As predicted in this corner, a District Court quickly blocked Trump’s unconstitutional order eliminating birthright citizenship. 
Lawfare Media reports Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order Nationwide
On Jan. 23, District Judge John C. Coughenour of the Western District of Washington at Seattle granted an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order by the attorneys general of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, enjoining President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. Trump’s executive order states that citizenship is not automatically extended to those born on American soil and that it is instead contingent on the citizenship status of a child’s parents. In their emergency motion, the plaintiffs alleged that Trump’s order violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
During a hearing on the matter, Judge Coughenour said of Trump’s executive order, “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
Blatantly Unconstitutional
Judge Coughenour cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898, and Regan v. King 1943.
The restraining order was good for 14 days. I take that to mean arguments will be heard quickly and the whole thing will be tossed by then.
Trump’s Executive Order Ending Birth Citizenship Is Headed to the Gutter
On January 21, I commented Trump’s Executive Order Ending Birth Citizenship Is Headed to the Gutter
Let’s review Trump’s unconstitutional order ending citizenship by birth. There’s over a dozen challenges already.
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.
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.
I cited the 14th amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The 14th Amendment says “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.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 says “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.”
Both phrases need no clarification. The statements are clear in historical context to anyone to bothers to look.
Both clause pertain to foreign diplomats in the US who give birth in the US.
1866 Senate Discussion of the 14th Amendment
The Senate explicitly discussed birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.
In a floor debate on May 30, 1866. Senator Edgar Cowan “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?”
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.”
CATO comments
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.
Every case since has affirmed citizenship, especially United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898, and Regan v. King 1943.
Regan v. King
Also consider Regan v. King
Plaintiff, a citizen of the United States and of the State of California, a registered voter of San Francisco, sues the Registrar of Voters of the City and County of San Francisco, alleging that more than “2600 Japanese of the full blood born in the United States and the State of California, of alien parents born in the Empire of Japan,” are erroneously registered to vote in San Francisco. He further alleges that his rights and privileges as an elector, secured to him by law, are impaired by permitting ineligible persons [Japanese] to exercise the rights and privileges of electors of the State of California. He prays that the Registrar be directed to strike the names of all Japanese from the register of voters on the ground that they are enemy aliens, citizens of Japan, and therefore ineligible to citizenship and the right to vote.
Defendant Registrar answers that Japanese born here are citizens of the United States and as such are entitled to be registered as voters, and asks to be dismissed with his costs.
This case is exceptional because the sole question it presents to this court is one which has been definitely decided by the United States Supreme Court: Is a person of the Japanese race, born within the United States, a citizen? The question has been answered in the affirmative in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890; Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 54 S. Ct. 281, 78 L. Ed. 664; and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S. Ct. 884, 83 L. Ed. 1320.
Counsel for plaintiff frankly stated that he was asking this court to overrule the leading case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, because he believed the decision was erroneous. Since the decision was rendered it has been twice cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. California, supra, and in Perkins v. Elg, supra. In the Morrison case Justice Cardozo, speaking for the Court, said [291 U.S. 82, 54 S. Ct. 283, 78 L.Ed. 664]: “A person of the Japanese race is a citizen of the United States if he was born within the United States.” In the Perkins case, Chief Justice Hughes delivering the opinion, it was held that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States.
Very Few Respect the Law
It is clear Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional. MAGA supporters don’t give a damn. They are willing to go along with anything Trump says or does.
This is no different that Democrats cheering Biden’s repeated flouting of the Supreme Court on student debt cancellations.
Hardly anyone looks beyond what they want.
Regarding citizenship: We may need a debate on what should be law, but there should be no debate on what is the law.
Unfortunately, we have partisan cheers from the Left and Right when presidents make unconstitutional executive orders, trying to hit home runs with the base.
Both Biden and Trump II said they would be uniters. Both are confirmed liars.
The election is over. Might I suggest we stop campaigning? There is no economic or partisan benefit to throwing red meat to a pack of howling hyenas.
If anything, this move by Trump may make it harder for Trump to get a deal on immigration.
Fortunately, this will be over quick, just as I stated.
Meanwhile …
Trump “Will Demand Interest Rates Drop Immediately”
In case you missed it, please note Economically Clueless Trump “Will Demand Interest Rates Drop Immediately”
Trump has done some great things, especially on DEI and energy. But his EO on birthright citizenship and interest rates are at best terribly reckless.
