Is it time to end birthright citizenship?

[Live Life]

I wonder if we will see an uptick in labor inductions or elective C-sections before 2/20/2025.

I bet it will for some as babies born after 2/20/25 will risk not being US citizens under Trump's EO.


Constitutional attorney Mark Smith at 12:00 minute of video discuss the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court ruling in Wong Kim Ark regarding birthright citizenship - https://youtu.be/eFFy61U4Zbc?t=720

14th amend Amendment says the following: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside"

... that other clause ... says ... in addition to being born in the United States, you have to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ...

What does it mean? ... in my opinion of why babies born to illegal immigrants are not American citizens ... because of a 1898 ... Supreme Court decision in the case of United States versus Wong Kim Ark

... Supreme Court said if ... you're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you may be born in the United States which is the first clause of the 14th Amendment, but you're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as defined by the second clause of the 14th Amendment

I'm about to solve the problem ... for president Trump and his administration ... if you are born in the United States to parents who are part of a hostile invading class, part of a hostile enemy or an invading class or an invading Army, you also are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus you're not an American citizen even if you're born here

... give you an example ... Supreme Court case ... 14th amendment ... African-American slaves born in the United States and subject to the protection of the United States ... were now ... American citizens. 

That's where this comes from.  This is about making sure that the freed African-American slaves are American citizens because the 14th amendment was adopted after the Civil War.

[cordex]

There's an interesting point that the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" originally came from the Civil Rights act of 1866 which states "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power".  The implication of that seems to be that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" might refer to more than just "has to follow our laws" but might actually include not being also subject to someone else's laws.

There is also the fact that Native Americans were not given US citizenship until 1924 which does seem to show that the authors of that amendment did not at the time understand it to be saying that anyone in our borders is automatically "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  As Native Americans were subjects of their tribal nations and not the US, it was not as simple as a judge pointing out the 14th amendment applies to Native Americans, but legislation had to be passed to explicitly grant them citizenship.

After looking deeper, I don't think this is as obviously the clear cut "Trump is wrong and violating the Constitution" that many are presenting it as.

[dogmush]

I am interested in seeing the court's thoughts on this.  I brought up both the Indian issue and US v. Wong Kim Ark in a discussion on this IRL yesterday.

The 14th was clearly, and explicitly, written to exclude Children of Foreign diplomats and members of the Indian Nations.  SCOTUS has said that the children of Immigrants here legally ARE citizens. That said, those situations are not directly analogous to Illegals in this country having kids.  While *I* think the language of the 14th covers anchor babies, I can see that there are other possible interpretations.  This is one for the courts for sure.

As an aside: the screenshots I've seen from Indian and H1B subreddits talking about no point in even staying here if they can't use their kids to sponsor them makes me want hope the courts agree with Trump AND we kill work visas.  "America is for work and to make money, India is home" and the like.  GTFO.

[Ron]

Considering that tolerating illegal immigration AND birthright citizenship have become a Trojan Horse that has and is destabilizing whole regions of the country, we need to eliminate both as much as possible.

Controlling the flow of immigrants and defining what citizenship is, should be under the authority of the Federal government. The clause is so vague that there is zero reason to assume intent one way or the other.

Regardless of liberal talking points, the Supreme Court should not be granted "infallibility when speaking from the throne".  Stare decisis is not a suicide pact, or at least should not be. If there are court decisions that need to be overturned then let it be so.

This policy should be based on what is best for the country. We can see what we've been doing is not good. Time to adjust or reverse course.
 

[AZRedhawk44]

This policy should be based on what is best for the country. We can see what we've been doing is not good. Time to adjust or reverse course.

That stance is very Kelo v New London.

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

The citizenship is not the root problem.  The root problem is the welfare state.

Look at the American Southwest from the 1850's to the 1940's.  No welfare state.  No real immigration process.  Just choose what side of the border you want to live on, and get on with life and being commercially self sufficient.

[Ron]

That stance is very Kelo v New London.

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

The citizenship is not the root problem.  The root problem is the welfare state.

Look at the American Southwest from the 1850's to the 1940's.  No welfare state.  No real immigration process.  Just choose what side of the border you want to live on, and get on with life and being commercially self sufficient.

The dirt isn't magic. The people are the country. Replace them and you replaced the country with something different.

We've been outvoted on the welfare state issue by the left and all their imports, legal and otherwise, congratulations.

You destroy countries by destroying their cultural roots. We're a dying tree producing rotten fruit.

What made America, America is mostly gone. America is a zombie of alien (foreign) powers wearing it as a skinsuit.

The country actually died some time ago, we're watching the second death, the dying US empire with foreigners fighting over the carcass.

[MechAg94]

There is a little magic in the dirt.  The geography of the continental US is prime real estate for people who are willing to work and develop it.  Also set up nicely for the individual to prosper.  It still takes a people/culture willing to spread out and work to make something of it.  I recall some videos looking at the geography of Mexico by comparison. 


Thomas Sowell has at least one video comparing the geography of Europe to Africa with an eye toward early development of commerce and the middle class.  Europe actually has more miles of coastline than Africa with more natural bays and ports and navigable rivers. 

[Ron]

This article makes the case that the whole issue has been a con job of bad law/interpretation all along.

https://mises.org/power-market/birthright-citizenship-isnt-real

[Brad Johnson]

"all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power". (bolding mine - Brad)

In that passage lies the crux. If the parents are here illegally then they are, by both default and definition, citizens of another country. As citizens of another country (i.e. a "foreign power") they and their dependent children, both born and unborn, are subject to that country's power. As such, they do not meet what is a clear and unambiguous birthright citizenship criteria.

...just like the clear and unambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment, which we all know would never be bastardized, misconstrued, or subverted in any way.

Brad

[cordex]

In that passage lies the crux. If the parents are here illegally then they are, by both default and definition, citizens of another country. As citizens of another country (i.e. a "foreign power") they and their dependent children, both born and unborn, are subject to that country's power. As such, they do not meet what is a clear and unambiguous birthright citizenship criteria.

...just like the clear and unambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment, which we all know would never be bastardized, misconstrued, or subverted in any way.

To be clear, "not subject to any foreign power" came from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, not the 14th Amendment.

[Brad Johnson]

To be clear, "not subject to any foreign power" came from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, not the 14th Amendment.

Acknowledged. What is does is set legal precedent.

Brad

[cordex]

Acknowledged. What is does is set legal precedent.

It may give us insight into the mindset of the creators of the 14th, but I don't think it sets any precedent.