A Boston District Judge upheld the constitution. Politics has nothing to do with it. 
Boston Court Ruling Against Trump
US News reports Fourth Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump that would end birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, becoming the fourth judge to do so.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin came three days after U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire blocked the executive order and follows similar rulings in Seattle and Maryland.
Sorokin said in a 31-page ruling that the “Constitution confers birthright citizenship broadly, including to persons within the categories described” in the president’s executive order.
“President Trump may believe that he is above the law, but today’s preliminary injunction sends a clear message: He is not a king, and he cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen,” the attorneys general said in a statement.
Judge Leo T. Sorokin was appointed by President Barack Obama.
New Hampshire District Court
On February 10, U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante in New Hampshire was the third judge to block Trump’s executive order.
Laplante, nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, said he wasn’t persuaded by the Trump administration’s defense of the executive order.
Seattle District Court
On February 6, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour blocked Trump’s Executive Order.
“It has become ever more apparent that to our president the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” said Coughenour, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan. “The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain.”
Blatantly Unconstitutional
Trump’s action is “blatantly unconstitutional”. Judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans have concluded the same thing.
Politics has nothing to do with this. It’s important to note there is nothing controversial about any of these rulings other than perhaps some of the colorful judicial language.
The district and appeals courts are obligated to uphold prior Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld birthright citizenship. Only the Supreme Court itself can change that ruling.
Nonsense from the New York Times
A friend told me to look at a guest opinion piece on the New York Times Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship by Mr. Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University, and Mr. Wurman a law professor at the University of Minnesota.
I did, and the article is little more than a silly rehash of what “subject to the jurisdiction” means.
The NYT authors go back to 1862 and even Calvin’s Case, a 1608 judicial decision about who were birthright subjects of the English monarch, written by Edward Coke.
What nonsense. A 1608 case has zero merit as the US was not even a country. Anything from 1862 was superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment ratified on July 9, 1868 and United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898.
The New York Times is looking for clickbait titles and succeeded.
Birthright Citizenship and 19th-Century ‘Illegal Aliens’
Every time I dig into Birthright Citizenship, I discover new compelling reasons for it.
Today, Wall Street Journal writer Jason L. Riley discusses Birthright Citizenship and 19th-Century ‘Illegal Aliens’
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, states in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children born to people in the country unlawfully or temporarily.
The court typically decides to hear a case when there are conflicting lower-court rulings on an issue, but so far there has been little if any such disagreement. Last week, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin became the fourth federal judge to block Mr. Trump’s order. “In a lengthy 1898 decision, the Supreme Court examined the Citizenship Clause,” he wrote, “rejecting the interpretation expressed in the [Trump executive order]. The rule and reasoning from that decision were reiterated and applied in later decisions, adopted by Congress as a matter of federal statutory law in 1940, and followed consistently by the Executive Branch for the past 100 years, at least.”
Judge Sorokin was appointed by Barack Obama, but judges appointed by Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Joe Biden have offered the same interpretation of the Citizenship Clause in blocking Mr. Trump’s order. The “Executive Order contradicts the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the century-old untouched precedent that interprets it,” wrote U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante, a Bush appointee, in a ruling earlier this month.
It is generally agreed the birthright citizenship rule excludes the children of foreign ambassadors and foreign enemies who are occupying the country. Before the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, it also excluded most Native American children. The Trump administration and some of its supporters say that Congress never intended for the children of people here illegally to be on that list, but lawmakers living in the late 1800s may have disagreed. The 14th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War to overturn the Supreme Court’s notorious 1857 Dred Scott ruling and grant birthright citizenship to former slaves and their offspring.
But not all slaves were here legally. Although the U.S. banned the importation of slaves in 1808, an illegal international slave trade continued for decades. In a case that was front-page news at the time, Abraham Lincoln refused to pardon Capt. Nathaniel Gordon, who was convicted of slave trading in 1861. Transporting slaves had been a capital offense since 1820, and Gordon was hanged. “This was a landmark in the history of the slave trade,” wrote historian Hugh Thomas in his definitive study, “though it was not quite a turning point, for old ways survived, even in the North of the United States.”
According to the legal scholar Gerald Neuman, by the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, there were tens of thousands of black people in the U.S. who had been brought here illegally. Naturally, some of them later bore children. It thus would seem that for authors of the Citizenship Clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” included the children of parents in the country without authorization.
