Trump's Birthright Citizenship Ex-Order is elevated to Supreme Court

[Melensdad]

This one got fast tracked straight to the Supreme Court because of the injunction issued by the judge.

The basis of 'birthright citizenship' has been before the SCOTUS one time before, but the case involved a LEGAL immigrant whose parents were not citizens. Trump is arguing, in his Ex-O, that ILLEGAL immigrants are not entitled automatic citizenship. Legal scholars have lined up on both sides of this issue, it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the court.

Appeals court won’t immediately revive Trump’s birthright citizenship order

A federal appeals court Wednesday evening declined the Trump administration’s request to partially revive the president’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The Justice Depar…

thehill.com

Story covered by THE HILL website, generally a left of center news source but they often cover legal issues with clarity.

Appeals court won’t immediately revive Trump’s birthright citizenship order​

02/19/25 09:51 PM ET​

Court Battles

​

President Donald Trump signs an executive order on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)​

​

A federal appeals court Wednesday evening declined the Trump administration’s request to partially revive the president’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. ​

​

The Justice Department asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to immediately limit a district judge’s ruling, one of multiple indefinitely blocking Trump’s order nationwide, to only the individual plaintiffs who sued in an underlying case. ​

​

The three-judge appeals panel wrote in its ruling that the administration had “not made a ‘strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits’ of this appeal.” ​

​

Trump’s order would restrict birthright citizenship from being extended to children born on U.S. soil to parents without permanent legal status, part of a flurry of immigration actions he signed on his first day in office. Multiple judges have found the order is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of the 14thAmendment. ​

​

Wednesday’s ruling marks the first time an appeals court has materially weighed in on Trump’s birthright citizenship order, which has come under 10 lawsuits across the country. Though the case will continue before the 9th Circuit, the Justice Department could now seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. ​

​

The 9th Circuit panel comprised William Canby, an appointee of former President Carter; Milan Smith, an appointee of the younger former President Bush; and Danielle Forrest, a Trump appointee. ​

​

Forrest wrote separately to stress that the administration had not cleared the high bar for the court’s emergency intervention. ​

​

“And just because a district court grants preliminary relief halting a policy advanced by one of the political branches does not in and of itself an emergency make. A controversy, yes. Even an important controversy, yes. An emergency, not necessarily,” Forrest wrote. ​

​

She went on to caution judges against issuing such weighty rulings on an emergency basis, warning that it is contributing to low trust in the judiciary. ​

​

“When we decide issues of significant public importance and political controversy hours after we finish reading the final brief, we should not be surprised if the public questions whether we are politicians in disguise,” Forrest wrote. ​

​

“In recent times, nearly all judges and lawyers have attended seminar after seminar discussing ways to increase public trust in the legal system,” she continued. “Moving beyond wringing our hands and wishing things were different, one concrete thing we can do is decline to decide (or pre-decide) cases on an emergency basis when there is no emergency warranting a deviation from our normal deliberate practice.” ​

​

The administration filed its appeal after a federal district judge in Seattle hearing two lawsuits blocked Trump’s order and accused him of undermining the rule of law. One case was filed by four Democratic state attorneys general, while the other was brought by several pregnant mothers without permanent legal status. ​

 

[Patriot]

I've looked at this issue closely. My conclusion is that a review by the Supreme Court will find that the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment means that one must be a citizen, or at the very least a legal resident, to qualify for their children born in the U.S. to automatically become U.S. citizens.

If you look at the original intention by the drafters of the 14th Amendment, of that key phrase, you'll see what I mean. Here's a good link for those who'd like to read up on it: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

I think this will be a significant Supreme Court decision with immense reverberations.

 

[Melensdad]

I've looked at this issue closely. My conclusion is that a review by the Supreme Court will find that the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment means that one must be a citizen, or at the very least a legal resident, to qualify for their children born in the U.S. to automatically become U.S. citizens.

