real’ textualists like Thomas, Alito, and you tend to do when the outcome is not favorable.
The ultimate irony here is that you are the one advocating for living constitutionalism. You are begging the Court to look at modern “circumstances” like birth tourism and undocumented immigration, ignore the plain text written in 1868, and invent a brand-new, unwritten parental exception. You’re being very progressive in your interpretation because you cannot accept the fact the plain text of the 14th amendment is not aligning with your view so you want to add things to it that are not written into it.
The only solution to your problem is to create a 28th amendment addressing your view. We both know that is highly unlikely.
“Kavanaugh explicitly agreed that Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional. He mused in a separate concurrence about narrow, historical statutory loopholes regarding foreign diplomats—he did not state that Congress possesses a blank check to pass a standard law to strip constitutional birthright citizenship away from millions of babies born on American soil. You’re fantasizing an outcome that did not occur.”
Ignoring the distortion and spin Correct.
Kavanaugh did not MUSE – he stated.
He did not strip citizenship from the children of illegal aliens – he claimed CORRECTLY that they had it BY LAW,
That Presidents can not change the LAW, but that Congress can.
Again in YOUR ignorance you MISS that US law already grants citizenship to people born in the US and it does so more broadly than the 14th amendment.
So that we are clear there has NEVER been an argument that Congress can not grant citizenship to people who are not already citizens by some other mechanism.
As I noted – my Children are citizens BY LAW – they are not citizens under the 14th amendment. There are many many ways to gain citizenship BY LAW – some “automatic” some requiring more or less acts on your part.
I would further note that Citizenship once acquired is a RIGHT – Congress can not strip citizenship “by law” and KAvanaugh never implied such a thing. It is incredibly difficult to strip a citizen of citizenship – it only happens to a handful of people each year. I am not aware of it EVER happening to anyone who received citizenship by automatic operation of the law. The children of illegal aliens who were born in the US are currently Citizens and would be even if the Court decided in favor of Trump. They received citizenship automatically BY LAW
The only people ever stripped of citizenship are people who were naturalized and committed serious fraud as part of that naturalization process. In the past the most common way that occured was if you were a post war german immigrant who claimed not to be a Nazi while in Gernmany – and were subsequently proven to have lied. That was a fraud to get citizenship.
Today the most common way to get citizenship revoked is if you Were a drug dealer in a foreign country, and lied about it when you immigrated.
Citizenship can not be “struck” by passing a law – just as free speech can’t.
It can only be revoked if it can be proven you comitted fraud to get it.
You can not lose citizenship by committing Crimes in the US after you become a citizens.
You have to have lied to become a citizen – and it has to be a lie that would have prevented you from being given citizenship.
Your making absurd arguments – you clearly did not read KAvanaugh – you are making claims that only someone who is just guessing – and badly at that would say.
John, your entire argument relies on a gigantic contradiction: you admit that once citizenship is acquired, Congress flatly lacks the power to pass a law stripping it away, yet you stubbornly insist that Congress can pass a law to stop these children from being born citizen.
You are completely misinterpreting what it means to be a citizen by constitutional right versus a citizen by statutory law. It’s so obvious you don’t know how to read for comprehension or distinction. You want to force anything you resend into your preferred view instead of reading for what it is. That’s your ideology and confirmation bias, not logic.
Your claim that the children of undocumented immigrants currently have citizenship strictly “BY LAW” (meaning by a congressional statute), and because Congress can change the law, Congress can pass a future statute to stop granting them birthright citizenship. Nope. Still wrong.
In Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that birthright citizenship for anyone born on American soil is a constitutional mandate under the 14th Amendment, not a mere statutory gift from Congress.
Kavanaugh did not say that Congress can simply pass a law to exclude the children of tourists or undocumented immigrants from automatic citizenship. You WANT it to say what you think he said, but that’s not what he said.
Kavanaugh explicitly agreed with the majority that the 14th Amendment’s text protects birthright citizenship and that Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional. His separate, narrow discussion focused purely on a historic, highly technical loophole regarding the children of foreign diplomats. He did not state that Congress has the authority to pass a standard, everyday statute to strip birthright citizenship away from millions of infants born inside the borders of the United States.
It’s hilariously obvious you don’t read for comprehension. It’s embarrassing.
You say children became citizens “by act of law” (the Child Citizenship Act of 2000), proving that Congress manages citizenship tracks. No. Because, once again, you don’t know how to read.
Your children were born abroad. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives Congress the explicit constitutional authority to write laws regarding NATURALIZATION—which governs how foreign-born individuals become American citizens. Congress had the absolute right to pass a law granting your children citizenship because they were born OUTSIDE the U.S. But Congress has zero authority to pass a statute restricting Birthright Citizenship for individuals born INSIDE the United States, because that specific track is explicitly controlled and protected by the 14th Amendment.
You do understand the difference between being born outside the US, as in OUTSIDE U.S. JURISDICTION vs being born INSIDE THE U.S., as in within constitutional jurisdiction. Right?
Given that you can not get Kavanaugh’s opinion correct – why should I take your word on Johnson.
“You claim that conservatives are “happy with 9 justices” and that the backlash isn’t a big deal”
Because with very rare exceptions they are.
“while completely glossing over the fact that the conservative majority used a strict, literal text-first approach to decide this case.”
Roberts is only “conservative” when compared to Jackson, Roberts is only a textualist when it suits him.
You can not ever use Roberts to undermine textualism – he barely pretends to be a textualist.
“Even Republican leadership, like Speaker Mike Johnson, openly admitted the ruling was a strict textualist and originalist view.”
Christ can you get anything right ? It is a constitutional opinion – not a view. It is the final word on the meaning of the constitution – whether right or wrong until it is reversed by a future supreme court or by a constitutional amendment.
Johnson did not “admitt” the ruling was textualist. He admitted that he was bound by it – those are not the same thing.
BTW Kavanaught’s CORRECT opinion – would be equally binding.
“The real irony you are trying to dismiss is this: for years, the right has demanded that judges strictly interpret the literal text of the Constitution and ignore policy outcomes. ”
Correct.
“But the exact second the conservative majority applied that exact textual standard to protect immigrant babies”
Incorrect – KAvanaugh got it correct Roberts, Sotomayor,Jackson, Kagan and Barret did not.
There are extremely few people who beleive Trump’s EO was not unconstitutional – the creation of immigration law is OUTSIDE the powers of the executive
Under no circumstance at all is this a “policy question” – it is a constitution and law question.
Kavanaugh Correctly relied on THE LAW – because the constitution does not explicitly cover this and the LAW DOES.
The majority read into the constitution something that is clearly not there.
Even YOU keep getting tripped up – because indians have ALWAYS been subject to the jurisdiction of the US,
but only have birthright citizenship BY LAW. You have a similar problem with the chidren of foriegn government employees.
Your problem is that you ar trying to FORCE part of the text to mean what you want it to mean – when the rest of the text makes no sense – with that reading. The constitution can not be read to contradict itself, and it can not be read to make any of the text redundant or superfluous – those are ALSO Rules of textualism.
There are ALOT of rules that govern how the test must be read – a correct reading MUST comply with ALL of them.
Plain meaning is ONE
History and practice is another
no superfluidity or redundancy is another rule.
You MUST get past every rule – or your reading is wrong.
This is also important because these rules not only apply to Reading the constitution – they apply to writing or amending it – and the authors of the 14th amendment KNEW that.
You are completely confused about the most basic rules of constitutional law. You claim that Justice Kavanaugh’s separate opinion is the “correct” one and should be treated as a binding rule. But in the legal world, Kavanaugh’s thoughts are explicitly categorized as non-binding musings, not legal declarations.
In Supreme Court practice, a declaration or holding is the binding legal rule established by a majority of the justices. It sets the supreme law of the land.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion. He explicitly voted to strike down Trump’s executive order, meaning he agreed with the majority’s outcome for this specific case. However, everything else he wrote in his separate opinion consists entirely of musings—legally known as dicta. It has zero binding authority. A concurrence is essentially a justice thinking out loud about how they might view a future, hypothetical case. It does not change the law, and treating it as a “declaration” is an absolute legal error.
You claim Kavanaugh “relied on the law” because the Constitution doesn’t cover this. But the text of the 14th Amendment explicitly does cover it. Kavanaugh’s opinion was highly speculative, full of “what-ifs” regarding historical statutory loopholes that do not apply to the Barbara case.
