Article

2025-01-24 Home Front: Politix

Trump's order against birthright citizenship blocked by Seattle judge

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2025-01-24 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11142 views ] Top
File under: Migrants/Illegal Immigrants

#1 It is a stand practice here in the USA that persons cannot benefit or be rewarded for their crimes, or illegal activities.

So, granting citizenship to a person flying in on a VISA, or illegally crossing the border, timed to have a baby on US Soil. In order to then claim the reward of extended taxpayer paid stay, or citizenship, does not follow that well established legal rule.

Posted by NN2N1 2025-01-24 06:59|| 2025-01-24 06:59|| Front Page Top

#2 Which crime did the baby commit?
If you want to change ius solis, do it correctly, not by disregarding the 14th Amendment.
One of my daughters is a U.S. citizen because she was born in the United States. I know that at the monent the Executive Order only covers future births, but what would stop Trump from changing that?

Posted by European Conservative 2025-01-24 07:39|| 2025-01-24 07:39|| Front Page Top

#3 EC what about thousands of children born to American service members and their spouses (circa 1950s-present) in Germany, are they German?

Posted by Procopius2k 2025-01-24 08:07|| 2025-01-24 08:07|| Front Page Top

#4 No they are not. But that's not the issue. You have ius soli, we have not. If you want to change that, fine. But you can't render the 14th Amendment meaningless with an Executive Order, just like you can't take away gun rights guaranteed by the Second with an Executive Order.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-01-24 08:16|| 2025-01-24 08:16|| Front Page Top

#5 The founders were clear on the 2d Amendment. The writers of the 14th were concerned about the rights of recently freed slave and their children.

Posted by Procopius2k 2025-01-24 08:21|| 2025-01-24 08:21|| Front Page Top

#6 The wording of the 2nd is far from clear. That's why there have been so many rulings and debates on it. (Note that I'm in favor of the right to bear and carry arms)

The wording of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear. That's why it hasn't been revisited for over a 100 years.

It took a Reagan appointed judge 5 minutes to see it.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

Are you seriously claiming that the U.S.doesn't have jurisdiction over a newborn child born in the U.S.? The only exception are diplomats and their families as stipulated in Article 37 of the Vienna Convention.

1.The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are
not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 36.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-01-24 09:43|| 2025-01-24 09:43|| Front Page Top

#7 Citizenship for babies of people here in a .....LEGAL STATUS !!!!

Posted by Besoeker 2025-01-24 09:54|| 2025-01-24 09:54|| Front Page Top

#8 I can't find "legal status" of parents in the amendment. Which may very well be because when it was drafted, "illegal" immigration didn't exist.

It's absurd to assume that the U.S. has no jurisdiction over undocumented immigrants on U.S. soil. These people have to follow the laws, pay taxes and go to jail like anyone else.

And actually, the Amendment doesn't refer to the status of parents, but of the child.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-01-24 10:07|| 2025-01-24 10:07|| Front Page Top

#9 There are no perfect laws. Every law hurts innocent people - just like every immunization kills some. The point is: what's the balance of benefits to costs.

Posted by Grom the Affective 2025-01-24 10:47|| 2025-01-24 10:47|| Front Page Top

#10 Police arrest 14 illegal workers, bakery owner in Jerusalem.

Posted by Grom the Affective 2025-01-24 10:54|| 2025-01-24 10:54|| Front Page Top

#11 It's absurd to assume that the U.S. has no jurisdiction over undocumented immigrants on U.S. soil.

It is equally absurd to assume that sneaking over the border confers the rights, privileges and responsibilities of citizenship. While we expect them to obey the law, but we do not let everyone vote, for example.

As for the phrase "undocumented immigrant", that is Newspeak for illegal alien - someone who has committed a crime by entering the country without authorization. Time for a Confucian (or Trumpian) Rectification of Names!

I am not a lawyer, but I can see this coming down to what the meaning of "is" is, in reference to "under the jurisdiction of". While we expect them to obey no parking signs and other local laws, it seems to me that these visitors are still citizens of their home countries and are under the jurisdiction whatever government might exist there.

As others have noted, the Amendment in question was written to address a specific post-Civil War issue. I doubt the Founding Fathers meant it to cover a woman giving birth in the lounge at LAX while on layover during a trans-continental flight Beijing to London.

Posted by SteveS 2025-01-24 11:16|| 2025-01-24 11:16|| Front Page Top

#12 Pregnant Migrants Seek C-Sections Before Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Deadline

Posted by Skidmark 2025-01-24 11:21|| 2025-01-24 11:21|| Front Page Top

#13 Citizenship for babies of people here in a LEGAL STATUS !!!!

Now that changes the tone of arguments for abortion.

Posted by Skidmark 2025-01-24 11:24|| 2025-01-24 11:24|| Front Page Top

#14 ^^ Interesting, and not wrong.

Posted by Mullah Richard 2025-01-24 11:33|| 2025-01-24 11:33|| Front Page Top

#15 "While we expect them to obey no parking signs and other local laws, it seems to me that these visitors are still citizens of their home countries and are under the jurisdiction whatever government might exist there."

The amendment doesn't say "exclusive" U.S. jurisdiction, and you can't write words into the text which aren't there. And the debates leading to the 14th amendment don't support that view either. It was clearly understood what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant. The framers wouldn't have needed to exclude diplomats and their families, if ALL aliens present on U.S. soil were "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States (which diplomats and their babies are not, and this was discussed in detail).