Please see above link for discussion of Trump at Davos and his statements on interest rates.
It’s a terrible decision by the court, and obviously should be challenged, and a way found to fix this ridiculous law that allows tourists and people who accidentally cross the border obtain citizenship without any reasonable or formal vetting process.
The 2nd amendment is unambiguous and yet the right is severely curtailed by Leftist states because they fear anything that smacks of independence from the citizenry. Why Should the 14th Amendment be taken as any more sacrosanct the the 2nd?
Not sure if this will be the case that limits birthright citizenship but you can be sure they will find one. If diplomats children cannot have birthright citizenship, then it stands to reason there could be other classes of people where it is limited.
Both sides throw stuff on the wall to see if it sticks. This had no sticking power but it did get the conversation started.
A better one to address right now is dual citizenship with a focus on double dipping. Obama for example went to school in Kenya for free but the benefit was only for Kenyans. Either become Kenyan or pay the costs. Taking the benefit would be regarded with the extreme measure of losing US Citizenship. This would curb much of the current nonsense.
If you voted based upon Party and NOT the Character of your Candidates, then you are blindly trusting them.
If you CONTINUE supporting them, even in the Face of overwhelming evidence questioning their Characters or worse (actions), then you are a cretin.
I am unsure about anything on the web. Was this written just to get visits? I think it’s fine to note that the a Congressman in favor of birthright citizenship for gypsies said so. Or, that the SCOTUS have made decisions on this prior. However, when are things so that makes them correct.
I think the better argument is that it’s an uphill battle for anything because of the previous rulings. To denounce that this is only about MAGA is off-base. I’m sure it has to do with it no doubt, he is Trump. But, there’s quite of bit of debate and record that show that not all judges and language sponsors intended this to be a free-for-all in birthright citizenship. How many other countries have this problem? Even if some do, why can we not point out that free things and subsidies here are attracting foreigners to come have babies here.
As much as is railed upon here about how much things cost, efficiencies, etc. You’d think we’d see that it’s cheaper to change the law than to keep birthright citizenship.
Without understanding, they form spontaneously into herds, in obedience to the petty ideology. They would far rather kill than have to think. Georges Bernanos.
Since some embrace this [which can be halted w/ sufficient Congressional support] crap -which cost taxpayers $136 billion-We should find an easier route to halting the welfare freeloaders-CUT OFF the MONEY; no fed or state funds to these criminals…that would help halt this scam perpetuated on taxpayers.
– Trump’s executive order states that citizenship is not automatically extended to those born on American soil and that it is instead contingent on the citizenship status of a child’s parents.
> In todays World (2025) and not yesteryear in (1868) a whole lot has changed. “One Must Ask Themselves” if they “Changed Enough” due to unforeseen circumstances at the time of 1868 when we were walking for the most part, to alter “The Intent” of that law?
– Trump’s Executive Order Ending Birth Citizenship Is Headed to the Gutter
> But “Should It” is the Much Larger Question, isn’t it? Should it be?
– The 14’th Amendment that was “Adopted on July 9, 1868”. That 14’th Amendment?
> Do you know when the First Flight took place around the World was? That would be a flight capable of carrying passengers to another Country.
– On April 6, 1924, eight U.S. Army Air Service pilots and mechanics in four airplanes left Seattle, Washington, to carry out the first circumnavigation of the globe by air. They completed the journey 175 days later on September 28, after making 74 stops and covering about 27,550 miles. Let that sink in for a moment, and then ask yourselves, How Many could arrive in the U.S. in order to make the claim. Nearly Zero? How many made the truck back then? Nearly Zero?
> Do you know when the first Cars were built on assembly lines and mass produced?
> Do you know when the first Planes were built on assembly lines and mass produced?
“Same Exact Question” Arises… How Many Came (few)? Was it an issue (no)? Did the law get used much at all (No)
“NOW TODAY” let’s ask those “Same Exact Questions” shall We?
“Same Exact Question” Arises TODAY… How Many Came (MILLIONS)? Was it an issue (YES)? Did the law get used much at all (YES) or
>> Still think Times “HAVE NOT” changed enough to change the law. Way more people taking advantage of a law to gain access to a country they are not cir of, and shouldn’t be able to drive over here on Monday, drop a baby on Tuesday and be a citizen on Wednesday WTF!