Mr. Trump and his supporters see birthright citizenship as a reward for breaking the law. Yet the Citizenship Clause concerns children, not parents. The undocumented parents’ status doesn’t change after having a child in the U.S. Parents are still subject to fines, imprisonment and deportation depending on the circumstances.
The administration has said it will appeal the lower-court rulings, and the Supreme Court may yet decide to weigh in. Mr. Trump’s gambit doesn’t amount to a constitutional crisis, but that doesn’t make it a wise use of his political capital.
Not Even Close
Given the US Supreme Court has already twice ruled on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, it would be shocking if any District or Appeals Court would rule any other way.
On January 21, I wrote 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.
On January 23, I wrote A Court Appointee of Reagan Correctly Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
As predicted in this corner, a District Court quickly blocked Trump’s unconstitutional order eliminating birthright citizenship.
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.”
What Were the US Senators Thinking When They Debated the 14th Amendment?
I further discussed the key rulings in What Were the US Senators Thinking When They Debated the 14th Amendment?
It is clear the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” was understood. And that meaning was upheld in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898, and Regan v. King 1943 as cited by Judge Coughenour.
A Terrible Policy as Currently Practiced?
I can easily see why some people would believe that. But they are wrong.
This is a subject that came up with other friends of mine, one of whom has argued many cases before the Supreme Court.
Friend One (studied law but is not a lawyer):
I am not a lawyer, but I am very much an originalist (and that makes you put a lot of emphasis on the text as written at that time). To me this a clear put down on Trump. Too much time has passed and society and the government has had a common shared view on this for many, many decades. In a logical world this should be 9-0.
Friend Two (Constitutional Expert):
Well, you have stated very well the rationale that underlies the doctrine of res judicata. Generations of immigrants — and by extension, their offspring — have literally for hundreds of years relied on the common understanding of the law. Even if that was technically wrong in retrospect, res judicata says that you cannot unsettle the lives of law-abiding people who have relied on what the courts said the law was. I cannot think of a clearer case for its application.
It would open a hornets’ nest, since most 19th century immigrants were never naturalized — it was understood that one’s kids were Americans by birthright — and thus most of the US population would be rendered aliens. We have no precedents to deal with this and it would be a total judicial mess.
Look at the Constitution itself. It plainly requires that: No Person except a NATURAL BORN Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” So the concept of a person being a “natural born” American is right in the Constitution.
Res Judicata
Res judicata refers to the principle by which one judgment has a binding effect on subsequent proceedings.
My friend comments “I cannot think of a clearer case for its application.”
Recent cases may be easier to understand. What about a couple who came into the US illegally 25 years ago at age 35? They had kids who are now suddenly not citizens. Those kids might have kids who are not citizens then either.
Today, Jason L. Riley brings yet another complication into play, that of children of slaves illegally in the US.
Q: Is the Supreme Court really going to mess with this? Let Trump say it only starts now?
A: No and No.
People are entitled to believe whatever clickbait nonsense they want. But there is no legal construct that allows Trump to change the constitution from this point forward by executive order.
Trump has appealed the case. He will lose in appeals court. His view is so constitutionally ridiculous that I wonder if the Supreme Court would even take the case.
If so, expect no better than 6-3 against Trump, and likely 9-0.
“A Boston District Judge upheld the constitution. Politics has nothing to do with it.”
Actually, peaceful politics is just war by other means until it is not peaceful, usually after a period of political law-fare, eg., Dredd Scott, etc. .
Hi Mish, you have stated many times you look at the law and apply it how it’s written/adjudicated, regardless who the President is in office.
How do you advocate that the law must always be followed but then say mass deportations shouldn’t happen and would be unwise. Yes, I am aware there would be an economic impact by doing mass deportations.
