Let’s review Trump’s unconstitutional order ending citizenship by birth. There’s over a dozen challenges already. 
Protecting the Meaning and Value of Citizenship
Please consider Trump’s executive order on Protecting the Meaning and Value of Citizenship
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.
But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.
(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.
Over a Dozen Lawsuits Already
The Wall Street Journal reports More Than a Dozen States Sue to Stop Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
Attorneys general from more than a dozen states filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship. The lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts, said President Trump’s executive order violates the 14th Amendment which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The attorneys general, in addition to the city of San Francisco, are asking for a preliminary injunction to stop the executive order from taking effect.
“President Trump’s attempt to undermine the fundamental right to birthright citizenship is not just unconstitutional, it is profoundly dangerous,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said Tuesday. She said the executive order would mean children who once qualified for birthright citizenship would now grow up under the threat of deportation. The attorneys general who joined their counterparts in Massachusetts and New York in the lawsuit are from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Reflections on Executive Orders
The claim by Attorney General Letitia James that Trump’s order would strip citizenship is false due to this paragraph: “Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.“
Assuming Trump is going to seal the border, what then is the point to the order?
Also, if Trump can decide this by executive order, then why can’t another president can undo it by executive order?
Historical Background on Citizenship Clause
The Constitution Annotated discusses the Historical Background on Citizenship Clause
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The citizenship provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment may be seen as a repudiation of one of the more politically divisive cases of the nineteenth century. Under common law, free persons born within a state or nation were citizens thereof. In the Dred Scott case, however, Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for the Court, ruled that this rule did not apply to freed slaves. The Court held that United States citizenship was enjoyed by only two classes of people: (1) White persons born in the United States as descendants of
persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, [and who] became also citizens of this new political body,the United States of America, and (2) those who, having beenborn outside the dominions of the United States,had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein. Freed slaves fell into neither of these categories.The Court further held that, although a state could confer state citizenship upon whomever it chose, it could not make the recipient of such status a citizen of the United States. Even a free man descended from a former slave residing as a free man in one of the states at the date of ratification of the Constitution was held ineligible for citizenship. Congress subsequently repudiated this concept of citizenship, first in section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, Congress set aside the Dred Scott holding, and restored the traditional precepts of citizenship by birth.
Civil Rights Act of 1866
The text of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 formed the basis of the fourteenth amendment.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
President Andrew Johnson vetoed the act but Congress overrode the veto.
Two Applicable Phrases
- The 14th Amendment says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof“.
- The Civil Rights Act of 1866 says “and not subject to any foreign power.”
A loss on one is sufficient to kill Trump’s executive order. Trump loses on both.
Subject to the Jurisdiction
The CATO Institute discusses that key phrase in its take Birthright Citizenship Is a Constitutional Mandate.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
For well over a century, all three branches of government have relied on a shared understanding of this provision. People born in the U.S. are citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. An executive order by President Trump cannot erase the original meaning of the Constitution.
Start with the text. When the 14th Amendment was drafted, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” had a settled meaning: It referred to a person who was subject to U.S. law. Foreigners who visit are required to follow American laws. They are, in every sense, subject to U.S. “jurisdiction,” or control. An exception is the children of diplomats, who are immune from American laws. Additionally, certain Native Americans born on sovereign tribal lands were also exempted, though the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made them citizens by birth.
The framers of the 14th Amendment debated the question presented by President Trump’s proposal. During the ratification debates, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the birthright-citizenship proposal: “Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” he asked. “Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?” Sen. John Conness of California answered that the children of Chinese and Gypsy aliens “shall be citizens” and he was “entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.”
Judges have affirmed Conness’s view consistently. In 1898 the Supreme Court adopted it in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The justices held that the 14th Amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory . . . including all children here born of resident aliens.”
It is true—as critics of birthright citizenship are quick to point out—that Wong Kim Ark considered only the status of a child born to lawfully resident parents. Therefore, they contend, the Supreme Court has not resolved the status of a child whose parents are not in the country legally. But this distinction makes no difference. If “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to aliens who are subject to U.S. laws, it does not matter if the parents are in the country legally. The reason such people are called “illegal aliens” is that they are subject to U.S. law, and not in compliance with them.
Open and Shut Case
Regardless of whether one believe birth citizenship should be the law of the land, it is the law of the land, in two different forms, with the meaning of both historically clear.
Trump is wasting time and energy on a battle that will be lost.
If Trump wishes to divide the nation further, he can propose a constitutional amendment.
People cheer Trump (and Biden) for doing things they want. I prefer we stop fighting the constitution.
And I suggest that it would behoove Trump to stick to priorities that got him elected. Instead he is prancing with meme coins and issuing executive orders that will fail, possibly by unanimous decision.
Related Posts
January 20, 2025: Musk Promises “Doge to Mars” But There’s Two Lawsuits Already
January 21, 2025: Trump Demands the US Get Half of TikTok “Otherwise It’s Worthless”
January 21, 2025: A General Level of Disgust Over Trump’s Meme Coins
I believe Trump will win the lawsuits against DOGE. But how successful DOGE will be is another matter.
January 10, 2025: Elon Musk Admits DOGE Can’t Find $2 Trillion In Budget Cuts
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knew that wasn’t possible. He won’t find $1 trillion either.
Mish,
I believe you are correct regarding the outcome when this goes to SCOTUS. However, the decision will be wrong, just as you are wrong, and previous interpretations of court orders have been wrong. You have carefully chosen and emphasized certain quotes but ignored others showing the opposite of your view.