Is it just Mw, or do a lot of you get what I am stating, and obvious changes need to be made “Immediately” to stop this influx of invaders, which is what they are!
P.S. Do American Taxpayers “Foot The Bill” for this blatant foolishness with time? Does the American Citizen Agree With This use of their Tax dollars? I think NOT!
– It NEEDS to be reviewed and very carefully looked at, and How It “Affects American Citizens Today Vs. 1868” is ALL I am saying…
Well for the ones that don’t get it giving away your rights without a thought here’s some samples ,good bye to the Miranda rights search and seizure without a warrant from a judge wait some are suggesting is a good idea to end citizenship rights good lord. I wander what will happen when a new administration comes and they want to deport all MAGA people and their ideas because they were stupid enough to open the doors of a new and beautiful constitution.
Good point that the amendment was not created with the travel abilities today. Much like the Amnesty provision of Immigration allowing anyone being threatened by death be allowed citizenship. I doubt it was meant for mass migration because of rouge government control.
Let’s throw it to the courts so we get clarification. I would keenly follow the debate. I myself have know more than a few who flew the pregnant wife to the US to give birth there, get citizenship and fly her back. In the 18th Century you really couldn’t do that. Maybe we should look at this in a different light.
There’s no maybe about. James Madison is rolling over in his grave as we speak over illegal immigration in general & specifically BRC.
But very good point, and I’m glad Mish is making this a major talking point. Hopefully, he’ll keep this up instead of bemoaning tariffs constantly.
I agree, as this is Way More Important to Our Country, and in so many ways!
Tariffs are simply paper with ink, that can be scrapped. Citizenship should not be just as easy as placing a Tariff, but unlike a Tariff on paper, Citizenship cannot just be scrapped!
Surprised that there is very little demand to make the supreme court appointments apolitical. Surely a commitment to reform it would be a vote winner. This is a big part of the US’s slide in the democracy indexes.
Welcome to the CCP.
The maga morons on this website need some education, for your information the criminal element is needed because they are always challenging the law and thanks to that element of society now you have some rights the problem we have as a society is morons like the maga group are willing to give up their rights with no understanding of the repercussions. don’t respond just think if is possible for you people. Go to school.
These things take time. Roe Vs Wade wasn’t overturned in a day.
No, it took a few days. That was entirely different, as they changed an existing law from a “State Law” into a “Federal Law” and the Country just put it back where it belonged, and that’s with the States.
Where taking a law that is older than transportation and updating it to the current times and the ability of the enforcement of the law to match its intent.
as in never
“…but there should be no debate on what is the law.”
There’s a debate on what the law is in a multitude of jurisdictions, almost every day of the year. It’s called a court hearing.
Yeahhh baby! To the moon!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/strengthening-american-leadership-in-digital-financial-technology/
…about 10 short years ago it was just assumed that Jeb! (Please Applaud) was going to lose to It’s Her Turn.
No diplomat or their children are immune from US law. If a diplomat breaks into your home while showing his diplomatic passport you can still shoot him under the Castle Doctrine. If the New Orleans driver had diplomatic plates do you think the police wouldn’t have stopped him?
And it is possible to create legal fictions to get around the birth rule. For example the Dutch royal family was in Canada in 1943 when a royal baby was to be delivered. Per the Dutch constitution only a royal baby born on Dutch soil could inherit the throne; so by legal fiction a hospital in Canada was temporarily declared Dutch soil. So why not make a similar legal fiction about all births to illegals by declaring them diplomats at the time of their birth? That satisfies the Constitution and diplomatic status can be withdrawn at any time so the diplomat baby has to leave the US.
Not sure if that works out the way you explained it could, but that’s fantastic thinking out of the box right there!!
New Constitutional ammendment to repeal prohibition.
It’s been done before.
I hope you’re next in line for deportation it’s quite clear you have no idea what you’re talking about.
“It is clear Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional. MAGA supporters don’t give a damn. They are willing to go along with anything Trump says or does.”
Obviously, it’s unconstitutional and every MAGA supporter knows this, so your second position is nothing more than attempt to slander MAGA.
While the vast majority of MAGA supporters want BRC ended, they are keenly aware that it will take a constitutional amendment. But, they are also very pleased that Trump is starting what hopefully will turn into a full court press that will take years to see through.
