Birthright citizenship

[red viking]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Yes, even naturalized citizens are subject to federal law. 

No, theyre expanding their interpretation of that law. Significantly. Read carefully. 

[1032004]

15 hours ago, Offthemat said:

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the wording that will determine the outcome. 

So you’re saying illegal immigrants aren’t subject to US laws?  That doesn’t sound good

[Tripnsweep]

18 hours ago, Offthemat said:

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the wording that will determine the outcome. 

Anyone who lives in the US is subject to our jurisdiction. Unless you know some kind of sovereign citizen loophole. 

[fishbane]

1 hour ago, Tripnsweep said:

Anyone who lives in the US is subject to our jurisdiction. Unless you know some kind of sovereign citizen loophole. 

Diplomats.  Here legally and not subject to our laws.  If one happens to give birth here the offspring does not get citizenship.

[ionel]

6 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Diplomats.  Here legally and not subject to our laws.  If one happens to give birth here the offspring does not get citizenship.

Let's not bring facts into the argument.  

[1032004]

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

Let's not bring facts into the argument.  

Diplomats are not subject to US law, illegal immigrants are.

[Tripnsweep]

54 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Diplomats.  Here legally and not subject to our laws.  If one happens to give birth here the offspring does not get citizenship.

They are subject to some laws, but mostly not. I know they are notorious for ignoring parking tickets.

[Offthemat]

8 hours ago, 1032004 said:

So you’re saying illegal immigrants aren’t subject to US laws?  That doesn’t sound good

 

4 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

Anyone who lives in the US is subject to our jurisdiction. Unless you know some kind of sovereign citizen loophole.

You’ll learn more about the definition when the case is decided.  If you follow it.  Till then you can make all the risible arguments you like as to how the writers intended for illegal aliens to be able to come and birth citizens.

[1032004]

1 minute ago, Offthemat said:

 

You’ll learn more about the definition when the case is decided.  If you follow it.  Till then you can make all the risible arguments you like as to how the writers intended for illegal aliens to be able to come and birth citizens.

Good to know you already know what the outcome will be!  Do you have the powerball numbers too?

[mspart]

Let's look at the arguments when the 14th amendment was being drafted. 

https://mylegalwriting.com/2025/01/22/repost-birthright-citizenship-and-the-fourteenth-amendment/

Of particular importance to the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which limited citizenship to children whose parents owed allegiance to the United States. Mere birth within the United States was not enough, since this would extend the privileges and immunities of citizenship even to the children of visiting diplomats or other persons having no kinship with our country. Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, who introduced the amendment for debate, explained as follows:

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.

Another way of phrasing the function of the “citizenship clause” was provided by then-Senator Reverdy Johnson, who observed:

Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign power – for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us – shall be considered as citizens of the United States. . . .

The Supreme Court also took note of the limited reach of the “citizenship clause” as follows:

The 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.

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. at 73.

So the understanding at the time the amendment became and amendment, it was that children of foreigners that were born in the US were not citizens by the 14th Amendment.  The clause which states, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, meant that non citizens having a child in the US did not make the child a citizen.  This was part of the original arguments and understanding at the time. 

This coincides with Trumps EO regarding birthright citizenship.  It seems clear that this is what the framers of the amendment understood. 

mspart

[Danny Deck]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-order-ending-birthright-citizenship/

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States. In a decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, in Trump v. Barbara, the justices agreed with the challengers, as well as all of the lower courts around the country that have considered the issue, that Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.”

[red viking]

What is this, the 160th time or something that trumptard violated the constitution? What a disgrace and embarrassment.  

[Caveira]

16 minutes ago, red viking said:

What is this, the 160th time or something that trumptard violated the constitution? What a disgrace and embarrassment.  

FTC Agency Firing Power (Trump v. Slaughter - June 2026): A landmark 6–3 victory expanding the "unitary executive theory." The Supreme Court ruled that the president can fire the heads of independent regulatory agencies (specifically the Federal Trade Commission) at will, overturning 91 years of settled precedent. [1, 2]

Absolute Presidential Immunity (Trump v. United States - July 2024): A historic 6–3 Supreme Court ruling establishing that former presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for core constitutional acts, and presumptive immunity for all other official executive actions.