Senator Howard was fairly clear and specific during debate over the 14th that children born to foreigners (i.e. non-citizens) would not automatically be granted US citizenship. The key issue arises out of the meaning of “jurisdiction” in the context of the amendment.
Nearly everyone, including you, believes that jurisdiction refers to being subject to the “laws” of the United States. But, in the debates it was made clear that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was a political term that referred to having a full allegiance to the country. Since foreigners here illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of the country from which they came that allegiance attaches to their children.
Kim Wong Ark addressed a specific situation that related to children of parents who were lawful permanent residents (and incidentally Chinese imperial law forbade its citizens to become citizens of another country). The ruling has incorrectly been interpreted since it was handed down. A reading of the final paragraph is illustrative.
Subsequent immigration laws were attempts to address specific circumstances (many complicated situations) that weren’t (couldn’t be) dealt with in an amendment. As much as they tried, Congress throughout history has tried to anticipate the future by using broad language, but they could not possibly foresee everything.Birthright citizenship is considered the law of the land, but it need not be so.
There is a process for a foreigner to become a US citizen. It is called Naturalization and it requires declaring allegiance to the United States.
Finally, It defies reason to believe that the intent of Congress in passing the 14th amendment was to deny citizenship to foreign diplomats, tourists and others temporarily present/residing but to confer citizenship by birth to illegal aliens. Tourists and diplomats are subject to the “laws” (jurisdiction if you like) of the United States, i.e. they can be charged with a crime, but they are not citizens.
Again, I suspect you are correct that SCOTUS will affirm birthright citizenship firmly cementing it as the law of the land. That does not mean they are correct, simply that they have ruled as such and we, as citizens, must abide by that decision just as we have abided by previous incorrect rulings.
There is no opposite view that makes any sense.
The irony of your post is you seem to agree with your opening sentence.
“I believe you are correct regarding the outcome when this goes to SCOTUS.”
But that is certainly not “wrong”. By definition it is 100% correct!
Let’s consider a hypothetical…
Mother is pregnant with Father’s child when she leaves Cuba and illegally enters the US. Mother dies shortly after childbirth, and an Aunt takes care of the baby, and refuses to return the child to the father, still in Cuba.. Can the father use a court order from Cuba to have his child returned to Cuba?
If so, Cuba has jurisdiction over the child. Assume the parents are legally married in Cuba.
And yes, I realize the ‘jurisdiction issue’ concerns the parents, so I’ve deliberately muddied the waters here.
Too late to edit the original, but a strict reading of the 14th Amendment does NOT mention the status of the parents Just the child born in the US. In that case, each citizenship case of anchor babies would have to be decided based upon whether the parents’ country has jurisdiction over the child if born in another country.
Now, applied to Cuba.
Persons born abroad to Cuban parents are Cuban citizens.
Senator Jacob Howard drafted the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is what he said it meant: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” –Tom Woods
Considering Jacob Howard was a lawyer, he either wasn’t the smartest Senator in the Chamber, or he meant what he said. Only the children of foreign dignitaries are excluded, or children who are citizens of their originating country independent of where they are born.
Venezuela, for example:
Mark LEvin, an actual lawyer, went into this in great detail on his show last night. The only thing really standing in the way is a queasy judicial whose only real defense is “but we always did it this way and we can’t upset everyone” We shall see. Trump has done a lot of “impossible” things recently
Giving citizenship to children born of aliens here illegally is a distinct violation of US Code 8S1324. You can’t have both ways. The alien parents here in violation of US law are subject to the jurisdiction of the states they are legal citizens of. Ditto their children.
You’re correct… the alien parents are in violation.of US law and must be deported. SInce the child is under the jurisdiction of the US, the child remains in the US, and can be adopted. NOT DITTO their children. The US might allow the parents to adopt their child and return to the country with jurisdiction over the parents..
This is what happens when you have congenital idiots in Congress.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Not as cut and dry as you think. Citizens of another country lawfully in US – residence and employment.
Trump hasn’t “divded the nation”, the Democrats have, and self-evidently and consistently, and persistently and determinedly so.
The wording is inviting disingenuous misinterpretation, it’s not clear or likely that the originators intended a free-for-all, they were operating in a time where protestant nuclear families from the Anglo-Saxon world, was the norm.
Moreover, it’s a demented immigration policy for any country to allow “jus soli” citizenship to the children of foreigners. Ireland is another place that invited this invasion. It’s totally destructive of national and ethnic identiy in Ireland, it’s much more serious existentiatial issue for old world and small countries like Ireland in Europe. It’s dumb policy anyway, and invites human rights abuses of child abandonment. There is a very good case for changing this terrible situation, and abolishing jus soli is essential, and not just in America.
I’m repeating other comments but let’s get this language into law (via congress) even as the EO works through the courts.
An illegal boarder crosser (not through a port of entry); is different than birth-tourism, is different than an asylum seeker.
The latter two are “subject to jurisdiction”…the first is “subject to removal”.
If you are “subject to removal” then you are “subject to the jurisdiction”. The only people who are not “subject to the jurisdiction (legal authority) of the USA and its 50 states, are diplomats with diplomatic immunity.
President Trump’s EO isn’t budging. All the challenges are either weak or simply based on falsehoods.
9-0 against Trump IF the Supreme Court even takes the case.
I think there’s a bit more to it than a simple disingenuous misinterpretation of past statements, case law, and clauses in old laws. “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was stated a time when passports didn’t exist, nor many other things. It seems pretty clear that those who wrote this 150 years or more ago, did not mean “subject to” in the contemporary sense of being a tourist… it’s at a time when the concept of a “British subject” is still relatively fresh.