Do you have reading comprehension problems? Or are you telling us again you know what every MAGA supporter thinks (hubris much?).
Because if you read the comments here, there are a TON of believers that Trump’s EO was not unconstitutional at all
Dear Simpleton, let me reparse what I am stating.
Did a Reagan appointee block / stay the EO based on it being deemed unconstitutional?
YES!
I would ask any MAGA supporter to step forward who has proposed an alternative interpretation of the 14th Amendment to tell us if they were surprised by this?
Next, feel free to ask any MAGA supporter to step forward and let me know if they think this statement is not reasonably true:
Trumps EO ON IT’S OWN MERITS (i.e., without significant legal intervention from the DOJ, 30+ Red State Attorney Generals & public opinion) will be shown to be constitutional?
None of us here are legal scholars, and I certainly don’t claim to be one. However, I am simply making the point that any MAGA supporter understands that ending BRC will be a long, uphill battle. And no matter what approach Trump & his DOJ takes, the 14th will not be reinterpreted or changed via a constitutional amendment without a significant swing in public support from ~ 60 / 40 to ~ 75 / 25 against BRC. And for there to be that swing in public support, a significant mass casualty event will most likely have to take place that galvanizes American public opinion for rethinking ALL aspects of immigration, including BRC.
But in summary, today the court deems the EO unconstitutional and nary a MAGA supporter is surprised by this ruling or expects it to be overturned anytime soon by an appeals court or SCOTUS (Roberts & Kennedy are moderates & ACB is not far behind on social issues IMHO).
The 14th Amendment is more restrictive than that 1866 act. Congress does have the power to change the 1866 act but not the 14th Amendment.
So the people quoting the 14th Amendment are correct, but incomplete because of the 1866 Act. That clarifies things nicely.
Wrinkle:
the 14th Amendment was ratified two years after the 1866 Act. Does it take precedence?
I just think it’s a law passed during a time of very little travel other than “Walking”, and so it worked for that time period, but like all laws, they need to be revisited occasionally.
Now we have Planes, Trains, and Automobiles amongst other forms, and that makes this law extremely ineffective IMHO.
Yes, I agree 100%, but getting BRC undone is going to be a fairly long journey, unless something very unexpected (terrorism) happens that galvanizes public opinion against all things illegal immigration.
The only thing more important / pressing, IMO, would be making asylum very narrow & building physical & electronic barriers.
It doesn’t have to be long at all. The right (common sense) people on the bench, will clearly see, that laws made in regards to something that didn’t exist “Then” but does “Now” makes “That Law’s Intent” no longer a “Viable” Law to be able to enforce.
A New Law, that is enforceable Today, must be written and then an Amendment to the Old Law must be passed. A simple change in the verbiage is all.
For Example:
– All Intended Citizen Request “Must” be requested AND Approved (Date And Time Stamped), at a “Legal POE” Prior to “The Birth” or they are all immediately deported ASAP.
Original intent counts. These two laws were intended for American
Indians, freed slaves, and the children of both.
https://mises.org/power-market/birthright-citizenship-isnt-real
Original intent IS the law. And anyone who thinks their interpretation of any law cannot be wrong or that the interpretation cannot change over time doesn’t understand how the legal system works.
Thanks for this link! Great info.
There is more to the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” than just sneaking across the border illegally, and it needs to be clarified. I think it just makes common sense that if the parents are subject to deportation, the child is not a citizen. Not of the US anyway.
Great point!!
JUST IN: Americans aged 18-29 approve of President Donald Trump by a whopping 27 points – new poll
Wow.
Who’s my little fake news spreader? You are!
58 to 31. Read it and weep
It’s oftentimes hard to know what you are talking about because you rarely link to anything of substance like the actual poll or the news article. You like to just punch out a political one-liner.
But I think you’re confused here. The 58% you’re referencing is the number of Americans who disagree with Trump’s pardon of the J6 ‘protestors’: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-starts-new-term-with-47-approval-jan-6-pardons-unpopular-reutersipsos-poll-2025-01-21/
Oh well, maybe Trump will get the next one right
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
I thought you had blocked me. Why venture out of your safe space?
We’ll see what the Supreme Court says. The amendment excludes children of members of invading armies. It ain’t that big a stretch to equate the numbers of illegals and the manner of their coming to an invasion.