Kavanaugh himself openly acknowledged that under current law and longstanding precedent, these children are citizens. His separate text was a theoretical exploration of what Congress could potentially try to do—it was not a legal declaration that Congress has a wide-open blank check to rewrite the 14th Amendment by a simple majority vote.
Textualism dictates that when a law explicitly lists its exceptions, you cannot invent new ones. The 14th Amendment explicitly wrote down exceptions, such as “Indians not taxed.” Because the Framers explicitly listed who was excluded (sovereign Native tribes and foreign diplomats with immunity), but did not list “tourists” or “undocumented immigrants,” a strict textualist reading dictates that those classes are fully covered.
Your pedantic tantrum over whether Speaker Johnson “admitted” the ruling was textualist is flat-out wrong. Johnson—who is a constitutional attorney himself—publicly and explicitly stated that the majority opinion, co-authored by Roberts and Barrett, relied on a strict textualist and originalist view of the 14th Amendment. He didn’t just say he was bound by it; he acknowledged the methodology the conservative justices used to reach the conclusion.
You can scream that Roberts “barely pretends to be a textualist” all you want, but your anger is actually directed at the fact that a strict, literal reading of the Constitution completely destroyed your preferred political outcome. If a baby is born inside the geographic borders of the United States, they are subject to its laws, and they are a citizen by right. No non-binding concurrence by Kavanaugh, and no standard act of Congress, can overrule the text of the 14th Amendment. If you want a different rule, stop trying to distort the law and go pass a 28th Amendment.
You’re not winning this argument. You’re flailing.
“parts of the MAGA movement threw their own philosophy out the window, complaining that the text was “bonkers” and demanding a workaround.”
Nope – while I have read John Eastman’s briefs on this and while they are very very good – I still thik Eastman is wrong.
He is NOT demanding a workarround – he is arguing that textually the constitution does not grant birth right citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
And Unlike you (and apparently 5 justices) he know history and the rules of statutory and constitutional construction – which I have linked to before.
“You can scream “ROFL”’
Not screaming – Laughing, deep belly laughing.
Which Clearly is “getting your goat”
“drag in unrelated talking points”
Each and every one of those was in direct response to an idiotic claim of yours – such as
“sterilizing women at the border”
“stopping foreign women from entering the country”
“forcing women to take pregnancy tests”
” It is a crappy attempt to change the subject”
No YOU keep making a long list of absurd claims – the resonses to this claims is then AUTOMATICALLY on point and on topic.
It is YOU crazy and hillarious arguments that are “all over the place” and “trying to change the subject”
Don;t make idiotic and unrelated assertions if you do not want them rebutted.
Laughing through a bad argument does not make your legal theory any less broken. Relying on the briefs of John Eastman as your gold standard for “the rules of constitutional construction” is incredibly telling, because the California Supreme Court permanently disbarred John Eastman for pushing radical, fabricated legal theories that explicitly violated the rule of law.
You are making the exact same error Eastman made—trying to invent a radical, unwritten exception to the text of the Constitution to force a preferred political outcome.
You keep claiming Eastman and your linked rules understand “statutory construction,” while completely violating its most foundational tenet: the rule against surplusage.
In textualism, a court must give distinct meaning to every word and cannot assume the text contains redundancies.
You can mock the 5-4 majority all you want, but you cannot change the reality of the holding. In Trump v. Barbara, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett didn’t rule based on progressive “living constitutionalism.” They applied a strict, literal, text-first approach—which is exactly why conservative leadership like House Speaker Mike Johnson publicly admitted the ruling was a strict textualist and originalist victory. The Court ruled that territorial presence on American soil satisfies “jurisdiction,” making birthright citizenship an unalterable constitutional right.
You keep losing this argument. I’m so embarrassed for you.
no, georgie, you do have your pronouns wrong in your very last sentence
As usual left wing nuts pretending the understand textual ism or original ism PROVING that they don’t and that they do not understand the rule of law.
And that you can not escape your arguments being driven by personal biases NOT actual textual ism.
The SHORT version of my prior post – there is no possible world in which “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is not a reference to the parents
Newborns can jkot commit crimes, can not make choices, can nto in anyway take action that would alter whether they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
One of the RULES of statuary construction is that all words must have meaning – no words can be redundant. The all possible meanings of “subject to the jurisdiction therof”
apply to the PARENTS and the history and law regarding the citizenship of people born int he US is ALWAYS about the status of the PARENTS.
We do not query newborns about their politics, allegiances or domiciles.
While SCOTUS got the most important aspect of this decision correct – citizenship of newborns is NOT an executive power.
The rest of the majority opinion is a historical (as kavanaugh and the disenters correctly point out) and a textual.
John Say, your failure to understand what “jurisdiction thereof” is your biggest flaw. It does not mean what you think it means. You say because a newborn cannot make choices, commit crimes, or voice political allegiance, the word “jurisdiction” cannot possibly apply. That’s not what jurisdiction is.
A newborn baby is fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from the second they are born because they are physically on American soil. If a parent leaves a newborn in a hot car, the state will step in, take custody of the child, and protect it under U.S. child welfare laws. Why? Because the baby is within the legal jurisdiction and protection of the United States. Jurisdiction is about geography, not a person’s capability to commit a crime.
A cop from LA cannot write a ticket to a driver in Texas because he’s out of his jurisdiction. In the 14th amendment the “jurisdiction” is the entirety of the geographical area that is within our borders. It’s where the constitution applies. If a child is born a inch outside our border it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the constitution’s protections.
You say all words must have meaning, and “jurisdiction” must refer to the parents to avoid redundancy. Wrong.
The words do have distinct meaning, but they apply strictly to the child. The Framers of the 14th Amendment wrote “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude very specific groups of children who are physically born on the soil but legally exempt from our laws: the children of foreign diplomats (who have sovereign immunity) and the children of invading foreign armies. A tourist’s baby or an undocumented immigrant’s baby has zero diplomatic immunity. They are fully subject to our laws. By trying to force the word “parents” into a sentence where it does not exist, you are the one violating the rules of textualism by adding words to the Constitution. “Persons born” is what the text says. Parents are not persons born. Do you get it? Status, intent, tourist, and immigrant are not in the text. A textualist would only read what is written not what is assumed.
“ The history of citizenship has always been about the status of the parents.”
No. That’s wrong.
The author of the Citizenship Clause himself, Senator Jacob Howard, explicitly defined the phrase in 1866. He stated that “jurisdiction” meant a full, immediate subjection to the laws of the United States. The Reconstruction Congress explicitly intended to create a broad rule of jus soli (citizenship by birth on the soil) to ensure that citizenship could never again be denied based on a parent’s legal status, overturning the horrific legacy of Dred Scott.
If an undocumented immigrant or a foreign tourist brings a newborn baby into a federal building, and a government official steps forward and physically harms that infant, does the federal government lack the legal jurisdiction to prosecute that official for a crime against the baby simply because the newborn cannot “make choices or voice political allegiance”?
Of course not. The baby is fully protected and governed by American law because the baby is physically here. In Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court didn’t rule based on bias; they enforced the literal, plain-text meaning of the Constitution. If you draw your first breath inside the borders of the United States, you are subject to its jurisdiction, and you are a citizen by right—no matter how many loops you try to twist around the text.
Up to what geographical point does the constitution’s power of law apply? What’s its limit?
“your failure to understand what “jurisdiction thereof” is your biggest flaw.”
I have not made a claim as to what that phrase DOES Mean.
All I have done is point out that FACTS, and LAW and Logic prove that it DOES NOT mean what YOU claim.
“A newborn baby is fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from the second they are born because they are physically on American soil. If a parent leaves a newborn in a hot car, the state will step in, take custody of the child, and protect it under U.S. child welfare laws. Why? Because the baby is within the legal jurisdiction and protection of the United States. Jurisdiction is about geography, not a person’s capability to commit a crime.”
That is true TODAY of every single child physically within the US at any tie REGARDLESS of whether thy were born here or not.
It was NOT TRUE of ANY Child for most of the 19th century. Government did NOT assert any power over children until the 20th century and then using cruelty to animals laws.
You are really really really ignorant of facts and history.
But it get WORSE – It is STATES not the federal govenrment that even today have “jurisdiction” over children.
AGAIN There is no general federal police power. No Federal law enforcement force existed until the 20th century.