Allowing a situation that encourages anchor babies, is a pretty bad idea… the road to hell being paved with good intentions, much like surrogacy and other things, that filter out inconvenient details, implications and unintended consequences.
America is one thing, but this kind of policy is rapidly destroying the identity of small ethnically homogenous countries in Europe like Ireland or Netherlands, it’s treating countries like corporations with interchangeable parts, and is essentially inhumane and anti-human. It’s not really in interests of children to be separated from their parents as part of a deliberate strategy to bypass and undermine immigration law. Who benefits? Probably those interesting in making money, whether traffickers up front or corporations later on. “birthright citizenship” is a really dumb and destructive notion, along with “preemptive clemency” for poltical ends.
Eg. Two Venezuelan parents (illegal aliens or otherwise) have a child in the USA. the child is a Venezuelan citizen–which has jurisdiction.
This is more complex than it first appears. The originating country of the parents may have a jurisdiction claim on a child born overseas. If only one parent is from the originating country, the jurisdiction claim is more convoluted. It would seem each anchor baby would have to evaluated on a case by case basis to determine ‘jurisdiction.’
There is no law that says you cannot deport the mother.
Yeah, and then by allowing birthright, you are encouraging parents to abandon their children, and deny children human rights, and the government is then complicity in breaching UN human rights… of children, and of lawful immigrants.
https://x.com/pepesgrandma/status/1882093626710278389
May 30, 1866 … the Congressmen who proposed the amendment was crystal clear it DID NOT APPLY to citizens under foreign jurisdictions.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore:
“The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]”
Mr. HOWARD:
“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
➡️ This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
I 100% agree that “families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” are excluded. That was the precise point of the second clause.
Otherwise it is settled.
U.S. birthright citizenship established by 1898 San Francisco case involving Chinatown resident
A 20-year-old man named Wong Kim Ark, born and living in San Francisco’s Chinatown, was denied reentry into the country after a visit to China on the basis of the Chinese Exclusionary Act. Despite rampant discrimination against the Chinese, he sued, saying the 14th Amendment guaranteed his citizenship for having been born here.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ark
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’ 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
Mike, Thanks for pointing out the Ark case. I think it will be reconsidered.
The clear language… “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors” … IOW, foreigners and aliens who have a child are simply not included as a protected class.
1. Were his parents in the USA illegally?
I don’t think so. So different from today’s illegal immigrants.
2. Did they have a permanent domicile in the USA at the time of his birth?
Yes, they did. Illegal immigrants have no permanent domicile in the USA.
3. Were the parents carrying on a business at the time of his birth?
I also believe that the answer to that is yes. Illegal immigrants rarely carry on a business… well maybe some do in the form of gangs, crime, and selling drugs.
So this case differs greatly from the current question regarding illegal immigrants in the USA today.
the judge was wrong, and the judge was an idiot – not the first time that’s happened.
All those videos of illegal immigrants parents waiving Mexican flags during protest – Exhibit A.
Birthright Citizenship Isn’t Real | ZeroHedge
“…advocates of granting birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States
correct… the dumb or disingenuous are misinterpreting the word “subject to”, sometimes deliberately because their agenda is massive immigration for capitalist reasons.
On this topic, Trump is correct. Citizenship is a property right. akin to a partnership interest. The holder owns an undistributed interest in commonly held assets and (alas) liabilities.
You are probably not a citizen if Trump’s proposal was retroactive.
I suspect 80 percent or more of us would not be citizens.
For example, my grandparents came over from Europe after WWI. My dad would not have been a citizen when he was born and carry this forward and neither would I.
This case has already been fought and lost in the Supreme Court over Chinese immigrants.
It’s outright stupid to believe Trump has a chance.
Most people don’t dive a damn about the law, as long the person breaking it is in accordance with what they want. Same with Biden hypocrites.
Nonsense, if your grandparents were legal your parents would be natural born. Trump has a great chance of getting SCOTUS to rule in his favor, that’s why he’s doing this in the first place. 14A wasn’t created for illegals and their anchor babies.
He has a 0% chance
The CURRENT Supreme Court over turned Roe vs Wade. I expect there to be a minimum of 1 vacancy and possibly moreof a liberal justice on the Supreme Court during his term. Legal scholars have said there is an argument if you’re here illegally you don’t get that benefit. This will go to the Supreme Court by 2027.
So put up some money and bet on your position…Oh, sorry US citizens can’t bey on Poly market.
You want him to have 0% chance on this topic, you are pro-free-for-all.
OK then. I’ll bet you $100 at 5000-1 odds. Deal? Should be a no-brainer since the “true odds” are 0 according to you.
“14A wasn’t created for illegals and their anchor babies.” Mike, that is the crux of the matter; well-said.
Absurd argument. Anyone can join a partnership if the legal owners accept the application. Same with legal admission to citizenship. And, as the poster below noted, the property right of citizenship is heritable, like the economic interest in a business.
You are probably talking garbage with most of this comment.
This is not as open and shut as it might seem. What does subject to the jurisdiction mean? If a citizen of the US, or a green card holder, travels to Thailand for sex with a minor he can be prosecuted here. An illegal living here cannot because the law only applies to citizens and legal residents. 8 U.S.C. § 2423(c). It seems that with respect to extrajudicial crimes illegals are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
This has been debated and tested. There is ZERO doubt on the meaning.