I know you have asked who is going to clean dishes, pick fruit, clean hotels and build houses…but how do you justify which laws should be followed and which ones should not, regardless of their impact on the economy?
your question answers itself: difference between what’s legal and what’s wise. Personally I think birthright citizenship is idiotic today and should be abolished, which requires an amendment, not an executive order.
mass deportation, assuming that means throwing out at once every undocumented person here would first cost billions because they require proceedings and second would be economically catasrophic, and cause an immediate depression. I mean, think about it, 90% of restaurants, hotels, motels, casinos, auto mechanics, car washes, farms, would lose a huge chunk of their employees. Vegas would collapse, as woud any area where tourism industry is big. Consumption would crash: landlords would go bankrupt, car lessors would go bankrupt, lenders would have huge issues. you are talking about a material percentage of the population disappearing, and if that happens fast like he says, it would be economic catastrophe.
so far there is ZERO evidence Trump is remotely interested in deporting en mass. he is on a much lower pace than Obama was. And let’s get real: if he wanted to do what he says, he’d raid meat packing plants, farms, hotels… it’s no secret where they are.
Trump is what he has always been: a showman. he’ll make sure the cameras are there for the raids, every day so it looks like he’s aggressive when he isn’t.
So it if it wise, it’s okay to break the law?
I welcome some of the above and a deflationary environment to level set the current economy that only favors speculators of manipulated FRB assets prices/only the top 10%and slow down/stop wealth inequality that gets worse by the day…I have a feeling the huge middle class is not going to like becoming the next South Africa.
Trump wants these issues in front of the Supreme Court
Mish, he’s absolutely going to lose this one. We get it. Is he bogging down the system with it? That’s 4 judges, their staff and now the SC. If the intent is to bog down the system you have to admit it’s kinda doing that.
Deport the mother that will solve it!
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof means exactly that. More proof America has a lawless gangster Government. Succession is the best option.
Interesting alternative take: Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment | The Heritage Foundation. I’d love to see the Supreme Court have a go at this.
p.s. The author has degrees from MIT and Vanderbilt Law, so let’s not dismiss him too quickly as an idiot.
Do not be too impressed by credentials. Ted Cruz has a law degree from Harvard. Just sayin….
The once elite institutions in American academia have been taken over by radical Marxists and degrees from these institutions no longer mean anything
Educated or not, an idiot is still and idiot. Titles more often than not, just certify the idiot.
What everyone here needs to remember is that a democrat president can also decide to “reinterpret” the second amendment. Something like, “oh it says here right to bear arms and we only had single fire front loading muskets back in 1780 so that’s all the American people will be allowed, the forefathers never envisioned AR-15 with 100 round mags.”
That’s the slippery slope of “reinterpreting” laws that have been in effect for 200+ years. Every president from now on will start “reinterpreting” things they don’t like and carving out all sorts of crazy nonsense.
Well the voters demanded a circus, and here we are. Hopefully we still have a functional country when President Musk is done disassembling the nation.
The second amendment was originally written and understood to mean that the federal government could not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. The purpose was to ensure that the federal government couldn’t use military force to invade the sovereign states to impose its will. State militias being necessary to a Free State and all that. But states had every right to infringe upon people’s ability to keep and bear arms, and most did, generally by incorporating English common law on the subject. It wasn’t until the 14th amendment (the same one that creates birth right citizenship) that federal constitutional rights overrode traditional state’s rights. And it wasn’t until 2008, in the District of Columbia v Heller, that the Supreme Court determined that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms without any restriction provided by state militia (group) requirements. So the idea that any citizen can go out and purchase an AR-15 has been guaranteed for all of 17 years, not since the founding.
You’re acting like this is unprecedented or something. You do realize that the founders specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended, and since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times.
I personally can’t think of a better time in history, where not only is it warranted, based upon the border catastrophe and backed by Kamala & Biden, but also the “Literal Mandate” to “Stop This Crap” in its trackers. People have had enough, and nearly 75% said CHANGE IT!!!
Information Relative:
Q1) How many Countries are there? A1) 195 (roughly).
Q2) How many of the 195, have “Birthright Citizenship”? A2) 33 (Roughly).
Q3) %? A3) 17%
Q4) Primary Reason? A4) Grant Ctizenship to the Salves, and Birthright to their future children.
Q5) Did we have mass migration then? Q5) No, in fact the slaves were brought by us.
Q6) At the time, was there incentive, and availability for Millions to “Rush to America” when pregnant?
Q6) No, and that’s “Exactly Why” the “Founders” built a “Process to Amend” and they were right in their Wisdom Then, and It’s necessity now Today! “It Will Be Changed” right before, or right after the Midterms IMHO.