Further the jurisdiction of a state is different from the jurisdiction of the united states.
Illinois Child Welfare laws protect children in Illinois – NOT in the united states.
The United States has no jurisdiction over child welfare – even today and extremely limited criminal jurisdiction.
This is why myriads of federal laws Bribe states to perform the functions of the law – because the constitution does not give that power to the federal government.
” In the 14th amendment the “jurisdiction” is the entirety of the geographical area that is within our borders. ”
Correct – neither I nor anyone else that I am aware of has argued anything about WHERE the jurisdiction of the US exists today – though I would note that TODAY The US Federal Govenrment prosecutes people who are not US citizens and who did not enter the US much less commit a crime in the US. The US went after Jullian Assange who is neither a US citizen nor within the US Geographically.
Regardless, I am not arguing what Subject to the jurisdiction of the US is – I have not made any claim – beyond that it must be with regard to the parents.
“It’s where the constitution applies. ”
Nope – the constitution is Rules that control GOVERNMENT – Not people. Even the Bill of rights specifies that Government can not abridge your freedoms – they text typically reads :make not law” or “Government shall not infringe”
The constitution is NOT rules of conduct for people, it is rules for Govenrment. The jurisdiction of the constitution is GOVERNMENT – not people.
“If a child is born a inch outside our border it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the constitution’s protections.”
Sort of – the constitution guarantees some rights to Everyone within the US – born here or not. Other rights are only for citizens.
Further Everyone physically within the US is subject to the LAWS of the US – and the protections of the constitution if they are accused of violating those laws.
Again Jurisdiction of the united states does not mean what you claim.
“The words do have distinct meaning, but they apply strictly to the child. ”
Because you say so ?
“The Framers of the 14th Amendment wrote “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude very specific groups of children who are physically born on the soil but legally exempt from our laws: the children of foreign diplomats (who have sovereign immunity) and the children of invading foreign armies. A tourist’s baby or an undocumented immigrant’s baby has zero diplomatic immunity. They are fully subject to our laws”
Again Absolutely every child even today physically within the US is NOT subject to our laws. No infant has ever been prosecuted for a crime in the US. The age at which a person becomes subject to the law varies from state to state – again this is a STATE issue – because there is no general police power, But generally children under approximately 10 can not be charged or prosecuted with a crime.
SOMETIMES – their PARENTS can.
If as you claim “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” is specific to the CHILD – then no one is a citizen – because no child can be prosecuted for violating our criminal laws.
I have not made a claim regarding what subject to the jurisdiction of the united states actually means.
But it CAN NOT mean any of the things you have claimed – criminal law is near universally a STATE power – and that was especially true in the 19th century, The framers of the 14th amendment could NOT be writing about criminal statutes – because there were no federal criminal law enforcement at the time. They could not be writing about the criminal constraints on children – because there are none even today.
You say you are being a “textualist” – but YOUR textualist reading of the 14th amendment makes NO ONE a citizen.
And the Framers of the 14th amendment were not nearly that stupid
The rest of your diaribe is nonsense – All children physically in the US are protected by US law – even the chilren of diplomats.
Do you EVER think beyond the most cursory level about what you write ?
Your own arguments mean either Everyone is a citizen or no one is – depending on your specific argument of the moment.
You have been reading too much left wing nut propoganda.
O(ne more point – which I have been making TO YOU since Trump took office.
This was ALWAYS a win-win for Trump.
While it was highly unlikely that SCOTUS was going to rule for him – and honestly – Alit and Thomas should have joined Kavanaugh.
Even in losing – Trump keeps a campaign promise that is very important to millions of people – VOTERS.
I hope republicans pass the SAVE act. I hope they do so without eliminating the Filibuster.
But whether they suceed of not – the effort to do so is a promise kept to voters.
was a calculated “win-win” move to rally voters, it backfired spectacularly. In Trump v. Barbara, Trump didn’t just get stopped by a standard political obstacle; he forced a conservative supermajority to permanently enshrine birthright citizenship into modern case law. Before Trump issued his executive order, the question of whether a president could unilaterally end birthright citizenship was a theoretical debate. By forcing the issue, Trump got a definitive 5-4 ruling that slammed the door shut, explicitly declaring his actions unconstitutional. He permanently lost the very tool he promised his base he could use.
Voters do not reward leaders indefinitely for failing. Trump promised his base a quick, decisive end to birthright citizenship with the stroke of an executive pen. Instead, he delivered a permanent legal precedent that protects the children of immigrants. Telling voters “I tried and failed, so please vote for me again” only works for so long before they realize your promises are legally impossible.
He also promised no new wars. We are stuck in a war he cannot get out of. He promised to lower inflation, its rising. Lower prices. Everything is more expensive. He’s failing to keep his promises.
“Trump didn’t just get stopped by a standard political obstacle; he forced a conservative supermajority to permanently enshrine birthright citizenship into modern case law. ”
So ? That was the nearly inevitable outcome anyway.
“Before Trump issued his executive order, the question of whether a president could unilaterally end birthright citizenship was a theoretical debate.”
no it was not – the determination of citizenship is NOT an executive power. Trump’s EO was NEVER going to survive.
“By forcing the issue, Trump got a definitive 5-4 ruling that slammed the door shut, explicitly declaring his actions unconstitutional. ”
5-4 is NOT very decisive or slamming the door – regardless with specific respect to presidential power the ruling was 6-3 and should have been 9-0. Presidents do not have the power to change the law (or the constitution) – that is not a close call – not on this case, not on any case.
“He permanently lost the very tool he promised his base he could use.”
Nowhere in Agenda 47 did Trump promise the end birth right citizenship by EO.
“Voters do not reward leaders indefinitely for failing.”
So you say – but reality is different.
“Remember the Alamo”
The people who fought at the Alamo are eternal hero’s.
” Instead, he delivered a permanent legal precedent that protects the children of immigrants. ”
Which changes nothing. MAGA did not get what they wanted They were not going to get what they wanted.
I would note – this is true of MANY Trump actions.
If Trump succeeds – he wins – but in MANY instances if he tries and fails – supporters will PROPERLY blame others.
If the SAVE act does not pass – Trump will not be blamed – some republicans and all democrats will.
That is a win.
“He also promised no new wars.”
Nope – again rad Agenda 47 – that is not in there.
Nor would any candidate ever promise no new wars.
He promised not to waste the lives of US soldiers in conflicts not in the US interests.
He promissed not do get us into more endless wars.
“We are stuck in a war he cannot get out of.”
WE can leave whenever we want – Even without any agreement – Iran has been defanged for atleast the remainder of Trump’s presidency.
Irans leadership is pinned on the mat and refusing to tap out – but they are still out.
Personally I do not care whether there is an “agreement”.
If Iran misbehaves – US forces will be back.
Hitler signed an agreement with Neville chamberlain.
The problem was not the agreement it was that Hitler was not going to follow it, and Chamberlain was clearly not going to enforce it.
I expect there will be an agreement eventually – I am in no rush.
Iran has admitted their nuclear material is under 300meters of rubble and they can not get to it.
If they try – we will now.
Nearly their entire milirary industrial complex has been destroyed – including scientests and engineers – if they try to rebuild – we will know.
The straits of Hormuz are open and Iran either will not or more likely can not do anything about it.
Energy prices have collapsed – that is what people are paying attention to.
Trump can park aircraft carriers off Iran for the rest of his term – so long as energy prices stay down and few us troops are killed.
But this HAS caused the rest of the world to better grasp the enormous power of the US – and THAT promise is in Agenda 47.
“He promised to lower inflation, its rising. ”
No – it rose briefly – it is now falling – it has been lower than under Biden.
Gas prices just collapsed. Predictions are gas at 2.50/gal by october.
That will bring down LOTS of prices.
Further – working class families have $1500/yr more sending power than under biden – but they are NOT yet back to 2020 levels.
Biden took $4500/yr out of family sending power.
“Lower prices. Everything is more expensive. ”
No it is not.
Calculate prices in terms of the amount of labor you need to perform to buy something – and they are down.
That is what affordability means.
It is actually quite rare that in REAL DOLLARS prices go up – only those things govenrment is deeply involvd in – education and healthcare rise in price in REAL DOLLARS.
If we did not have the FED – which artificially injects inflation – we would have mild deflation – as we did in the 19th century.