And it even came up in the debate itself over the 14th amendment in the Senate.
The Author of the 14A, a congressman from my state, wrote exactly why he penned this Amendment and for what application, it’s no mystery it was for the children of slaves. This is why we have law libraries, the author’s intentions matter.
There was zero doubt that there was a right of substantive due process under the constitution and, therefore, a right to abortion but that didn’t stand did it. If the case is taken up by the supreme court, as currently constituted, there is a good chance that you will be shown to be wrong on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction.” Of course, the court may say Trump couldn’t do it by EO and has to comply with the APA.
If Donald has interpreted the 14A correctly, he doesn’t need the constitutional amendment, and not even a law approved by HoR and Senate. In the case of correct interpretation, executive order is enough. So stay tuned to hear how SCOTUS decides. If subject to jurisdiction equals denizenship, then only natural born children of legal immigrants (=denizens) are entitled to birth-right citizenship ahead of their parents.
Claptrap, there is NON-ZERO-doubt on the meaning.
So, now we have birthright by tourism…
Illegals who come to the US to have babies, and to take advantage of free medical, housing, food, and pay zero in taxes… should also get rewarded with citizenship? LMAO
It would be easier if we set up delivery rooms in US embassies.
This is exactly the same attitude that has enabled a $37 trillion Federal debt.
If the first act in entering the US is an ILLEGAL act, are those the citizens you really want? There is a process which enables LEGAL immigration. If you don’t want to follow the legal process, OPEN THE F*(KING BORDERS without restriction.
Birthright citizenship is a legal fiction. English Common Law did not allow it. But it actually goes back 1000s of years before that. Up until 100 years ago it was not allowed in the US. It was only once the Marxists took over that it began.
Please provide the 14th amendment language that provides for ‘birthright’ citizenship.
I’ll wait.
Historically, that is correct. However, I have a relative that was born in London in 1958, while her father, employed by a foreign company, was working in the country. The family returned home in 1960. In the early 70s when the laws were being changed to define UK citizenship, she received a notice that she needed to declare whether she was a UK citizen. She chose not to.
I am always surprised that the official legislative records of debates over laws are seldom used in legal cases such as this. It is highly unlikely that no one would have seen the “birthright” claims as problematic. I noted that when Aaron Berg, a Clinton supporter, brought the first “birther” suit, the claim was not his father was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, as he was not even a landed immigrant, but on a student visa. Berg’s claim was dismissed by the BS “lack of standing” argument, meaning that the court was running away from the law..
Actually, Trump as this by the balls, and here is why, as you state yourself:
You are delusional – but believe what you want
Actually, you’re misinformed, but believe what you want: GIGO. And no, heels up Kamala was not eligible to be VP or C&C since both her parents when she was born were not US citizens. Have a nice day. .
I agree. Kamala and Nimarata would’ve both faced serious challenges had they been elected.
Excellent! Spew My Truth!
Ignore me, I was climaxing with my girlfriend.
The same may apply to you on this topic.
I agree with the order, but it needs to come from Congress, not the President. Executive orders are being used by both parties to bypass the legislature and it needs to stop.
exactly
Assume an alien is crossing the river to the US. She is pregnant and due to give birth any moment. In fact, the reason she is crossing is to give birth in the US so that her child will become a US citizen. But, halfway across, her time has come and she gives birth within the banks of the shallow river. She continues, with assistance, to cross and brings the newborn to shore. Is the child a US citizen? Can two illegal aliens create a US citizen? Should they be able to do so? If the illegal parents are deported, does their child go with them?
These are questions of importance and we need the Supreme Court to sort them out. When the 14th Amendment was drafted, it’s purpose was to provide citizenship to former slaves, not to the millions of children of illegal aliens.
A child born to American parents in any foreign country is an American citizen, not a citizen of the foreign country. There is no reason it shouldn’t be the same in the US.
absolutely agree with you.And not just slaves but American Indians as well.
When drafting the 14th amendment travel and illegal migration that far was not an option!! So in know way does this mean the intention they are interpreting it to be, coming here and having a baby does not automatically make your baby a U.S. Citizen. Mike is interpreting this statuate in the modern world. And while technically he most likely is correct there is no way in hell the founding fathers and after intended this to happen. No way.
But as mentioned by someone here, this has to been addressed by the Supreme Court, then Congress to re-define the interpretation, I wont say amend
Why do you think the Democrats want to stuff the Supreme Court Mike??
This is probably thee biggest reason.
No, a child born to US citizens overseas is NOT automatically given US citizenship. See my post in this thread.
You say, if Trump can do this by an EO why can’t a future POTUS undo it by an EO? The purpose of the EO is to get this to the SCOTUS. In my opinion, it doesn’t hurt to try. Once the SCOTUS has ruled on the issue, it will be settled (unless a future SCOTUS reverses itself). Then a future POTUS will not be able to undo the ruling by an EO.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/birthright-citizenship-isnt-real
Other thoughts…
If they enter illegally and are not prosecuted, they are obviously not subject to US jrisdiction.
If they enter illegally and are not ‘subject’ to the IRS, and registering for military service,
I’ve urged ending our abused Anchor Baby policy for decades. As 60 Minutes reported, even women from China have been using their vacation trip to to America to engage in this! Having a child born in the US gives immediate keys to the welfare kingdom which is heavily abused. Fewer Hispancs & other cultures today assimiliate into our culture but instead reap as many freebies as possible [look at Omar’s district] Frankly, the folks who created this didn’t face the overwhelming waves of illegal immigrants who come here to grift our system. Does any other nation grant this?