If you look at the original intention by the drafters of the 14th Amendment, of that key phrase, you'll see what I mean. Here's a good link for those who'd like to read up on it: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

I think this will be a significant Supreme Court decision with immense reverberations.

I'm no legal scholar but I've been reading scholars on both sides of this issue and believe the original intent will be the deciding factor. There are speeches and writings on what it is supposed to mean

 

[Patriot]

I'm no legal scholar but I've been reading scholars on both sides of this issue and believe the original intent will be the deciding factor. There are speeches and writings on what it is supposed to mean

Yes, ultimately what the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended was that nobody who still owed allegiance to another country could beget a child in the U.S. who was automatically granted citizenship at birth, for obvious reasons.

For example, and to apply that to today's world, an immigrant from, say, Mexico, who illegally enters and resides in the U.S., is still a citizen of Mexico, as he/she did not pledge citizenship allegiance to the U.S. and, just as importantly, did not renounce citizenship allegiance to Mexico. If that person then has a child in the U.S., while in this status, who is to say that the child wouldn't owe more fealty to Mexico, considering the parent(s) has not renounced citizenship, than to the U.S.? After all, it is a real possibility, and the child has never been required to pledge otherwise.

What puts this issue into starkest perspective is if one considers the status of the children of foreign diplomats born on U.S. soil. They do not become U.S. citizens at birth. The diplomat is in the U.S. legally, and is serving a vital function, yet that is not enough, even if the diplomat requested it, the child would not be a U.S. citizen at birth. The best they could do is register to make the child a lawful permanent resident, if they so desire. On the other hand, a person who illegally enters, who resides in the U.S. without permission, can give birth to an automatic U.S. citizen? It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[FrancSevin]

I've looked at this issue closely. My conclusion is that a review by the Supreme Court will find that the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment means that one must be a citizen, or at the very least a legal resident, to qualify for their children born in the U.S. to automatically become U.S. citizens.

If you look at the original intention by the drafters of the 14th Amendment, of that key phrase, you'll see what I mean. Here's a good link for those who'd like to read up on it: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

I think this will be a significant Supreme Court decision with immense reverberations.

Put simply,,,;
I believe it actually means, "if you are subject to a jurisdiction other than the USA, your children born here are subject to that same said jurisdiction and not birthright citizen of the USA."

 

[Patriot]

Put simply,,,;
I believe it actually means, "if you are subject to a jurisdiction other than the USA, your children born here are subject to that same said jurisdiction and not birthright citizen of the USA."

Yes, I would agree with that characterization. And further, that it points to a difference between territorial jurisdiction and political jurisdiction. The former means, regarding non-citizens/residents, that one is subject to the laws of the country they are visiting or are temporarily living in, such as a tourist. For example, if one were visiting France and committed a murder there, one would be prosecuted under French laws, barring any extradition. The latter refers to allegiance, and that is what is meant by the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. This distinction is important because it lies at the heart of the debate over the meaning of that clause, which determines the validity of so-called "birthright citizenship." It is not enough to simply be born within the territorial limits of the country to be granted citizenship. One must be shown to be allegiant to the country, and because this can't be determined by any other means at the time, must be determined based on the citizenship/allegiance of the birth parent(s).

 

[Melensdad]

What is interesting is the Native American/Indian population as they live on Sovereign lands inside the USA.

The DOJ separated them out in the filing of the suit. I'm not sure if that will help or hurt the cause, but it is interesting.

 

[Patriot]

What is interesting is the Native American/Indian population as they live on Sovereign lands inside the USA.

The DOJ separated them out in the filing of the suit. I'm not sure if that will help or hurt the cause, but it is interesting.

That is because of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which made Native Americans citizens of the U.S., as long as they were born within the territorial limits of the U.S. The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, did NOT give them birthright citizenship. It took this special Act of Congress to do it.

That is a very important point to the "birthright citizenship" debate, because previously Native Americans were not allowed to become citizens unless they moved off the reservation for a period of years, paid taxes, and went through a naturalization process. The reason was because, otherwise, they fell under the jurisdiction of another sovereign, in this case the government of the tribal reservation to which they belonged.

