And not in a good way, IMHO…
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the legality of an executive order from President Donald Trump that would restrict birthright citizenship.
The order would deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States to mothers who are unauthorized immigrants or have legal temporary status at the time of the child’s birth if the father is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
<snip>
In 2023, mothers who were unauthorized immigrants or had legal temporary status in the U.S. had 320,000 babies, representing about 9% of all 3.6 million babies born in the U.S. that year. About 260,000 of those babies would not have qualified for birthright citizenship if Trump’s executive order had already been in effect. This includes:
- About 245,000 babies born to mothers who were unauthorized immigrants and fathers who were not citizens or lawful permanent residents
- About 15,000 babies born to mothers who had legal temporary status and fathers who were not citizens or lawful permanent residents
Full article, HERE from the Pew Research Center.
Of note, a significant percentage of the ‘temporary status births’ were what is called birth tourism, with many of those being Chinese. Interesting, isn’t it???
And we all remember the sob stories about the pregnant females stopped at the southern border by the new administration in 2025, right? Did anyone wonder ‘why’ all those pregnant females were wailing and moaning about being stopped? If they had the kids in Mexico, no US citizenship!
Much like the whole feet wet/feet dry Cuban refugee status, ironically ended by Obama in 2017, HERE.
The Pew report only goes back to 1990, but the numbers they posit are pretty large, making up possibly 1/3 of the total illegal immigrants currently in the US, if those birthright citizenships had been denied.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment has been open to discussion for many years, HERE. Much of the issue revolves around the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and what that really means.
IMHO, birth tourists and illegals do not meet the requirement of being subject to the jurisdiction, since they are not American, and are not in the process of being naturalized.
Your thoughts?
Absolutely.
Just because you were birthed within the borders of a country does not make you a citizen.
Unless you are the child of a US citizen (one or both, real or naturalized) you are simply a tourist.
Further, there should be zero “Dual Citizenships”. Either you choose US citizenship or choose the other. Not both.
Additionally, drop the hyphenated crap. African-American this, Irish-American that… You are either an American or you are not.
X2
Especially since a lot of the argument was based on allegiance, which KJB tortured the meaning of..
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
From the stupidest SCOTUS jurist in history:
Justice KBJ: “If I steal a wallet in Japan, I am subject to Japanese laws….. in a sense, it’s allegiance.”
Who ties her shoes for her?
Her shoes have Velcro … and she STILL needs help.
Her house is littered with empty library paste jars with the spoon still in them.
The intent of any law should never be ignored, except that’s exactly what led to this debacle. If the Supreme Court makes the mistake of allowing the influx of illegals by judicial decree, the majority of citizens will find a different solution.
If Roberts follows his usual path, he’ll find a way to kick the can down the road.
Unfortunately, the can can’t be kicked.
He will probably vote pragmatically instead of judicially.
Criminal aliens and communists are pretty explicitly dissenting from being subject to the jurisdiction.
OTOH, a political or religious litmus test would be a can of worms if we really want to follow the implications thereof.
Count Dunkula is more legitimately a supreme court justice than Kenny Brown. However, this legal theory of mine is novel, and not one that practicing lawyers really want to nail down as precedent, because the novelty comes with a bunch of weird implications that they do not know about, and do not want to deal with.
If the traditional view was birth right citizenship, then FDR would not have signed legislation making Tribal members citizens in the 1930s.
Why do you say that? They were/are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
IIRR- they were exempted because they were still considered ummm…natives showing allegiance to their tribes…or something.
It’s in the amendment.
In 1888, in Elk vs. Wilkins, the SCotUS ruled that Native Americans were members of a sovereign tribal nation in perpetuity, not US Citizens. Because Indian Reservations were not under US federal jurisdiction, the 14th Amendment did not apply. Even though Mr. Elk had renounced tribal membership and resided in Omaha, NE, he could not register to vote as he was not a US citizen.
This came back to bite the feds in 1917, when they tried to draft Indians for WWI. The Indians weren’t citizens, so they couldn’t be drafted. Many were anyway, under protest (after the war ended). The matter was sorted out in 1924, when Congress in essence gave Indians born on tribal lands dual citizenship, making them both tribal members and US Citizens.
That’s what happens when the US government wants to have things both ways at once. You get a lot of court cases that don’t really clarify anything, then Congress has to pass a law.
Agree with the above. Being born here should not have automatic citizenship granted unless your parents are both current U.S. citizens. The child has no choice in the matter.
This isn’t rocket science. The ONLY reason the commie left …including all the black robed pirates infesting our courts…are making a big deal about this is it interferes with their plans to import millions of turd worlders too vote for them. No rational person thinks anyone should be rewarded for conspiring to come here just to spawn a crotch monster with US citizenship.
All- Thanks for the comments, I see most of y’all think the same way I do.
The anchor baby situation is out of control and has gone from incidental to a continuing criminal enterprise and scam. RICO should be implemented IMHO.