In California Its been a business for chinese for the last 30 yrs
At issue is what “subject to jurisdiction” means. If it is common law, then it goes back to the English common law, where a legal resident – called a denizen – was subject to the laws, was loyal to the king, and had to pay a fee for the privilege of denizenship granted. Of course, a denizen couldn’t vote, and he could even not bequest upon his death. But naturalizations were difficult as requiring a private bill in parliament. So almost everyone not natural born was a denizen. An illegal was obviously not a denizen.
Anyway, based on this all blacks were denizens even if slaves before 1865 (as reflected in the US constitution in apportionment of House of Rep seats), so the transferral of citizenship through the 14th amendment is no problem. Same for the US born children of Chinese denizens in California in the late 19th century.
In the other hand, tourists and illegals are not denizens… So their kids wouldn’t be entitled to.
I think it’s headed to the Supreme Court. Legal scholars are saying that there is an argument that if you’re in the US illegally you don’t get this right. In the meantime it will deter illegals from crossing illegally hoping they can stay because their child is a US citizen. If they get that right then Trump should allow the child to stay and be put in an orphanage (not live with another relative) and the parents be deported.
Why should the American taxpayer fund an orphanage for illegal children? I would prefer to fund an orphanage in the native country of the parents, if we fund anything at all. Frankly, I’m tired of paying taxes to fund anything having to do with illegals.
If we HAVE to keep the kid then we need to put them some where. I don’t want them to be able to go with another relative as I don’t want the illegals to have any incentive to come and do this. We don’t have to pay for a special orphanage. They can go in an existing one or homeless shelter in CA or NY so their tax payers have to pay. It’s cheaper to pay for an orphanage for 18 years for the child then give all other “free” benefits.
I’m in NY. Mark this post down, I’ll admit I am wrong if so
NYS will be asking the Federal Govt for a $30 billion bailout to cover the costs for all the free food, lodging, cell phones, medical care, etc
Now they were getting around this by the Fed government raiding whereever they could grab it from another fed agency, Like Fema for instance. But I’m sticking with $30 billion
Children born of foreign diplomats do not get US citizenship but are NOT fully immune from US laws as Mish implies.
1/ At any time a foreign country can strip a diplomat or their family of diplomatic immunity making that child born here subject to US laws.
2/ Anytime a diplomat or their family member commits a crime they are still subject to aspects of US law. For example if a drunk kid of a diplomat decides to do a home invasion and the homeowner shoots him dead then the dead person was subject to the Castle Doctrine laws of the US
3/ Police and other officials can stop them from breaking the law if they are committing a crime . Think the cops won’t shoot dead the driver of the truck in New Orleans if it had diplomatic tags?
We will see, said the blind man to his deaf friend.
Who knows what is in Amy Comey Barrett’s closet is the question.
not only going to the gutter but much of what Trump wants is going to be a slooooow grind https://www.semafor.com/newsletter/01/21/2025/semafor-flagship-move-fast-flaky-things?utm_source=nowshare&utm_medium=flagship&utm_campaign=flagshipnumbered2
Here in Canada we have pregnant women flying in from China to deliver their baby in Vancouver area hospitals. The child becomes an instant Canadian Citizen and then the mother and child fly back to China. After the child becomes an adult they have no problem coming back into Canada. The Chinese parents have paid no taxes to Canada over all the time the child has grow up in China.. But their child is fully eligible for all education and healthcare as soon as they migrate back to Canada. This citizenship strategy has been going on for over 20 years by Chinese nationals. The Canadian Government has many complaints about this practice for 2 decades already but ignores it for some reason. Australia had a similar problem but changed their Citizenship rules about 25 years ago to stop this practice. Hopefully our usually leftist Canadian governments will one day decide to copy Australia. Don’t know how widespread this problem is in America but it’s an open Citizenship strategy that Canada readily accepts from any foreign nationals.
“…2 decades already but ignores it for some reason”
I’ll give you one guess what the reason is. And no it’s not something stupid like it’s in the Canadian Charter.
It’s called Birth tourism.
Needs to stop here and in Canada.
Not sure about Canada but can’t do that in the US anymore. They won’t let pregnant women fly into the US after the 7th month.
Blah, blah, blah. Make it real, bring back the draft, male and female.
It was intended for American Indians, freed slaves and there children, not for any pregnant woman who can make it over the border. Original intent matters.
Agreed . Now, can we apply the same logic to the 2nd amendment?
Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the birthright-citizenship proposal: “Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” he asked. “Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?” Sen. John Conness of California answered that the children of Chinese and Gypsy aliens “shall be citizens” and he was “entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.”
Looks like the intent was very clear
Doesn’t hurt to try. At the very least it distracts a percentage of the nutjob zealots determined to ruin the country.
and this is why we have the 3 equal but separate branches of government.
time for the judicial branch to weigh in on the issue
“Some are more equal than others.”
I worked for a large German company and it was common for the higher ups and connected within the company to send their pregnant wife’s here for the sole purpose of birthing a dual-citizen baby. Lots of benefits down the road made it worth the cost of a nice hotel for a month or so. It will take an amendment to straighten it out, but I would vote for it.
That was some time ago, I assume.