That is what is meant by "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Political jurisdiction means that another sovereign entity (usually a country) can claim the person as a citizen, and thus the person is assumed to be allegiant to that separate sovereign over and above the U.S., regardless if they happen to be born within the territorial limits of the U.S., much less that their parent(s) were residing illegally within U.S. territorial limits when the person was born.

 

[FrancSevin]

What is interesting is the Native American/Indian population as they live on Sovereign lands inside the USA.

The DOJ separated them out in the filing of the suit. I'm not sure if that will help or hurt the cause, but it is interesting.

In most treaties with the indigenous populations. the members of the tribe were citizens of that tribe and not citizens of the USA.
For a comparison example, no citizen of Japan became a USA citizen after peace was signed with Japan.
They do not, inmost cases, have voting rights. However, I believe there are exceptions. For instance, the Navajo were given voting rights back in 1954. I believe that is the year, but it was in the 50's

A small recent bit about Navajo voting.

https://nnhrc.navajo-nsn.gov/PressReleases/2021/October/PR_10202021.pdf

 

[FrancSevin]

I've looked at this issue closely. My conclusion is that a review by the Supreme Court will find that the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment means that one must be a citizen, or at the very least a legal resident, to qualify for their children born in the U.S. to automatically become U.S. citizens.

If you look at the original intention by the drafters of the 14th Amendment, of that key phrase, you'll see what I mean. Here's a good link for those who'd like to read up on it: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

I think this will be a significant Supreme Court decision with immense reverberations.

The Fourteenth was originally in acted to settle questions about the status of newborn children to former slaves given blanket freedom after the war between the states. Commonly called the "CIVIL WAR." It's meaning and purpose stretched, IMHO inappropriately, to cover any soil birth rights.

It is applied recently by current practices not necessarily grounded in the actual law.

 

[Patriot]

The Fourteenth was originally in acted to settle questions about the status of newborn children to former slaves given blanket freedom after the war between the states. Commonly called the "CIVIL WAR." It's meaning and purpose stretched, IMHO inappropriately, to cover any soil birth rights.

It is applied recently by current practices not necessarily grounded in the actual law.

Precisely. The 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case resulted in an incorrect interpretation of the 14th Amendment. In addition, the context of that case was that the parents of the defendant, while not citizens, were residing in the country legally and Chinese, at the time, were also not allowed to become citizens.

 

[Patriot]

In most treaties with the indigenous populations. the members of the tribe were citizens of that tribe and not citizens of the USA.
For a comparison example, no citizen of Japan became a USA citizen after peace was signed with Japan.
They do not, inmost cases, have voting rights. However, I believe there are exceptions. For instance, the Navajo were given voting rights back in 1954. I believe that is the year, but it was in the 50's

A small recent bit about Navajo voting.

https://nnhrc.navajo-nsn.gov/PressReleases/2021/October/PR_10202021.pdf

Correct, because the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted citizenship to Native Americans, but not FULL citizenship, so it did not include the right to vote. It took further measures over the years before they received the right to vote as well.

Citizenship, especially full citizenship, of the U.S., was hard fought for many groups, and was considered very valuable. That is why it is such a slap in the face to these groups, like the Native Americans and Black Americans, not to mention women (right to vote), that so many are today believing that citizenship should be automatically granted to a baby just because the baby is born on U.S. soil, and regardless if the parent(s) is here legally or not.

 

[FrancSevin]

Precisely. The 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case resulted in an incorrect interpretation of the 14th Amendment. In addition, the context of that case was that the parents of the defendant, while not citizens, were residing in the country legally and Chinese, at the time, were also not allowed to become citizens.

Given our current relationship with China, perhaps we should consider reviving that policy.

 

[Patriot]

Given our current relationship with China, perhaps we should consider reviving that policy.

Not a bad idea, especially considering the influx of illegal Chinese immigrants lately. Either they are coming because they are trying to escape China, or worse, they are coming because China sent them as spies or something.