Thanks for the reminder, Matt!
It’s being done to challenge the earlier precedent. There may be more strength in the challenge than we think. The possibility of a reinterpretation at SCOTUS is not totally out of the question. I could see it along the lines of being under the jurisdiction meaning permitted or affirmed somehow, which illegal aliens by definition do not from the start.
And the most important thing is that it starts a national conversation about an incredibly important issue surrounding immigration. Without anchor babies, the number of females trying to enter the country would plummet. BRC is one of the most important carrots that our country offers to entice females to enter America at any cost.
Library Of Congress Record:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170228210602/https://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/pdf/congressglobe_2890.pdf
“… This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreiigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include ever other class of persons… “
Very clear – Thank you
Affirms what I said
Bottom of the first in a nine inning baseball game.
How are illegal aliens not “foreigners or aliens”? Of course children born here within the US borders are aliens. Their parents are citizens of another country.
It would be quite reasonable to think that James Madison would have added the necessary qualifying language to make that exaction distinction, if he were to have had any reasonable premonition as to what Robinette Biden would do to America via illegal immigration in the early 21st century.
Trump knows that his order unconstitutional. That’s the whole point, he wants to be a lawless president. He has never respected any law when he could get away with it. Now, the Supreme Court has made him a de facto king, and as a king he is above the law.
TDS on full display.
Albert is one of those who you want to hide like that FAKE PRESIDENT MUSK poser.
I not fake! You just can’t handle the truth!
Use logic and evidence, if you can.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. These are good debates to have.
Conjunctions are important. First born and subject to the jurisdiction. Anyone here illegally lost their rights when a crime was committed whether know or unknown. If they are on a visa, they have been granted a privilege which includes giving up certain rights to get the privilege. Prior precedent was set without the knowledge of jet travel. Citizenship tourism is not the intention of the 14th amendment. This is like saying Rowe is the law and cannot be overturned.
Did Amy Comey Barrett from The Peoples Republic of South Bend weigh in?
Not yet, but I expect her to side with the other women.
Marriage tourism is real. Woman who enter US for the purpose to give birth via organizations are not the same class of woman who have been in US prior to pregnancy. Children in the first case should not be treated as a citizens. Children in second case may or may not be citizens depending on status of woman ( illegal entry, temporary visa, etc.)
Clause of birthright needs to be defined and that is the purpose of starting this discussion
As usual too many people take a position of only black or white. For example, homicide is an act of killing another but it not a crime if selective conditions are met (e.g. insanity, self defense )
This same logic applies to birthright It is rare when an issue is either all or none; black or white, 100% or 0.
Buying a wife is the only way my incel army can get any.
“subject to the jurisdiction”
End of story.
ROFLMAO…..but Trump knew this is where it would end up anyway. The circus act was to appease the rabid bigots within the MAGA base. Now he can legitimately say, “see guys I tried but the courts shot it down…” and move on. He could try to pass a constitutional amendment but that’s an uphill battle that would take a decade or two (look up ERA amendment that failed).
Next up, circus I.C.E raids to show how “tough” he is on illegal immigration. Get some good sound bites and video clips then move on after all the businesses complain they need their slave labor back. Then President Musk can order 1 million H1B visas to bring in more slave labor from India.
Meanwhile, day by day ticks by and Trump gets older and older….waiting to turn into a Biden….
Mid-terms just two years away and it’s deja vu all over again.
Rachel Maddow makes more sense than this post. 😔
You watch Rachell Maddow? And that’s the best rebuttal you got? come on, you’re better than that and you know it.
Your post lost everything when you called people who disagree with you bigots. Doesn’t work anymore. Trot out Hitler and fascist next time too. Lazy and stupid.
I assume you didn’t see Elon doing the Nazi salute from the White House. Twitter/X getting banned all over Reddit for that fiasco. Or the other guy that called himself a black nazi running on the GOP ticket. But see and believe whatever you want….
And what’s wrong with a Nazi salute? Am I subject to political oppression now? Nothing illegal about a Nazi salute, provided I stay out of the country that spawned them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0AFxchwHPKA&pp=ygUUT2xkIGxhZHkgaGVpbCBoaXRsZXI%3D
It just means “hail victory”. Totally innocuous.