In REAL DOLLARS we still do have mild deflation – and have for pretty much forever – but not at the same rate.
Under Biden – real affordability actually declined – that is extrmely rare.
Under Obama the rate of improvement was the worst it had been in a century.
Newborns can not be arrested and prosecuted by American courts,
so by YOUR OWN ARGUMENT the text of the 14th amendment involves the status of the parents – which you claim through faux textualism it does not.
All you have done is demonstrate that you can not get past your own biases even when you try to be a textualist.
John Say, your argument is an absolute embarrassment to basic legal literacy. You are confidently confusing an age exemption from criminal liability with an exemption from territorial jurisdiction.
Textualism requires reading the words on the page. The 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born… in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” It does not say “all persons born to parents who can be prosecuted.” You are desperately trying to insert the word “parents” into a constitutional text where it does not exist because your personal political biases cannot handle what the text actually says.
If you are born within the geographic borders of the United States, you are subject to its laws and its protections. That is the definition of territorial jurisdiction. Your bizarre claim that a baby has to be able to go to prison to be “subject to jurisdiction” is the single most idiotic legal take on the internet.
Jurisdiction is Not a Penal Code.
If a parent abuses a newborn baby on American soil, Child Protective Services and federal law enforcement will physically seize that child and place them in protective custody under the authority of U.S. law. By your broken logic, the government would have no right to do this because the newborn “cannot be arrested.” The government has the absolute territorial jurisdiction to protect, govern, and regulate that child from the exact millisecond they draw their first breath.
“You are confidently confusing an age exemption from criminal liability with an exemption from territorial jurisdiction.”
No YOU are – your the one that claimed that “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” meant – can be prosecuted.
YOU are the one that tied it to diplomatic immunity – that is just “an exemption from criminal liability”.
“Textualism requires reading the words on the page.”
No that is an Element of textualism – it is also a specific set of rules for how to read those words.
I have linked the supreme courts rules for statutory and constitutional construction.
They specify how to read law or constitution.
” It does not say “all persons born to parents who can be prosecuted.”
Correct – YOU are the one who has argued both implicitly and explicitly that this is about the power of govenrment to prosecute you.
“If you are born within the geographic borders of the United States, you are subject to its laws and its protections.”
If you are present within the geographic borders of th united states you are subject to its laws and protections.
If you steal – you will be prosecuted – if people steal from you – the police will try to find and prosecute them.
This will occur whether you are a child or adult, born here or not,
Once again YOUR interpretation means Everyone or no one – and no one thinks the 14th amendment means either.
You Constantly return to diplomats – but even diplomats are afforded the protection of the US – you can not steal from a diplomat or murder them. They enjoy all the civil and criminal protections of citizens. The only distinction by YOUR arguments – is that they can not be prosecuted for crimes committed in the US by the US.
Neither can any child – YOUR argument makes this about Criminal prosecution – because that is the only Unique aspect of diplomats that YOU have raised – there are others, but those others work AGAINST you.
Further you keep raising diplomats – I am not aware of a single infant diplomat – YOU are the one that keeps raising arguments that inevitably lead to “subject to the juridiction thereof” meaning PARENTS.
I am NOT making that argument – YOU ARE – with every example you raise.
Further YOU have claimed that only diplomats have immunity – not others staff or others employed by a foriegn govenrment.
BY YOUR argument the children of diplomats do not have immunity and therefore if they were born in the US they are citizens.
Neither is true – the children of diplomats generally have immunity – as does any official member of an embassy or consulate,
and they are not citizens if they were born here.
All I am doing is pointing out that your read of the 14th amendment alays results in contradictions and absurdities and is therefor automatically incorrect.
“Jurisdiction is Not a Penal Code.”
Your the one who defined it as prosecutability.
“If a parent abuses a newborn baby on American soil, Child Protective Services and federal law enforcement will physically seize that child and place them in protective custody under the authority of U.S. law. ”
There is no FEDERAL child protective services. There was no state child protective services in the 19th century – this is an absurd argument.
TODAY Any child on US soil – not just a newborn would be protected by STATE LAWS – not federal.
The jurisdication of Georgia is NOT the Jurisdiction of the US.
This is an idiotic argument.
“By your broken logic, the government would have no right to do this because the newborn “cannot be arrested.””
Government does not have rights – only individuals do – as any “textualist” would know.
Regardless – the PARENTS can be arrested – further in YOUR example it is the PARENTS ACTS that result in Government excercising POWER.
“The government has the absolute territorial jurisdiction to protect, govern, and regulate that child from the exact millisecond they draw their first breath.”
Ignoring “absolute” – the purpose of the constitution is to CONSTRAIN that power. You are otherwise correct.
They have the same power from the instant a child crosses our border – or an adult crosses our border
Further the power of government over children can not be excercised absent some failure of ….. THE PARENTS.
The government has no power over children merely because they exist.
Apologies in advance for the length of this. Bear with me.
Yesterday noon, I posted this responsive comment: “I agree with you about Kavanaugh and his distinction of constitutional vs. statutory (and case law) effect (although some of his words seem more muse than declaration). We can talk more when the good professor starts us off on the Barbara case; right now I do not want to get us all OT.”
So, today is the day! Thanks to Professor Turley.
(1) There has always been legal division about the meaning of our Constitution and Amendments’ making different references to “citizens” and “persons,” e.g., both being distinctly separated and used in the same Amendment, (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any Person of….” (as well as the 5thA’s reference to “Persons”). It is hard to defeat the pure 14thA language of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States….”
(2) Notwithstanding, the SCOTUS Barbara decision does not create, but rather effects, a distinct inequity, IMO.
Children born outside of the United States who wish to become citizens do so under the terms of the Child Citizenship Act. Adults over 18 apply for naturalization which requires meeting several requirements including LANGUAGE and CIVICS TEST and presenting good moral character, residency, etc. But a child born jus solis–born even to illegal immigrants who are hostile in conduct and sentiment to the United States, automatically enjoys all the attendant privileges and immunities?
(3) Sorry for any offense, but I must, by analogy, invoke religion here. Catholic and Christian faiths rely on “Baptism” as saving a child from birth. HOWEVER, under at least Catholic doctrine, when a child reaches the age of reason, he must “confirm,” i.e.,
re-affirm the church’s beliefs and tenets (communion and confirmation being holy sacraments for intiation).
(4) So, in the same light as media and progressives refusing to use the words “illegal aliens,” but instead preferring the term “undocumented,” maybe we can imagine a parallel initiative for children of illegal aliens, who can enjoy a presumed, undocumented “citizenship” under the 14th Amendment, along with its attendant protections, BUT upon reaching a certain age, must pass language and civics test for “documented” citizenship? That’s a nice compromise, n’est ce pas?
Didn’t bother reading it. You suck at commenting.
Lin’s comments are for intelligent people. People with low intelligence find that they “suck” because they can’t understand them.
(not same anonymous as above posts)
Ironically, this response gets to the central question I have for Lin – how many Americans does she think would actually pass citizenship and language tests?
Most ‘Mericans would likely fail. Which is why her suggested retread of Jim Crow-style voting literacy test ideas would not resolve some perceived moral conundrum.
If you accept that citizenship should be passed to the offspring of American citizenship without such a test, then no moral position can involve testing some but not all children born on American soil. Don’t punish the kids for actions of their parents.
“Most ‘Mericans would likely fail.” ?????
You are gauging and comparing a retention rate of learning vs. an exposure rate. No go.
Moreover, there is the additional potential “learning” factor of early influence of familial hostile or anti-American sentiment, conSIDerably less manifest in households of American citizens.
Secondly, your sentence, “If you accept that citizenship should be passed to the offspring of American citizenship without such a test, then no moral position can involve testing some but not all children born on American soil ” is a non-sequitur if there ever were one. Nearly all U.S, school districts and an overwhelming majority of states (forty-something) require education in civics and history. So those “offspring of American citizenship” have a near surety of a minimum exposure and can reject or accept as they come into their own terms of continued citizenship and living by our laws. Not so much elsewhere, as I explain above.
Finally, you wrongly assume that I disagreed with the majority’s opinion. I agree not only with the decision but also the consideration of Kavanaugh’s CONCURRENCE with his added thoughts. Legislation is a possibility but constitutional amendment would be the most solid reform needed. After all, it was Democrat Justice Brennan who first pushed for a “living Constitution,” n’est ce pas?