You 1st need 2/3 majority in Congress to approve an amendment. Once that’s achieved (highly unlikely) you’d need 3/4 of the states to ratify the amendment (also highly unlikely).
The alternative way is get 2/3 of the states to call a constitutional convention…again highly unlikely.
– You 1st need 2/3 majority in Congress to approve an amendment.
> I absolutely am aware of that, but I don’t think that will matter.
– Once that’s achieved (highly unlikely) you’d need 3/4 of the states to ratify the amendment (also highly unlikely).
> I absolutely am aware of that, but I don’t think that will matter.
– The alternative way is get 2/3 of the states to call a constitutional convention…again highly unlikely.
> No need for that.
Here is the skinny on this issue. First ask yourself a few simple questions.
1. Does the current President & His Administration have a Mandate by America? The ANSWER is a resounding YES!
Q2. Does the current President & His Administration have a Mandate by America, to Resolve the immigration issues in Their Country? The ANSWER is a resounding YES!
Q3. Does the American Citizen understand this issue? The ANSWER is perhaps Not Before Harris/Biden, but they damn well do Now!
Q4. Is the current policy Bad for America? YES! Is the Solution Good for America? YES!
Q5* – Do the Democrats wish to lose another 30% of their small minority, onto what little power they have left? NO! “Will They if They Don’t Go Along” Not only do the Democrats know, their party would be officially OVER! They would represent so little of our Government by then, that it would be literally non-existent at that point.
You see, the Democrats have made such an absolute Mess of Our Country, that people (The Majority) simply want them GONE! At ALL Cost! ANY reason, is a good enough reason to Vote them Out! They cannot get in the way, or impeded this current momentum, or they just add MORE of it! They simply Do Not have a choice, I’d it gets to a Vote, the Democrats Will Have To Fo Along, or say Bye-Bye!
That’s my view of the situation…
Mandate? 1.5% election win does not infer a mandate. Trump won by lying to low information voters. Surviving the next four years should be his major concern.
Mandate? 1.5% election win does not infer a mandate. Trump won by lying to low information voters. Surviving the next four years should be his major concern.
So he should try to amend it, not issue an executive order.
he nows an amendment is not possible. The founders made it hard to amend the constitution for obvious reasons. .
I think if worded properly, it could pass. Something to the tune of “if born to illegal immigrants, a child will maintain the citizenship of their parents through age 10 at which time they will automatically become US citizens.” That shows some level of compassion for kids raised here and a government too incompetent to find their parents and send them home. But I don’t think for a second Trump would try and pass an amendment. It would solve the problem and end the tv show and tough talk. How would it benefit him?
The US does not have ‘birthright citizenship’ without any restrictions. IT clearly states ‘subject to jurisdiction’, which is where problem arise, because jurisdiction is NOT defined. Does simply being here create jurisdiction?
The solution is to look at what the US requires for overseas births to become US citizens. If the same requirements exist for the illegal alien’s home country, the jurisdiction issue makes the the child of citizen of that country, preempting US jurisdiction.
If you can be arrested and put in jail in the US, you are subject to its jurisdiction. Everyone in the country, citizen or not, is subject to the jurisdiction with specific exceptions for foreign diplomats. And jurisdiction is defined in any english language dictionary you look at.
No other nation in the world has such a policy. The forefathers would be rolling over in their grave. I think that Mish is more animated about this issue than anything unconstitutional that Biden did. Why is that?
Joey Jones, you are a perfect example of a low information voter. Over 30 countries have birthright citizen ship. Learn to research instead of just accepting “alternative facts” (lies).
Well, they have some form of birthright citizenship, not necessarily the same as the US. The problem is that in virtually all of the countries where this exists, illegal immigration and birth tourism was never contemplated when the laws were passed. Playing out the “birthright” mantra, Mish proposes that a someone committing a criminal act, entering the country illegally, can pass on the right to be POTUS to the child born on US soil, yet the child of US citizens serving the government, born in a foreign country must undergo a legal process confirming citizenship and may not have the right to be POTUS. If one is not supposed to benefit from crime, how is it that the illegal alien mother giving birth benefits from the child’s citizenship, because she would not be deported.
no other nation allows people to buy high powered guns willy nilly either.
Followed this blog for a while when it was Maven i think …..never before have i seen the amounts of comments on such as subject as this. Go to the history and all posts regarding Birthright Citizenship go above 100+……didn think it would be such a contentious topic.