Seig heil me, bro!
Or maybe it was the Bellamy salute of the American flag that came about in 1892 as a means of saluting the US Flag.
And then there is that really hard to miss part where Musk specifically said, “You have my heart” which the last I checked has a very different meaning from “Hail Victory”.
Or maybe you’re just one of those people who loves to equate everything to Nazism no matter the context?
I’m one of those people that throws Nazi salutes at inaugurations. Nothing wrong with that. Nazi is just a word. Why are you upset about a little word? Why the excuses? Be what you are, don’t let the left censor you! My salute was an invitation. Join me!
You’d better practice more – keep an eye on Colonel Klink.
I thought it was a Romulan salute.
It was… nazis adopted it. Nothing wrong with that.
How about a simple, true response to your post:
An ignorant, asinine post put up by an ignorant donkey.
“rabid bigots”
Wait! MPO45v2, aren’t you one of those anti-semite posters here on Mishtalk that wants driven into the sea over in Palestine?
There wouldn’t have been a NASA without the Nazis – Operation Paperclip.
That’s why I’m so good at rockets! Nazis make the best ones.
How were stowaways treated by British and American navies back in the day? Subject to discipline because they were aliens and not subject to the command structure. This is no where near as cut and dried as you’re purporting Mish. Let’s see it weave its way through the courts.
Mish, the matter is more complicated than you allow. For the argument on the other side, see: https://americanmind.org/salvo/birthright-citizenship-game-on/
With all due respect, you are not a constitutional lawyer, and I wish you would avoid taking definitive positions on matters outside your expertise.
Otherwise, love your work.
He’s an expert on the jab. Ask him about that.
Correct but you’re missing the intention. Mish creates controversy in order to get people to read and comment on his blog. He is an expert blogger.
Wong Kim Ark seems to be the only US Supreme Court case interpreting the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. That case involved a person born in the US to non-citizen parents who were lawfully admitted permanent residents so may not be precedent with respect to other situations such as children of temporary visitors or persons not eligible to remain in the US. That’s not to say that Trump’s order will be sustained but “blatantly unconstitutional” may be an overstatement.
birthright? when does conception begin??
A state senator in Mississippi has filed a bill entitled the “Contraception Begins at Erection Act.” […] the bill would make it “unlawful for a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo.” https://www.wlbt.com/2025/01/22/mississippi-politician-files-contraception-begins-erection-act/
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
There are other cases to refute your position. But let’s start here. See below.
I’d also suggest you obtain a copy of the actual debate record. And the speech on the Senate floor by Senator Howard from MI in which he explains to the Senate exactly what he intended with the language. I have it as a photo from Library of Congress but I don’t think it will post. But it’s online.and I can provide cites if desired.
SCOTUS in The Slaughterhouse Cases in 1872 that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” It then confirmed that understanding in the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins, holding that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase required that one be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
If the baby of foreign parents joined the USMC …
Tax plan is in: Lots for me, nothing for thee!
un57yyiqmree1.png
The golden age just got goldier!
The letter of the law is different from the original intent of the law. The Supreme Court is aware of the distinction.
If parents are not legal citizens, their children born in the USA shouldn’t be either.
By that logic an awful lot of us aren’t citizens, if you go back far enough.
Unless, at some point, all residents were deemed to be citizens, like the Native Americans were, some years after this amendment was passed. Initially they were excluded as the US had no JURISDICTION over their sovereign nation status.
Whiteness guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Most of our parents and grandparents are legal citizens whether born to legal citizens or naturalized legally.
None of that matters if they’re white.
You are incorrect on this and will have egg on your face in the end.
It’s quite clear from the debate over the amendment, and the thorough explanation by the person who wrote the amendment, that ‘birthright’ citizenship was not intended.
And it was not even a part of the lexicon until 100 years ago, give or take, when the Marxists took the reigns of power, coined the phrase, and made it a thing.
It was not allowed under English Common Law. It was not allowed over 1000s and 1000s of years of Roman Law.
Both world history and US history refute any argument you can make that this was the intention of the amendment. “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” is a term of art. It was well understood for the first 150 years. Its been bastardized since.
Lastly, you are essentially arguing that it is acceptable for two Venezuelan Gang members to cross into the US ullegally, traffic drigs, children, and commit a couple murders, have a bsby along the way and its OK for that baby to be a US citizen.