*(I agree with the decision in terms of its unequivocal foundational basis. I do not agree with its finality, and while I agree with Alito’s reality opinion of it encouraging illegal immigration, this to me would not be a basis for a SCOTUS ruling, but rather an incentive for constitutional amendment.)
In the US it is jus sanguinas for children.
An amendment to the 14th to read: All people born of at least one citizen parent or naturalized parent etc
Clears it up EXCEPT not for the intended recipients–>freed slaves.
Your initial proposal is retention, not exposure! You suggest a testing requirement is met in order to gain citizenship. Moving the goalposts…
I don’t understand the second point but it seems to relate to the fact that you now don’t want a civics test as a requirement for citizenship… But my point was that if a citizenship test is imposed on children of immigrants, then it should be imposed on children of American citizens. Otherwise, you are treating immigrant children differently from other children based solely on what their parents did. Not a rational perspective for a country of laws based on individual rights.
Regarding your exposure point, with the rapid growth of homeschooling in this country, I absolutely don’t think you can assume universal exposure to US history and civics is something children of American citizens actually receive in any meaningful sense. Roughly 70-80% of states do NOT require civics for homeschooled children. 17 states have no state mandated subject requirement at all. A majority of the remaining states have a social studies requirement, but no required civics or government course. A couple of your favorite states like NY and CA do require this for homeschooled kids.
So even if civics exposure is your goal, it’s a fiction that all students get it.
I didn’t even mention private school… So about 1 in 7 students is not getting civics.
anonny, civics and history topics are often taught under the course study of “social studies” or “social science.”
You missed the point – States generally neither require private schools nor homeschooled kids to learn civics. The idea that Lin suggests – that “the offspring of American citizens have a near surety of a minimum exposure and can reject or accept as they come into their own terms of continued citizenship and living by our laws” is pure fiction.
civics and history are often listed as or part of “social studies” or “social sciences.”
Quick response, gotta get going here.
Re: your statements:
Totally and unequivocally wrong: “Your initial proposal is retention, not exposure! You suggest a testing requirement is met in order to gain citizenship.” I proposed citizenship at birth, with later confirmation. Please reread my comment.
Also totally and unequivocally wrong: “absolutely don’t think you can assume universal exposure to US history and civics is something children of American citizens actually receive in any meaningful sense.” I never assumed any such thing. But I did note that “Nearly all U.S, school districts and an overwhelming majority of states (forty-something) require education in civics and history.” (and that would of course include course testing.)
Your use of hyperbole may help you in some platforms and forums, but as you have found out, not so much here.
thanks anyway.
Lin,
Let’s look at what you actually wrote in paragraph 4 of your original post:
“…maybe we can imagine a parallel initiative for children of illegal aliens, who can enjoy a presumed, undocumented “citizenship” under the 14th Amendment… BUT upon reaching a certain age, must pass language and civics test for “documented” citizenship?*”
You explicitly used the words “undocumented citizenship” for birth not full citizenship, and said they must pass a test to get “documented citizenship.” If you have to pass a test to transition from “undocumented” to “documented” status, you are quite literally meeting a requirement to gain full, legal citizenship. If you fail, you don’t get it.
I didn’t use hyperbole at all; I accurately described exactly what you wrote. Are you just backpedaling because you realized your original “compromise” doesn’t hold up to basic legal scrutiny?
Whether we call it ‘confirmation’ or ‘gaining’ citizenship, the end result is the same: if a teenager fails the test, they lose their rights. If we don’t hold kids of U.S. citizens to that same standard—even if they fail their school’s civics class—it still creates a double standard based entirely on who their parents are.
(You of course did not address the fiction that all kids born to American receive exposure to civics, either.)
X- you are just plugging along plugging along, plugging along, trying to get a win against LIn and others aFter you got dumped so many times. I understood exactly what she meant. If Congress, as Kavanaugh implies, can constitutionally amend or expand its current statutory outlays (including under the INA) then it could do or consider exactly as she playedd around with. And “presumed” does not mean as you tried to push. Presumed in the LEGAL world, X-ie, means as in, the court will PRESUME all allegations made by a plaintiff to be true until proved otherwise. That does NOT mean that the court has the sua sponte option of not accepting those allegations as true, now does it? Do you get it?
THAT means that children born to illegal immigrants have a presumed “true” citizenship and are treated as such, until something removes that status–just like for any other citizen. is that so hard for you to understand? And when they become of age, they can aver to that.
Another thing that neither you nor LIn mentioned. If children of illegal immigrants were truly wanting to be citizens and not just living here on a free ride, they would TELL THEIR PARENT to follow the damn law or get out of here.
I read no more into what Lin said than what she did. You are just fighting for your reputation.
“THAT means that children born to illegal immigrants have a presumed “true” citizenship and are treated as such, until something removes that status–just like for any other citizen. is that so hard for you to understand? And when they become of age, they can aver to that.”
yes, agree.
For someone trying to use Latin phrases like sua sponte, your grasp of basic legal definitions is nonexistent. In a civil lawsuit, a court only presumes a plaintiff’s allegations to be true at the initial motion to dismiss stage (under Rule 12(b)(6)), just to see if the case is worth a trial. It is a temporary, procedural hurdle. A constitutional right is not a procedural allegation. Under the 14th Amendment, citizenship at birth is not “presumed true until proven otherwise”—it is a vested, absolute constitutional status. The state does not look at an American-born baby and say, “We’ll assume you’re a citizen for now, but you have to prove it later.
You’re only demonstrating that you’re a moron.
None of that is anywhere close to what Lin said (or remotely coherent)
Clown X at 2:32—did you read that Lin was PROPOSING something and YES it does hold up to legal scrutiny You just don’t understand what grammarly tried to rewrite for you.
@ Lin,
That seems too illogical. The justices used the plain meanings of the text in the clause. I thought they made a good point when the majority pointed out that “Persons born” meant only those born. Not the parents, legal status, or domicile.
The text does use both words, but it uses them to expand protections, not limit them. The Citizenship Clause explicitly states that anyone born here is a citizen. The subsequent clauses use the word “person” to ensure that the government cannot deprive anyone—whether they are a citizen, a legal resident, or an undocumented immigrant—of basic due process and equal protection. You cannot use the word “person” to dilute the absolute status granted to those born on American soil.
Your baptism analogy fundamentally misunderstands the difference between a private religious ritual and a supreme constitutional right. Under American law, a person born on U.S. soil is an immediate, absolute citizen from the second they draw their first breath. When a person is born it’s not automatically a Christian, Muslim, Baptist, Jewish, etc. You would think being a child of god automatically makes you a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever religion a person is born into. But that’s not the law.
The Constitution does not care about the “conduct or sentiment” of the parents. The text says “all persons born,” not “all persons born to parents who pass a patriotism check.
AI Hallucinations Are Exploding In U.S. Courts, New Study Finds
https://www.laine.ai/ai-legal-error-hotspots-where-court-filings-go-wrong/
Esquire: my response to you would be redundant with what I said to anonymous above,
Addtionally, you may have gone off your rocker a little regarding my ad hoc analogy to religion, for comparison only. I think an open-minded individual might understand what I am saying. Of course, your disagreement is noted and accepted. Thanks.
(maybe they are both the same writer, wanting to create the impression of more disagreement? or having additional thoughts posted separately?
@ Lin,
Calling a terrible legal argument a “comparison only” doesn’t change the fact that it makes zero sense under American law.
Being “open-minded” doesn’t mean accepting legal fictions. The reality is simple:
your analogy failed because it treated a supreme constitutional right as something conditional that the government can force a child to re-verify later in life.
There is no room for “ad hoc analogies” when the plain text of the 14th Amendment is absolute. Under the Constitution, citizenship at birth is immediate and unconditional. It’s a bad parallel and flawed logic.
Hello Esquire: Back on board here after some fun with friends, and actually quite amused at the maelstrom I maybe created.
Listen, I smile at your calling my muse a “terrible legal argument.”
Indeed, please sit down, get comfortable, and let’s go through this slowly, together…..
(1) Please note/admit that I EXPRESSLY stated, “and while I agree with Alito’s reality opinion of it encouraging illegal immigration, this to me would not be a basis for a SCOTUS ruling, but rather an incentive for constitutional amendment.”