The framers couldn't think of undocumented aliens (or aliens with an illegal status, if you prefer), because this category didn't exist at the time. What the framers would have thought had they known of such a category is pure speculation. The fact is, you can always change an amendment if it needs to be adapted to modern reality. But you can't read things into it that simply weren't there at the time the amendment was ratified.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-01-24 12:06|| 2025-01-24 12:06|| Front Page Top

#16 How does an illegal act have a legal result?

If my wife went into labor in St. Louis, is my child a citizen of Missouri?

Posted by swksvolFF 2025-01-24 12:09|| 2025-01-24 12:09|| Front Page Top

#17 ^It's, as the other side was fond of saying, "Living constitution".

Posted by Grom the Affective 2025-01-24 12:10|| 2025-01-24 12:10|| Front Page Top

#18 Perhaps Congress could clarify or update the 14th.

Maybe in less than 1,500 pages?

But not this year.

Posted by Bobby 2025-01-24 12:11|| 2025-01-24 12:11|| Front Page Top

#19 "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

Posted by European Conservative 2025-01-24 12:12|| 2025-01-24 12:12|| Front Page Top

#20 If I invite someone into my house and they have a baby, that baby has no right to keep sleeping in my house. That's crazy logic.

But the law says... No it does not. That's your interpretation. Common sense trumps that.

Posted by mossomo 2025-01-24 12:40|| 2025-01-24 12:40|| Front Page Top

#21 That's not MY interpretation. It's what the amendment says. If you don't like it, change it.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-01-24 12:50|| 2025-01-24 12:50|| Front Page Top

#22 It was originally written to grant citizenship to the children of freed slaves. Women weren't coming here for the sole purpose of having a baby in order to get to stay but the way it was written doesn't deny children born here of non-citizens citizenship. I don't like it but that's what it is.

Posted by Deacon+Blues+ 2025-01-24 13:17|| 2025-01-24 13:17|| Front Page Top

#23 I have no moral obligation to support other peoples' children before mine.

Whatever it might have been, it isn't working now.

Posted by swksvolFF 2025-01-24 13:37|| 2025-01-24 13:37|| Front Page Top

#24 This entire string of great rants is proof why he did this and what we should expect to happen. The 14th is not clear for today. Congress would take 100 years to even debate it. Trump doing what he did insures it goes to the supreme court. Once the court clarifies the illegals having babies here and the baby tours of places like China we will have clarity. The gaslighting by Trump haters and activists do noting toward getting to the truth. Lets hope this gets to the supreme court soon.

Posted by 49 Pan 2025-01-24 13:52|| 2025-01-24 13:52|| Front Page Top

#25 I don't need to hear emotional appeals about babies not being able to commit crimes. Their parents did and we can't keep letting them get away with it.

But it's too early to get all in a huff about this. The case will go to SCOTUS and it's about damn time SCOTUS reviewed the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's wait to hear what they have to say about it. The authors of the Fourteenth might never have imagined illegal aliens having babies in this country so it might have to be tweaked. If we need another Constitutional amendment, or an amendment to an existing amendment, then we have a procedure for that and we will just have to follow the procedure.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2025-01-24 14:04|| 2025-01-24 14:04|| Front Page Top

#26 One more thing we can do that is undeniably constitutional is to prevent those aliens from entering this country in the first place.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2025-01-24 14:06|| 2025-01-24 14:06|| Front Page Top

#27 The 14th is imho perfectly clear, even for today. But don't get me wrong: It's perfectly legit to change it, as modern reality has changed.

But not this way.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-01-24 14:23|| 2025-01-24 14:23|| Front Page Top

#28 The EO will probably get struck down at the Supreme Court level. As of today, 32 of 50 states voted for Trump. That is less than 2/3. If Sarah Adams is correct and we have bunch of terror cells in CONUS ready for a simultaneous attack, we will soon have enough political will to change the Constitution. Alternatively, the war with the drug cartels will be enough.

Posted by Super Hose 2025-01-24 14:53|| 2025-01-24 14:53|| Front Page Top

#29 I wonder if those who are paying taxes had the amount of tax which goes towards illegals - housing, food, clothing, education, etc - would take that money and donate it to a charity which handles such things, or spend it on their own children and/or immediate needs?

Posted by swksvolFF 2025-01-24 15:21|| 2025-01-24 15:21|| Front Page Top

#30 The wording of the 2nd is far from clear.

It's absolutely clear. It's prefaced by Art. 1 Section 8, that Congress shall...organize and regulate the militia. In their first year they passed two Militia Acts [which is now incorporated in Title 10 USC], defining who was the militia and how the militia should arm itself [the same as a soldier in the US Army of the time] . Everything else beyond that is 'squirrel' by anyone trying to limit it.

Posted by Procopius2k 2025-01-24 15:33|| 2025-01-24 15:33|| Front Page Top

#31 The wording of the 2nd is far from clear.

It is the "shall not be infringed" part that seems to trip up a lot of people. Other than that, it seems pretty straightforward.

Posted by SteveS 2025-01-24 20:01|| 2025-01-24 20:01|| Front Page Top

22:04 badanov
21:39 trailing wife
21:20 James the lesser
20:51 trailing wife
20:46 Frank G
20:41 swksvolFF
20:24 swksvolFF
20:13 SteveS
20:09 swksvolFF
20:07 swksvolFF
20:01 SteveS
19:28 Frank G
19:27 Frank G
18:08 Procopius2k
17:42 Abu Uluque
17:00 DarthVader
17:00 Lord Garth
16:41 swksvolFF
16:37 Super Hose
16:35 Lord Garth
16:32 Super Hose
16:29 Super Hose
16:26 Lord Garth
16:19 Super Hose