If you want to fight for that i may need to unsub. That woukd not be in my best interest. But you are just wrong here. Morally and legally.
Still love you though. So there is that.
Unfortunately the court has already ruled on the issue, so yeah, no. If you don’t like it amend the constitution.
I’m the richest man in the world, I’ll do as I please.
It’s not the baby’s fault.
Maybe some more of us might listen to your opinions if you admit the “egg on your face” from your previous Matt Gaetz legal opinions you posted here when he was up for AG.
I think you used the same language that Mish was clueless, an idiot and didn’t know what he was talking about.
You spouted all kinds of legal theories and cases for why Gaetz did not need to be confirmed and how it was 100% going to happen. And now that child molester is doing Cameos instead of upholding the law of the land LOL
You have a right to an opinion as well, but why don’t you state it that way? Want to admit your own mistakes from that pretentious and hubris-filled ‘legal jurisprudence’ of Gaetz? Or maybe just stick to your small-time B-law instead?
It matters not if the babies parents are wetback gang bangers or Scandinavian schoolteachers. What matters is the parents status.
A complicating factor is artificial insemination. What happens if a woman overseas orders sperm from a US sperm bank where the donor is a US citizen. Does nominally having a US father get the baby citizenship either if the baby is born overseas or the mother comes here to deliver. And if having a US father is all it takes then someone like Nick Cannon will be in demand for any illegal who wants to get knocked up by a US citizen.
Why and when was this amendment added? What did it seek to accomplish? Was it to give citizenship to anyone who is born on the soil of the United States? Answering the first two questions leads you to answer the third as “no.”
The amendment came about to allow the children of slaves to become US citizens, in refutation of the Dredd Scott decision – another case where the SCOTUS got it completely WRONG. Just because 9 wizards in robes say it is so – doesn’t mean they are right, or that things don’t change. The simple phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” needs a full debate.
It has been debated 6 times and affirmed already
Debates are not Supreme Court decisions.
That is where this is going and will be decided.
I look forward to telling you that you were wrong.
Yeah Mish, I highly doubt the Supreme Court is going to find that people who ostensibly came on a two week tourist visa to go to Disney while 9 months pregnant and popped out a kid qualify the child as a citizen.
This is some of the worst logic ever, it exists as a tool for the Democratic party and the Left to intentionally change the demographics.
BTW who cares that it’s a Reagan judge. Reagan likely wouldn’t have supported Trump to begin with. Meaningless.
Regan was indeed The Great Satan! He forced us to end apartheid!
In all fairness, South Africa has greatly declined.
Judge with TDS.
I believe the issue concerns what ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ means in regard to illegal immigration
Exactamundo.
Kudos to you Mish! You always stand on the side of reason and fairness.
I voted for Trump because the other side had lost any sense of reality and common sense but it doesn’t mean that we need to support any nonsense that is coming from Trump either!
Thank You!
You and Judge Coughenour are absolutely correct, it is blatantly unconstitutional. But does that really matter? There are 4 or 5 absolute nutjobs on the Supreme Court who are likely to do anything.
Just bc you disagree with people doesn’t make them nutjobs. I’d venture that Sotomayor has a room temp IQ based on listening to her in arguments. But I’m loathe to bring it up.
And a cold room at that.
Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson Brown for sure. Barrett and Kavanaugh are iffy.
We may need a debate on what should be law….yes. And the SC can have a look at the executive order. I read that 10 percent of current births are anchor babies. This law was obviously never meant to be abused in this way. Let’s have the debate.
How about we burn those anchor babies by sending the IRS after their earnings. All US citizens are subject to taxation regardless of where they earn the money.
You think this is a net positive? Now that’s funny
Which ever way it goes, it should been brought via amendment. This is the same type of stuff as the OSHA mandating vaccines for all or Obamacare or ironically enough DACA. Also if its a EO cant the Dems just undue it ?
If an item (birthright citizenship, anchor baby, or whatever) “isn’t there” in the first place, why would you need an amendment?
Pull an Andrew Jackson, the judge has rendered his decision, now let’s see him enforce it!
Have to love MAGA clowns cheering Trump breaking the law while moaning about Biden doing that
Once you have a billion dollars, it’s proof that God thinks you’re awesome, and should be allowed to do anything you want.