It should be noted that when the Constitution was drafted and well beyond the effective date of the 14th Amendment, America had open borders. It’s only when you get to the period between 1917-1924 when Congress begins passing legislation to apply conditions and then specific quotas by country of origin (1924). So the 14th Amendment was not written to account for what we today consider to be illegal immigration. The Supreme Court’s conservatives would have to make a massive u-turn in their originalist approach to interpreting constitutional text to argue otherwise. The text says what the text says and the text says that if you were born here you are a citizen. Nothing is stopping Congress or the States from amending the constitution. That is a heavy lift, but not an impossible one. But that is what it would take to end citizenship by birth.
Some comments have focused on the court’s over-turning of Roe to demonstrate that the court could very well back Trump. But that is a mid-read of what the court did in Roe. The court did not make abortion illegal. It said only that there’s no constitutional basis for abortion but you, the states, can do what your state legislatures want to do. You can’t throw birthright citizenship to the states. This is a federal matter and only that.
Here, the constitutional text is crystal clear, like it or not. And if you are in the not-like camp, then you change it by amending the constitution. But that takes time, energy and a whole hell of a lot of work. Is the juice worth the squeeze?
I’m with Mish on this one!
Regarding your good remark on Roe v. Wade:
I’ve been told by lawyers who have argued before the Supreme Court that the ‘right to (bodily) privacy’ as used in Roe v. Wade is 1) a real long stretch to extract from anywhere in the Constitution and 2) one can argue that the logical outcome is that any crime that requires a search warrant violates the ‘privacy right’ and so is not a crime, basically. Of course, that’s another big stretch but the legal argument has at least some (slight) merit, indicating that ‘privacy right’ is pretty much a legal fantasy.
Consider: having been of draft age during Vietnam I can say with a vast amount of confidence that the govt can send you to die in a pointless undeclared (read, illegal) war on a whim. Which is sort of a big violation of privacy, I’d say. Also, the usual feminist thing about ‘controlling our bodies’ would only be taken seriously by someone (women) who never had to register for the draft. Really, the notion is ludicrous. The right to ‘body control’ simply doesn’t exist, at least for people with a Y chromosome.
Roe v. Wade was an example of the court pulling ‘a right’, privacy, out of its butt and pretending the ‘control of body’ right has any sort of existence. Besides the questionable usurpation of the rights of the states. The right (privilege) to an abortion requires an entirely different legalist basis than what is normally broadcast.
I’m not debating abortion rights per se here, just pointing out that the court was on solid legal ground to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I actually would agree with you on Roe. Even the late Justice Ginsberg had issues with Roe. In her public comments at various forums she felt that the controversy would be endless by upholding the federal right. She seemed much more comfortable with this being addressed at the state level. Oddly, Trump and Ginsberg would mostly agree.
Why should people in different states have different rights? States aren’t individual countries.
Abortion is just one thing among many that should be addressed at the national level, in order that all residents of these “united” states have the same rights, are treated equally and the same, regardless of physical location.
Each state has different laws even though we live in the same country. If you don’t like the laws in a state you can move to another state.
Looks like Trump is going to take this to its logical extension then. Tough luck for those experiencing disasters in poorer states, like say, MI, LA, AL, KS, OK, etc. [lol]
—
Actually yes, they are like different countries, just like my NJ gun laws are different from West Virginia’s.
Where do you live Fred? I want to hear your reaction when your state experiences a disaster and Trump might say “that’s YOUR responsibility. Don’t turn to the Federal government for help any longer”. (see my reply to Laura above).
Would you care to reconsider your response?
The constitution is clear on this — any power not specifically allocated to the Federal government in the Constitution belongs to the states. The Federal government has trampled all over this, but this Supreme Court will probably not be supportive of further such trampling.
Goes to show that you know very little about the US Constitution.
I don’t have to “know” anything to disagree with the source and advocate for a better and more fair solution, Slick.
You have to know the law on order to formulate a “better” solution to determine if it is legal.
The law says nothing about fairness either.
Huh. Interesting information, thanks!
Wanted to thank and compliment this comment, was incredibly grounded and well thought out. I find it hard to separate emotions from facts on this one.
If you want meme coins I have 1 oz silver (99.9 percent pure) Maple Leafs, with that gal Elizabeth II on them. Some still in sealed tubes by the Royal Bank of Ottawa. Grand daughter wants to go to college. Bids ????
‘I prefer we stop fighting the constitution’
What Biden and the democrats did is subvert the intention of our forefathers. This begs for a constitutional amendment.
I suspect that the original intent of the 14th Amendment Section 1 was to give citizenship to the freed slaves and to their descendants. But the Congress of the day was probably too embarrassed to use such limiting language. I think we can all agree that the executive order will end up having its day at the Supreme Court. In 1866, there were no immigration quotas yet so the concept of anchor babies was not relevant.
In the 19th century, many countries freed their slaves, but the US was the only one to immediately give all those illiterate people the vote. It wasn’t because of their liberality–indeed, it had horrible consequences; it was because it was the only way Lincoln’s Republican could hope to rule the conquered South.
It is in the constitution and likely won’t be able to be rolled back without an amendment. In a sane world, however, some might consider the plethora of other nations that practice birthright citizenship. Nobody is talking about it, but I have seen conflicting info on how regular this where anyone can jump the border and have the child and suddenly child is a citizen (and in the US, generally family is let in to care for child).
From World Population Review:
The following countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Child, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Yep, real power players in the game like Fiji and Lesotho. And, this is a US constitutional issue. I don’t see what other nations do has any bearing.
You are correct, I don’t see how birthright citizenship can be changed without an amendment….. I think there’s also an issue of dual citizenship which I think needs to be clarified. Not sure as things stand now that’s legit.
I probably sounded kind of snarky there, my apologies, I didn’t mean it.