(2) As you know, a Constitutional amendment can WHOLLY REMOVE the subject clause[s] and DENY any repeat ANY automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. Congress can either REPEAL the whole previous amendment, or amend it or create a new amendment addressing more contemporary issues.
Knowing the high bar of passing any constitutional amendment, (-what is it, 3/4 or 2/3 of Congress plus States to vote to affirm,? can’t remember which). I’m sure you agree with me on this. That’s why I added my very last sentence, “That’s a nice compromise, n’est ce pas?”
(3) You, in turn, had an end goal of discrediting any of this. But you fail, and respectfully, you fail badly. Nothing you said carries weight because nothig I “proposed,” (if you want to call it that), was illegal, impracticable, or far-fetched. And clearly not a “terrible legal argument.”
There may come a day when my “proposal” or something similar may become a necessity……
Indeed, I was just out snacking with some friends and just found out that both Congressmen Rand Paul and Andy Barr have since proposed things far more acute/severe than my more modest simple thought.
I guess maybe I and Rand and Andy and several others are thinking similarly.
Maybe you should contact them and chastise them for their ‘terrible legal arguments’– or maybe their staff will read your unfounded comments and non-scoring statements and set you straight, n’est ce pas?
Thanks again, night night.
Lin, I have not been following this thread, but I read this from Esquire, who frequently is AI.
“your analogy failed because it treated a supreme constitutional right as something conditional that the government can force a child to re-verify later in life.”
I don’t know the legal bearing of this story, but it seems to have a relationship. My wife, when young, saw her parents becoming American citizens. She said she wanted citizenship as well, though told she could do so at a later age. She did it with her parents.
It just so happens that one of her friends was in the same situation, but did not take the oath. Later in life, she was appointed to a judgeship. Lo and behold, they found she wasn’t a citizen and could not be sworn in. The problems were rectified. In this case, the child was re-verified later in life.
@Lin,
You are completely rewriting what you originally wrote because your first “proposal” was utterly demolished by the plain text of the Constitution.Let’s go through your shift in stance slowly, together, so we can look at the reality of your flawed legal theory:
You explicitly proposed an initiative where children of undocumented immigrants would receive a temporary, “presumed, undocumented ‘citizenship'” under the 14th Amendment, but upon reaching adulthood, they would have to pass a language and civics test to get “documented” citizenship.
You didn’t frame that temporary, test-based citizenship track as a future constitutional amendment. You framed it as a parallel initiative under the existing framework. That is why it is an unconstitutional legal theory. Under the current 14th Amendment, citizenship at birth is immediate, vested, and absolute. The government cannot strip it away or condition it on a future test. Trying to pretend you were “just talking about an amendment all along” is a complete rewrite of your own words.
Rand Paul has spent over a decade introducing bills and amendments to end birthright citizenship, and they have gone absolutely nowhere. It’s performative, unconstitutional bills used to score cheap political points with their voting base, fully knowing those bills will die in committee or get struck down by the courts.
Under your ‘compromise’ if a child is born in the U.S., they are physically located here. If the U.S. treats their citizenship as a temporary “presumption” until they turn 18, what happens if they fail the test? The U.S. strips the presumption away. The U.S. would be stuck with millions of adults who are legally forbidden from participating in society, but cannot be removed from the country. This is the exact definition of a collapsed immigration system.
History has already proven what happens when the government is allowed to use tests to determine who gets to access their rights. During the Jim Crow era, Southern states used “literacy tests” to intentionally disenfranchise Black Americans. The tests were intentionally designed to be impossible to pass, and were graded entirely based on the whims of partisan local officials.
If a future administration wants to shrink the voting base of a specific demographic, they could simply alter the difficulty of the 18-year-old civics exam, ensuring a high failure rate to strip citizenship away from political opponents.
Its a bad idea. Even as a compromise.
Esquire,
I can see that you were waiting on pins and needles into late night hours for a reply===so severe is your craving for validation and attention. YOu are one sick cookie. As silly as your defense about “rhetorical statements, which flew like a lead balloon.
Now to the substance, you say, “History has already proven what happens when the government is allowed to use tests to determine who gets to access their rights.”
YOu also say, “Under your ‘compromise’ if a child is born in the U.S., they are physically located here. If the U.S. treats their citizenship as a temporary “presumption” until they turn 18, what happens if they fail the test? The U.S. strips the presumption away. The U.S. would be stuck with millions of adults who are legally forbidden from participating in society”
What a pile of crap!
First, doesn;t look like she said that or even applied any such thing. I don’t know, but taking from the mild tenor of her words, I would suggest that a failed civics test by a child reaching majority would simply mean a continuation of that provisional citizenship.
YOu made that up in order to buff up your flawed argument. You really buffooned it up. Congress could outline reformative and rehabilitating remedial classes if the child wants to try again. But you imagine and create a severe remedy (loss of citizenship) without any comment from Lin to back that up. YOu always seem to fire up your most stupid arguments by ASSUMING things “not in evidence.” another clown statement you learned on this blog.
AND you also failed to concede that LIn clearly said from the beginning that this presumed status of citizenship would include all the “privileges and immunities” of citizenship. YOu also failed to distinguish why it’s OK to test others adults but not children reaching 18. stupid stupid flatulent argument,
To summarize, the bottom line is that Lin said constitutional amendment, and threw around an idea of how things could be treated in the future. Less severe that totally removing birthrights. YOu twisted it into something not even said in order to put teeth into your argument, but your teeth are REMOVABLE dentures.
From one of the Not a Clowns.
A “‘supreme constitutional right” is not so supreme when it can be removed by both Congress and States. Eighth grade history class.
There is no such thing as a “supreme constitutional right.” There are only constitutional rights.
Please learn to understand what rhetorical statements are.
NO, clown, YOU are the clown who tries to change your argument. You were NOT pretending rhetorical statements. doesn;t work, clown.
Esquire
If the question is Should citizen be conferred by Birth – I am 100% in favor of that – but as the 14th amendment and REALITY make clear – that does nto mean absolutely ANYONE born in the US.
Contra your argument the TEXT of the rest of the clause lists LIMITS – making it clear Just being born on US soil is NOT enough.
Again – I absolutely think the children of illegal immigrants should be automatically citizens. But I do NOT think the constitution CLEARLY says that.
When restricting a RIGHT – vagueness must be interpreted in favor of the person with a right. But citizenship itself is NOT a right – but a grant of other rights.
You address due process – everyone who can fog glass is entitled to due process in the US.
But Due process is NOT a one size fits all formula. Due process is the requirements govenrment must meet when it infringes on a right.
Where there is no right there is little or no due process. That is why deportation of illegal immigrants is relatively easy while conviction for murder is NOT.
It is also why an illegal immigrant gets extensive due process when charged with murder – but not when being deported.
Again due process is NOT one size fits all. It is dependent on the rights being infringed.
With respect to what the 14th amendment says – I am with Justice Kavanaugh – the majority went too far. Trump’s EO was absolutely unconstitutional.
But congress does have the power to assert by law that children born in the US illegal immigrants (or tourists) are NOT automatically citizens.
I do not think there is any consequential issue limiting citizenship tourism.
I personally would NOT end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens – that has NOT worked out well for Europe.
It creates more problems than it solves.
The correct textual reading of the citizenship clause is all born here are citizens EXCEPT as follows: Congress has already by law both expanded citizenship and restricted it based on those exceptions, and they can do so constitutionally.
@ John Say,
Your argument falls apart because you are fundamentally misdefining what a “constitutional right” is, and you are trying to give Congress an unconstitutional power to rewrite the supreme law of the land by standard legislation. That’s not how things work in this country.
Citizenship is a fundamental constitutional right. The Supreme Court explicitly settled this in the landmark case Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), ruling that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause provides a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be stripped or bargained away by the government. The Chief Justice reiterated this text-first baseline in Trump v. Barbara. Citizenship is the literal foundation of a person’s legal existence in this country. Saying it isn’t a right is a total legal fiction.
You say the text of the clause lists limits, making it clear that Congress can create new exceptions for tourists or undocumented immigrants.
The text lists exactly one qualification: you must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Under strict textualism, when a legal document explicitly defines its exclusions—such as foreign diplomats possessing sovereign immunity or sovereign Native American tribes—it legally blocks the government from inventing new exclusions later. Congress cannot just pass a law to add “tourists” or “illegal immigrants” to that list. If Congress could redefine the text of the 14th Amendment by a simple majority vote, then the Constitution isn’t supreme law at all—it’s just a rough draft subject to the whims of whoever controls Congress this week.