The Supreme Court might be willing to very visibly “stand up” to Trump on this easy, obvious loser, to leave room to buckle to him on other things, while retaining “credibility.”
agree. the admin is smart, doing a bunch of nutty stuff and giving the SC an easy way to pretend they are still impartial by disagreeing with Trump on the craziest stuff like overriding the Constitution with an executive order.
If any Supreme Court has ever had a potential to reverse this, it is the one sitting now. (We can’t dig up the Dred Scott decision’s court to do it.) We have already seen historically big lurches in the direction favoring executive power, and diminishing the administrative state, not to mention, reversing Roe vs. Wade. The respect for precedent is at an all-time low, IMO. I think this Court is quite willing to go to views preceding the 20th century, so who knows? Also its “originalist” bent is extremely, shall we say, limber and flexible.
It was an obvious distraction. It was never going anywhere but it sure did keep some judges busy. Reverse lawfare. There will be many more distractions. Big pictures he’s taking a lot of hills.
As a lawyer and retired judge, I am not totally sure I concur with your thinking. Our forefathers never envisioned our country as being without borders and allowing anyone to enter at will as they did under the Biden administration. This will be most interesting to follow…..along with every thing else!
I’ve spoken with them directly while in a ketamine stupor, and you’re exactly correct.
Well this has been discussed and debated ad nauseum. The 14 amendment is 100% clear. And the SC has ruled that way several times.
US v Wong Kim Ark?
Plyler v Doe?
And Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor cites the 14th in the opposite fashion as it’s supposed in modern days: I don’t think anything is closed.
“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.”
Is NOT ‘100% clear’ by virtue of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. If the child is subject to the jurisdiction of another country, what then?
Does that jurisdiction create a preexisting citizenship, thereby making US jurisdiction impossible? Or do we simply handout dual citizenships.
I don’t like to personalize these things. But this is the first time I ever saw a lawyer/judge use ellipses (…..) wrong like that, or not get the word “everything” right. This English usage is very strange and frankly in error. If you don’t mind my asking, what end of the country did you practice and sit on the bench in?
Exactly!
Another low information voter, President Biden deported more illegal aliens in his term than Trump did in his first term. Wake up do some research.
Trump prevented far more from entering, so yes he would have deported less.
What I find interesting, is that Philip Berg, a Democrat and Hillary supporter, brought a lawsuit, on behalf of a retired military officer contesting Obama’s eligibility. My memory is fuzzy, but along with the “Born in Kenya” allegation, I believe that the back up argument was that even if Obama had been born in Hawaii, Obama Sr. was Nigerian, and at the time, a British subject, therefore “not under the control” of the US. What I found odd, at the time, was the case, and many other similar ones, were dismissed due to “lack of standing”. Had these cases proceeded they would certainly have provided a narrowing of the issue, given John McCain had to be “confirmed as being a “natural born citizen” due to his being born in Panama, but unknown whether on the military base or in the Embassy, i.e. American soil.
One of the objections is ” you cannot unsettle the lives of law-abiding people who have relied on what the courts said the law was.” The simple and obvious fix is to make the law from this date forward. Once you finally secure the border, which Trump has done, it’s finally possible to know through birth records.
Can Trump change the constitution going forward?
Clearly that notion is idiotic.
Clearly He can’t, and No President should, and will ever be able to IMO!
There is however precedent and built in actions to reverse it via an “Amendment. Yes it’s an insurmountable task for sure, as it certainly should be, it’s our “Countries Constitution”
I do think our “Recent History” warrants discussions about it for certain. We shall see…
Idiocy Rules
“A 1608 case could be very helpful to the court in determining what was meant in the late 1700s by the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction of’.”
Lovely. Eric proposes we discuss the 1608 meaning of “jurisdiction” when all that matters is the 100% clear determination of what it meant when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
It’s legal idiocy.
6-3 to a more likely 9-0 coming up. Idiots will still disagree.
Yeah, but which 6 and which 3?
I think the Supreme Court will take this case. EVERYONE knew that the first federal judge to see this case would block it. It’s not a news story if 1000 judges block it. It’s all the same until the Supreme Court decides if it will take the case which will be years from now.