In today’s social media world, that was not the least bit snarky. My question … are all birth-right citizenships created equal? That is, in those countries, if someone comes in illegally and has a child, is that child a citizen? Here, they come in, have the child .. and then we let the whole family come in.
Most of those were formerly ruled by the monarch of England, where they would have been British subjects. Some would have been subjects of the monach of Spain. This seems more like a legacy of European emipires.
Fascinating that it’s almost a complete and exclusive list of Western Hemisphere countries.
I get that many think an open border and a welfare state are compatible … but I still wonder if all those doing it include folks who are not legally in the country.
If Trump says he wants his minions to vote for this new amendment, I betcha it will pass in record time.
He would have to wrangle 34 states to call for a national convention to propose new amendments. Then 38 of the 50 states would have to vote for the amendment.
Whether or not you are right, Mish (and I didn’t know you were an expert on 14A), it is important to get a current ruling from SCOTUS on this controversial issue, which strikes most Americans as senseless in the current context of illegal immigration. Courts do reverse or clarify prior jurisprudence sometimes. If it gets settled by the current SCOTUS (same or differently than what you claim),then it could also be important for how our immigration and border policies get implemented going forward, in light of that clarification. It is worth some lawyer hours to find out.
I would argue it’s not controversial. Nevertheless, the Court would be in a bit of a bind if it takes this on and affirms Trump’s contorted interpretation. The Court would need to revert to “intent”‘ on the 14th Amendment because the text is not controversial while the intent maybe to some, although I think not. And if the Court backed “intent” with respect to birthright citizenship, then let’s all jump into the “intent” wagon on the 2nd Amendment while we are at it. And that’s an easy one if you are in the “intent” camp because the framers tell us very clearly what the intent is in the first part of the 2nd amendment clause: It’s all about arming state militias to defend the young country. Today the Court ignores that intent. It just sees the text after the comma and says, “see, the text says that you have a right to bear arms and we the court could care less about intent.” And that is indeed what the text says even if a departure from the “intent” of the framers. The birthright text, independent of intent, is most clear. It says what it says. Can we have a court that picks and chooses when it wants to revert to constitutional intent? Perhaps we are already there. I hope not!
You say that, Mish, but this is the court that overturned Roe versus Wade. This is a conservative court. This court might surprise you. This court might rule that people who cross our border illegally are not citizens of the United States and are not subject to its jurisdiction. They might rule that these people are still citizens of the country from whence they came.Thus, this court might rule that children born to them are in that same boat. I hope that they do so.
If a diplomat should have a child in the US, is that child automatically a US citizen? Do the parents of such a child have to formally ask their home country to change the citizenship of the child?
Is this situation negotiated separately with every country for which the US maintains diplomatic relations?
The makeup of the Court is irrelevant.
Roe vs. Wade was a court case – much different than a Constitutional item.
It doesn’t matter if the parents of this kid are citizens or not. Anyone born in this country is an automatic citizen. PERIOD.
The SCOTUS cannot waffle their way around this. A constitutional amendment is need to effect a change.
I disagree, and a court justice who cleaves to original intent of the amendment’s framers would not, I believe, have any trouble ruling that birthright citizenship of an illegal alien is not addressed by the 14th amendment. The “marketing” of the amendment to the American people did not address this issue — it was all about former slaves. Thus, it could be argued that the extension of citizenship rights to the children of illegals is a fraudulent bamboozling of the populace (through their legislatures or constitutional conventions) at that point in time. To me, if we want to give citizenship to these children, we need to enact another amendment.
Border wall step one.
Deport all criminal illegal aliens step two.
Military at border step three.
EASY
By the way, this country is broke.
You are never “broke” when you can print your own money good the world over.
You miss every shot you don’t take. Take 100 shots and miss 5? I’ll take it.
Even if 95 miss, the 5 that stick might be worth it.
The CATO Institute is a group of theoretical dreamers who think if Bastiat said it then it should be an appendix to St John’s gospel. Quoting Senator John Connes as if he is the wellspring of 14A meaning is ridiculous.
The primary author of the Amendment, Jacob Howard (MI) made it as clear as Humel crystal, in transcribed debates over the amendment, that the principal at question was JUS SOLI vs JUS SANGUINIS, soil vs blood and the 14th was referring to the blood of newly freed slaves, BORN in the United States. SPECIFICALLY. To argue against this as you and so many others have done is simply ignorant of the history of the drafting of the 14th A.
The best book ever written on the 14th and what it has done to American jurisprudence is Raoul Berger’s “Government By Judiciary”. Berger, a Russian immigrant, (read online here: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/mcdonald-government-by-judiciary-the-transformation-of-the-fourteenth-amendment ) is the world’s leading scholar on the 14th Amendment. Here’s some relevant debate Berger transcribes in his book.