You agree with Justice Kavanaugh that Congress has the power to pass a law stating that the children of tourists or undocumented immigrants are not automatically citizens. That was not Kavanaugh’s argument. In his concurrence, Kavanaugh explicitly stated that Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional because the executive branch cannot unilaterally change citizenship rules. He mused about statutory limits regarding a hyper-specific, historic diplomat loophole—he did not rule that Congress can simply pass a normal statute to wipe out birthright citizenship for entire classes of people born on American soil.
To say an undocumented immigrant gets less due process during deportation because “where there is no right there is little or no due process.” That is a huge misreading of how the law works.
You are confusing the outcome of a legal proceeding with the right to the proceeding itself. The reason deportation has a different standard than a murder trial isn’t because undocumented immigrants lack rights; it’s because deportation is a civil administrative proceeding, not a criminal prosecution. But the right to due process itself is absolute under the 5th and 14th Amendments for any person physically present in the United States.
You cannot claim the majority “went too far” by enforcing the literal text of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment says “All persons born… are citizens.” It does not say “all persons born, subject to a future congressional statute.” If you want to change who gets citizenship at birth, you legally must pass a 28th Amendment.
Esquire dubs for X, Will the real clown please stand up
Thank you for your comment.
I also agree that Kavanaugh’s oppinion – which better distiinguishes statute from constitution – BOTH of which were against Trump. is the BEST opinion and should have been the majority.
I do not think your baptism analogy is a good fit.
There are two independent issues conserrvatives are trying to address – Citizenship tourism – which I think Trump does have some power to restrict, by refusing travel visas to women who will give birth while in the US.
And the native born children of illegal aliens.
I would further note that US law does have other provisions for citizenship than birth here or Naturalization.
My wife and I are born in the US of families born in the US for generations.
Our children are both adopted from foreign countries – my daughter from China and my Son from Korea.
In 2000 a bipartisan law signed by Clinton made the foreign born adopted children of US citizens citizens by act of law.
They were not born here, nor did they have to go through the naturalization process. But they are citizens. They have US Pasports, they vote,
they have social security cards, ….
There are a few minor Quirks – DHS will provide my children with Proof of citizenship – it is an arduous and expensive process that takes a long time.
But the US state department will provide them with a US passport with proof of adoption by US citizens – easy peasy and no additional expense.
Regardless my point is compound – first there is more than two ways to become a citizen, and that Congress clears has the power to grant citizenship.
Even the majority oipinion dwelled extensively on a long and relatively stable legal history of citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.
But the majority confused congress acting on its legitimate power with the actual text of constitution.
The constitution conditioned citizenship by birth to being subject to the jurisdiction of the united states. Absolutely that means if you are the child of us citizens born on us soil – you are a citizen by Right. But that long legal history does NOT support “subject to the juridiction of” as being incredibly narrow. The narrowest reading of it is – if you have diplomatic immunity your children born in the US are not citizens. But the law has excluded all foreign embassy workers, and all foreigners in the US working for foreign govenrments. That includes LOTS of people who have no diplomatic immunity – and that means “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” must mean something beyond – subject to prosecution for violating US laws.
I think the text of the 14th amendment allows congress to restrict birthright citizenship of citizenship tourists and the children of illegal aliens – but the president does not.
@ John Say,
You keep wanting to distinguish tourists as a separate category that the 14th amendment does not apply to. That is fundamentally and constitutionally wrong.
A tourist is 100% subject to the jurisdiction of the United States the exact second they step onto American soil. If a tourist commits a crime, they are arrested by American police, tried in American courts, and sent to American prisons. That is the literal definition of being under a country’s jurisdiction. The majority opinion explicitly noted that the Court cannot slice the Constitution into pieces based on a parent’s vacation itinerary.
The only reason the children of foreign diplomats do not get birthright citizenship is because international law recognizes sovereign immunity. Under international law, a foreign diplomat’s embassy and person are legally considered extensions of their home country’s territory—meaning they are explicitly not subject to U.S. domestic jurisdiction. A standard tourist or an undocumented immigrant possesses zero sovereign immunity. They cannot ignore a subpoena, skip out on taxes, or claim immunity from criminal prosecution. Because they lack sovereign immunity, they are fully under U.S. jurisdiction, and their children are protected by the plain text of the 14th Amendment.
The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 applies strictly to children born outside the United States. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives Congress the explicit power to establish rules for Naturalization (how foreign-born people become citizens). Congress has absolute authority to pass laws helping your adopted children, because they were born abroad. But Congress has zero power to pass a statute that restricts or overrides Birthright citizenship for children born inside the United States. A statute passed by Congress cannot shrink, alter, or dismantle a right guaranteed by the supreme text of the 14th Amendment.
The State Department absolutely has the executive authority to deny a travel visa to a foreign national. If a pregnant woman is denied entry, she cannot give birth on American soil. But if the State Department does grant her a visa, and she does enter the country, the exact second that child is born on U.S. soil, the 14th Amendment takes over.
The majority did not “confuse Congress acting on its power with the text of the Constitution.” The majority did exactly what strict textualists are supposed to do: they enforced the literal words of the text. The Constitution does not create a two-tiered system of birthright citizenship based on whether a parent holds a tourist visa or a green card. If a baby draws its first breath on American soil, they are a citizen by right—and no act of Congress can change that without a 28th Amendment. That’s the only solution.
No. Patrol borders with military and increase deport speed because there’s millions. If immigration laws aren’t followed on principle then there isn’t law.
This case is lawful immigration at best. It isn’t a 14th case at all.
You’re always worth reading. Is there a sentence diagram for this? Cooperstown? Please post link.
Justice Kavanaugh is on to something. Here’s another take…
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/inevitability-wednesday-july-1-2026
“Today, Folarin Balogun secured a spot on the American soccer team for the World Cup…for a second time….” -JT
A.I. string: ( The 2026 FIFA World Cup is being co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, running from June 11 to July 19, 2026 (39 Days).
How many Soccer Tourist Anchor Babies will be deposited in the United States during this time? )
Re:
There are no official demographic statistics or projections tracking how many children will be born to international soccer tourists during the 2026 tournament. Because the 39-day tournament spans a small window compared to a 9-month human gestation period, any such births would be purely incidental.Data regarding overall birth tourism in the United States does not identify short-term event visitors specifically. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that birth tourism results in roughly \(20,000\) to \(33,000\) births to women on temporary tourist visas annually, which accounts for a fraction of all U.S. births. Independent demographers and agencies such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that these specific figures remain contested and are difficult to track precisely.
—
IMO: More than a Bus load
Does Folarin Balogun owe back taxes? He’s been a citizen for quite some time and probably hasn’t paid a nickel.
“The attacks on Barrett ignored that there are good-faith arguments on both sides of the birthright citizenship case.”
“Good-faith” is doing a lot of lifting here. Normally that applies when one party or both have a significant lack of information on the matter and have drawn contrary conclusions.
It seems unlikely that a Supreme Court Justice, with so many clerks and other advisers would ever have a lack of information.
Therefore any Supreme Court argument must be the result of having differing goals but, since there is only one applicable amendment in this case, only one goal can be aligned with it. Any other goal would be clearly in conflict and, since the Justices are well informed, the only way to pursue that goal is by arguing in bad faith.
They can make a good-faith argument about what they want for lunch, but they can’t have a good-faith argument against what is printed on the menu except by ignorance; an excuse the Justices should not have regarding the US Constitution.
Congress can mandate pregnancy tests for any woman who applies for a visa to enter the US. Congress can also impose draconian criminal penalties for birth tourism and international commercial surrogacy, including imposing life at hard labor sentences for lying to get a visa. If it becomes routine for foreign women who give birth in the US getting sentences of life in prison and losing custody of the child which is then put up for adoption in the US, support might grow for amending the Constitution.
It seems like a whole slate of amendments is needed, including non-gerrymandered congressional districts, tax uniformity, and most importantly – Keep 9.
NotSoOLd: I am sooooooooooooooooooooooo with you on Keep 9.
Thanks, Lin. That’s certainly the most time critical one. I believe the other two are very desirable too:
– Fair Districts: congressional districts must be drawn to solely conform with politically neutral metrics, where those metrics are: compact, continguous, equi-populous, and minimizing of political subdivision splits. This would eliminate all gerrymandering, partisan or otherwise.