Overturning Birthright Universal Injunctions (Trump v. CASA - 2025): A major procedural win where a 6–3 Supreme Court ruled that lower federal district judges do not have the authority to issue sweeping, nationwide injunctions to block administration policies. (Note: The final substantive policy was later struck down in Trump v. Barbara). [1, 2, 3]

The "Travel Ban" Validation (Trump v. Hawaii - 2018): A 5–4 Supreme Court decision confirming broad presidential authority over national security and immigration by upholding executive restrictions on travel from several Muslim-majority countries.

Bypassing Congress for Border Wall Funds (Trump v. Sierra Club - 2019): The Supreme Court cleared the executive branch to bypass congressional funding deadlocks and reallocate $2.5 billion in military funds to construct the southern border wall.

Expedited Removal Protections (2026): The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's stay, allowing the administration's expanded Department of Homeland Security expedited removal policies to proceed during active litigation. [1]

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Cancellations (June 2026): The Supreme Court overturned lower court orders that had blocked the administration's termination of TPS status for migrants from nations like Haiti and Syria. [1]

Dismissals of All Major Criminal Cases

Classified Documents Case Dismissal (July 2024): Federal Judge Aileen Cannon completely dismissed the criminal indictment regarding mishandled documents at Mar-a-Lago, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

Federal Election Interference Case Drop (Late 2024): Adhering to long-standing Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot face criminal prosecution, the DOJ formally dropped Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 2020 election subversion case.

Georgia State Racketeering Case Dismissal (2025): The state-level 2020 election interference case in Fulton County was dropped and dismissed after state prosecutors declined to pursue the charges further following his reelection. [1]

Ballot Access & Political Campaigns

Protection of 14th Amendment Ballot Access (Trump v. Anderson - March 2024): A unanimous 9–0 Supreme Court victory ruling that individual states cannot utilize the 14th Amendment’s "insurrectionist clause" to unilaterally remove a federal presidential candidate from the ballot, overturning a disqualification attempt by Colorado.

Shielding Personal & Commercial Records

Delaying Congressional Subpoenas (Trump v. Mazars - 2020): The Supreme Court blocked Congress from immediately accessing his financial records, creating a stringent separation-of-powers test that effectively stalled the release of his personal data for years.

Postponing State Subpoenas (Trump v. Vance - 2020): While the Supreme Court ruled a sitting president is subject to state criminal subpoenas, they permitted his legal team to challenge the scope in lower courts, successfully delaying the investigation past his first term.

Dismissal of the Emoluments Clause Lawsuits (January 2021): The Supreme Court dismissed multiple high-profile lawsuits alleging he illegally profited from foreign officials staying at his luxury hotels, throwing the cases out as "moot" the moment he stepped down from his first term.

Restrictive Immigration Frameworks

Public Charge Rule Reinstatement (2020): The Supreme Court repeatedly intervened on the emergency docket to lift lower court freezes, allowing his administration to deny green cards to immigrants deemed likely to rely on public assistance.

Title 42 Border Restrictions Preservation (2022): Federal courts repeatedly ruled in favor of keeping the Trump-era Title 42 public health restrictions active at the southern border, blocking early attempts by the subsequent administration to wind it down.

[Bigbrog]

21 minutes ago, red viking said:

What is this, the 160th time or something that trumptard violated the constitution? What a disgrace and embarrassment.  

Please provide evidence to your claim 

[fishbane]

On 7/6/2025 at 2:20 PM, Offthemat said:

You’ll learn more about the definition when the case is decided.  If you follow it.  Till then you can make all the risible arguments you like as to how the writers intended for illegal aliens to be able to come and birth citizens.

This didn't age well.  Did you learn anything from the decision?

[Offthemat]

2 hours ago, fishbane said:

Did you learn anything from the decision?

Yes

[Danny Deck]

Gorsuch's dissent is interesting to me. He seems to believe that the children born to illegal immigrants who are domiciled in the US are citizens, but dissented because he believes that children born to people in the US on temporary visas should not be citizens. 

This seems like a reasonable interpretation that does cut out birth tourism, but does not address the vast majority of cases that the ban was intended to address.