“Howard advanced a counterproposal, the present introductory sentence, “All persons born in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Wade then withdrew his proposal.28
Presumably the Howard formulation struck Wade as a satisfactory substitute for, not a repudiation of, his own proposal. Although the Negro had been emancipated, the Dred Scott decision threw a shadow over his citizenship;29
the matter had been a source of interminable argument. Trumbull wished “to end that very controversy, whether the Negro is a citizen or not.” 30
Howard stated that his definitional amendment of §1 “settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.” And he further explained, “we desired to put this question of citizenship and the rights of citizens and freedmen under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power” of those who would “expose the freedmen again to the oppression of their old masters,” 31
thus confirming that his definition was not a sub rosa abandonment of the paramount goal throughout: protection of the resident Negro against State discrimination
In sum, the purpose of the framers was to protect blacks from discrimination with respect to specified “fundamental rights,” enumerated in the Civil Rights Act and epitomized in the §1 “privileges or immunities” clause. To achieve that purpose they made the black both a citizen “of the United States and of the State in which he resides.” They did not intend by the addition of State citizenship to diminish the rights they had been at such pains to specify, but the better to secure them. The notion that by conferring dual citizenship the framers were separating said rights of a citizen of the United States from those of a State citizen not only is without historical warrant but actually does violence to their intention. Fessenden stated that the definition was framed “ to prevent a State from saying that although a person is a citizen of the United States he is not a citizen of the State.” 36
He did not mean to safeguard State citizenship in order to leave blacks at the mercy of Southern States. It was precisely their abuse of the freedmen that led to the Amendment.”
Arguing that the geographic location of a woman’s birth canal being in the United States, who owes allegiance to another country, makes her offspring a citizen of this UNION of states, is regicidal, historically inaccurate and just plain stupid.
Trump is right to try and ring sanity back to CITIZENSHIP and how it’s obtained.
Dispute the logic instead of making an ad hominem attack on CATO.
You can’t.
The source you list is absurd and this has already been settled by the Supreme Court
But believe what you want
Well citizenship to people born of a US citizen parent is not guaranteed.
Few people know that.
If you are a US citizen and live outside of the US for a certain number of years and during those years you are not either working for the US government or the military you do not pass on your US citizenship to your offspring. They do not qualify for it.
When you report birth of your children to the US consulate overseas they require you to list your place of residences while overseas and what you were doing.
Once the data is confirmed then US citizenship for the child will be confirmed or denied.
Raoul Berger is absurd? Come on Mish, he’s the world’s leading scholar on 14A. I don’t “believe” anything, “birthright citizenship” is not the result of the 14th Amendment’s author’s intentions just as Miranda, Loving and Roe weren’t either!
Tom Homan says this is going to Supreme Court.
They have started rounding up for deportation and will include collateral’s present at sites they raid.
Advisory board of Homeland security all got fired for misallocation of funds and other mishandling of monies.
An outstanding first day in office President Trump
This will land up in the Supreme Court. The question is whether the constitution provides birth rite citizenship to illegals having a kid. This could go either way.
“…land up in the Supreme Court.”
As it should
I would hope the court would direct congress + president to write actual policy regarding specific cases like this so that we could have it properly enshrined as official law rather than being endlessly legislated via the courts.
I can’t understand why Trump is getting rid of Linda Fagan. She has more medals that Patton, Audie Murphy, Pershing, Eddie Rickenbacker, Sgt. York, U.S. Grant and Washington – combined.
Silly woman won’t kiss the ring.
Sorry, climaxing with my girlfriend again.
Is there one in her fruit salad for picking her nose?
So, do you have to get the entire ball over the goal line for a touch down or just part of the ball? In field hockey, half the ball is not a goal. Etc. Imagine being here on a student visa, knocked up, and boom another citizen. Were you really subject to the jurisdiction of the US?If you come into the country illegally, why wouldn’t it be a form of invasion? You’re not a citizen and would then be an enemy of the constitution. I don’t think this is so cut and dry. But today, just shouting constitution and rights, and those are anything you want them to be.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Knocked up foreign students and illegal immigrants coming here to have babies are both examples of birth tourism (even if the knocked up foreign student might be accidental).
In both cases those babies should not be citizens.
In all seriousness, born to the land was the criterion inherited from English Common Law. It was the understanding of the founders. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th A was specifically for those not subject thereof – ie foreign diplomats and their families . Trump’s going to need a constitutional amendment.
Also Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen.
Kasich mentioned that in 2016, but precedent had been set 8 years prior. .
George Romney, Mitt’s much more capable old man, was born in Mexico to US citizens, lived there until he was a few years old. Never any question about being a US citizen when he almost beat Nixon for the nomination in 1968. Pretty sure Ted is covered there…. For the matter of that kids born outside the US to say, Chinese parents, who are adopted, are without question US citizens. I’m not sure about the legalities of that, whether ‘naturalized’ or ‘native born’.
1876: well after the 14th amendment Custer is wiped out by Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. Both were born (almost for sure) in Lousiana Purchase Territory and with no reservation treaties in place would, I think, have been considered to be “subject to jurisdiction’. But neither were ever accused of treason hence whether they were citizens is a bit hazy, at least in theory.
It’s not whether George Romney was a citizen. It’s whether he was a natural born citizen. He wasn’t. Nor was McStain. Also Ted Cruz’s father was not a citizen and there’s also a good chance his mom gave up her U.S. citizenship when she married a Brit and lived in the UK for years before giving birth to ol’ Ted.
Ted Cruz’s father was born in Cuba. Ted was born in Canada. Where does the UK come into this picture?
Ah, I didn’t know any of that about Cruz, very interesting. Thanks!
I didn’t word my reply very well and I had thought Cruz was in the same case as Romney. I recall there was about two days in the press about whether George Romney was a natural born citizen and the popular verdict was that he was. Of course, once you get beyond that point (grandpa was a native born cit, but neither mom or dad ever set foot in the US, etc) then I’d imagine things can get pretty hazy. Better for the SC to clear that up sooner than later.
Just my mostly ignorant opinion, and I sure could be wrong, but I don’t see the 14th as being airtight. I’m waiting for my SC nomination from DJT but the phone hasn’t rung yet.