– Tax Uniformity: the effective tax rate on a thing cannot depend on the quantity of the thing being taxed. This would impose a flat tax and eliminate deductions. Everyone would pay their fair share of the cost of government, for example, 10% of their income. And the wealthy who can afford sophisticated tax attorneys would not be able to get out of their fair share through tax deductions. Many states already have this in their state constitutions, but this would impose tax uniformity nationwide at the federal and state levels for all states and territories.
‘Fair Districts: congressional districts must be drawn to solely conform with politically neutral metrics, where those metrics are: compact, continguous [sic], equi-populous, and minimizing of political subdivision splits.”
That last part means that if there is any majority, 51:49, then the 51% would win 100% of the representation. Maximizing the splits is what allows for proportional representation. Maybe 100% control from 51% of the population satisfies a group that largely supported people being counted as only 3/5ths human.
Tax uniformity? That is daft. I don’t need to defend $100 in a bank account nearly as much as someone with $100,000,000 in a bank account does. No foreign nation will try to take that $100 from me; I literally don’t need an army to stop that.
On the other hand, losing $100 might leave someone to starve to death, but having only $99,999,900, after taxes, will not. Further, there is no possible way for someone with $100,000,000 to have done 1,000,000 times more work or been 1,000,000 times smarter than the person with $100.
The current national debt is, evenly distributed, $131,000 per person. But let’s try it your way. Let’s tax on gross income, which is how almost everyone, except corporations, are taxed. People don’t get a break on food or rent, why should corporations get a break on labor or material costs?
Perhaps consider a 5% sales tax on all stock and bond purchases/sales. Not the profit, just the transaction. Buy $1,000,000 in SpaceX stock, pay $50,000 in sales tax. Get an allotment in company shares as part of CEO pay, pay sales tax on the value on the day of the transfer.
That last part means that if there is any majority, 51:49, then the 51% would win 100% of the representation.
You’ve made that claim before, and I’ve explained before that it’s wrong. It makes two assumptions are both false: first, that each voter only votes for their party’s candidate, and second, that political parties’ voters are evenly distributed in every square mile of the state. You also overlook that some states already have this requirement built into their state constitutions and the result you claim *never* happens in that state (e.g., New York and Pennsylvania). You need to learn a little bit about political geography before you can make an intelligent comment on this topic. Right now, you know absolutely nothing about it.
Second, you completely misunderstand tax uniformity. It is not the same *amount* from every taxpayer. And it also doesn’t mean the same tax rate on different subjects of taxation. It means the same effective *tax rate* for every payer of a tax on a particular subject of taxation. So, for example, a state could have a 5% personal income tax, a 40% corporate net income tax, and a 3% sales tax, etc.
No one likes “gerrymanmdering” – but trying to fix it has ALWAYS made things worse.
First there is absolutely no truly objective way to determine voting districts. There is no list of “neutral” criteria that can be gamed.
States that have adopted “bipartisan commissions” – have produced maps that lean left pretty uniformly.
ANYTHING that transfers power from the legislature ALWAYS favors the left – even in Red states.
That should be the Collusion Delusion deep state take away Many of those shilling false narratives were at-least nominally republican.
The people in this country are approximately center right. But the institutions in this country go from center left to far left.
Nor is that likely to change – Contra the left – Wealthy Billionaires and the coundations they create – LEAN LEFT.
Even in the instances when Billionaires themselves are on the right – when they die and create foundations and institutions – those INEXORABLY drift left over time.
Ford and Annanberg were extremely conservative – their foundations are hard left today.
This is actually NATURAL. People on the right are attracted to individual freedom and personal success – they are NOT attracted to committees and foundations and institutions.
There is nothing wrong with this – EXCEPT that we should never give government or institutions power that we do not expect to be used by the left.
John Say – you could not be more wrong on this topic. There are four widely accepted politically neutral benchmarks, and some states like New York and Pennsylvania already required adhering to them. They make elections *much* fairer than when partisan gerrymandering was possible. In fact, if anything, they slightly favor conservatives due to the political geography of any state that has a few major population centers and the rest of the state is small towns and rural areas. That describes most states. Why does that slightly favor conservatives? Because Dem voters tend to cluster in the cities, while the rural and small town areas are red – but here’s the catch, the density of the blue clustering in cities is greater than the density of the redness in the rural and small town areas.
In your state of Pennsylvania the state supreme court’s move toward the four metrics I mentioned did help the Dems just because the GOP-controlled legislature had previously engaged in extreme GOP-favored gerrymandering; but in New York the opposite happened. Nationwide, the two major parties battle to rough parity every 10 years. It is a total waste of time and money, and generates distrust in the system. Moving to fair districts nationwide would save all of that time and money, rebuild trust, and ensure that neither party could not “cheat” to gain an advantage at any time in the future.
The national constitution Center – gathered conservatives progressives and moderates together to propose new amendments to the constitution.
This was BEFORE Trumps EO.
Suprisingly there was actually aggreement between consevatives and progressives over two proposed amendments.
Limiting Birthright citizenship
And a legislative Veto
The SAVE Act SHOULD be implimented as a constitutional ammendment.
The Secret Ballot requirements that are already in 38 state constitution should be a constitutional amendment.
A Balanced budget amendment that phases in and has a 2/3 override.
Term limits are near universally favored. My preference is a 25 year TOTAL limit on public service.
That includes both elected and appointed positions, as well as simple govenrment employment.
Further I would count 10 years of State or local service towards any Federal limits. Being an an elected officer should NOT be a carreer.
GEnerally I oppose term limits on SCOTUS and the courts. But the NCC came to a compromise that I can live with.
Permanetly fix the supreme court at 9 justices. and Phase in an 18 year Term over 16 years. During the phase in every 2 years the most senior justice with more than 18 years MUST retire, and the current president replaces them. Current justices are NOT required to retire all at once, and from this point forward Every president will get two Supreme court appointments per term – I can live with this – though I would make the term longer.
OT but good to see!
America’s competitive spirit: USA’s 250 celebration merges civics, history and culture
“President Trump has been closely tied to the initiative, with the administration promoting it as a way to strengthen patriotic education and civic knowledge among youth.”
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/americas-competitive-spirit-trumps-250-celebration-merges-civics-history-and
Your source is JtN? Its outright rightest propaganda. But what do yo care, you’re stupid and don’t understand it anyway.
Oh! NO! Does it hurt your little feelings 8,000 students from all 50 states participated in the initial round? That there was a semi-final round and then the nationals? That there were prizes and White House visits for winners? That the Trump admin is trying to get young people engaged in civics and better educated?
If some other news outlet covered the story, would it still be propaganda? I would say we should check with NPR but we know they are too busy making false reports.
Here’s a comparison for annual participation:
FRC (FIRST Robotics Competition): More than 93,000 students (Ages 14-18).
FTC (FIRST Tech Challenge): More than 109,000 students (Ages 12-18).
FLL (FIRST LEGO League): More than 650,000 participants (Ages 4-16)
Michigan has over 500 teams, something of a standout, but in line with the core of American auto manufacturing and automation of factories. If each team had only 16 participants it would reach that 8,000 mark.
I wondered where the propaganda on CBS had come from. If it’s supposed to appeal to youth, then running it on the network known as “old people” programming isn’t smart, but it does pander to Trump, something the owner of CBS is desperate to do.
Getting on a quiz show isn’t being engaged in civics. Canvasing, attending city and county board meetings, looking at voting records for presently elected candidates – those are civics.
That would be the JTN that has been CORRECT and far ahead of everyone else on myriads and myriads of stories since its founding – Starting with Being CORRECT about the collusion delusion, and way ahead of everyone and CORRECT on the Biden family Ukraine corruption.
I do not care about anyone’s claims of politics with respect to reporters and media outlets.
I care whether they ACCURATELY report stories – particularly ones that other outlets miss or get wrong.
JTN gets Top Marks for those.
Correct is what matters – not ideology
Upstate, this morning I saw and read your absolutely clever and funny post extending and fleshing out our little playwright skills yesterday. I literally laughed out loud. Thanks so much for the fun, as always.
Lin – as did I. And as I mentioned to him, his description reminded me of the plot in Atlas Shrugged.
Lin,
Glad you liked it!
You are welcome! 😉