Meanwhile, there is nothing stopping the US from deporting the parents, which would stop the anchor-baby practice very quickly..
Exactly right. The parents can choose to leave the child who will then be placed into the foster care system. A few will be left behind, but the vast majority won’t.
No European country follows birthright citizenship in this manner. And we should not as well. I do not agree with Mish’s reading of the amendment. So be it. Let’s get the case to the Supreme Court and if somehow, they interpret the post Civil War amendment that was dealing with slaves to extend citizen to anyone born in this country then we proceed to change the amendment. Happened with alcohol. Mish, you react like nothing can be changed and heaven forbid someone start the process. Took us 50 years to fix abortion, it might take a while but damn calm down as the process moves forward.
Why does it matter one bit what other countries do.
Do you wish to adopt the Spanish Constitution?
I do admire their Inquisition.
Franco was great.
The Icelandic Constitution may be a good reference.
Should we look at India too?
How about Panama and Australia?
The Swedes should keep an album cover of ABBA in a museum. 200 years from now nobody will believe it.
Of course this can be changed.
By Constitutional Amendment.
But 0% chance of that so the idea is moot.
I would in no way say zero %…
0.000000001% chance….hows that?
I currently have it at 65% if done the right way, presented the in the right manner, and explained fully.
Not saying we don’t want immigration at all, Not saying we don’t want to assimilate the Dreamers, as an example. We just want a “Fair” outcome for America, who is the caretaker for them all, under this ruling.
Everything stays the same, but no guaranteed “Citizenship”simply because you dropped your baby on America’s Soil!
It’s utterly ridiculous…
Mark do you want to follow the laws and regulations of Europe? Great welcome to our new socialist state, it’s about time.
“A 1608 case has zero merit as the US was not even a country”.
The comment above is a great example of why you would have flunked out of law school.
Old cases under English Common Law have frequently been cited by courts, especially SCOTUS, throughout the history of the U.S.
A 1608 case could be very helpful to the court in determining what was meant in the late 1700s by the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction of’.
I could spend hours telling you why you are incorrect on this issue. Instead, I’ll just say it is baffling (and disappointing) that you think it’s fine for two Mexican cartel members to enter the US illegally, deliver their human and drug cargo, murder an ICE officer, rob an elderly man, steal his car and rob him, leaving him to freeze to death in below zero temps. Then they hole up in a safe house for a month so the female cartel member can deliver a baby, who then gets US citizenship.
That is nuts. It’s to bad you can’t figure that out. But the court will figure it out. And you’ll need to find some better legal advice going forward.
It would behoove you to think.
Supreme Court rulings – and the 14th Amendment shows you are clueless, not me.
A 1608 case cannot be relevant if superseded by a constitutional amendment and three SC rulings.
Good Lord!
Had that not been the case, I would have agreed. You are totally out of bounds
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
Nobody on the planet thinks its “fine” for that to happen, jackass. And ending birthright citizenship does change any of it. You know what you could do? Stop cutting taxes and pay for more border control agents. But that would take a genius.
Meanwhile, while everyone is wasting time talking about this, we arent talking about other things, like the next Covid/virus to come, the lack of savings being found with firing employees for no reason, more Federal income tax needed, the drug cartels that must be massing on the south border by now waiting for one of Trumps decisions to make it interesting to see just how far north theyd get, and the young people who just dont want to join the military or play this game anymore.
It’s time to let natural selection cull those that can’t be productive in our new Wellness Centers.
The personal comments by the judges is unprofessional. Trump is doing this to get it to the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court rejects it, as they likely might, it makes it an issue for Congress to pass a law to end birthright citizenship. People need to take a breath.
Im wondering if the White House purposely, all of a sudden, doesnt what ANYTHING to go to the Supreme Court.
Why don’t you go attend some community college it might help you understand what makes a country.
Congress can’t pass unconstitutional laws.
Well they can – but they would be struck down.
Excellent case in point – Line Item Veto
Something needs to be changed. Why is it only Ilegals are given this Citizendhip, everyone else who came in went thru all the Laws to become a Citizen some as long as 7 yrs it took We do things in this Country that are NOT done elsewhere
I believe “everyone” gets birthright citizenship.
And if something “needs” to be done then
1) It needs to be well thought out
2) Done by a Constitutional Amendment
Requirements 1+2 = Won’t Happen