His parents were non-citizens but they weren't illegals (or "asylees" / "refugees"...)
Irrelevant.
The Court stated that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should be interpreted "in the light of the common law" which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The Court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception"—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction).
A poor illegal immigrant who’s picking strawberries on a farm in California isn’t part of an enemy force engaged in hostile occupation. Any child born here to that immigrant is automatically a US citizen.
Why should we want the kids of poor illegals to become citizens? They'll likely collect a ton of welfare and be a net drain on the country's finances.
I'm not saying that all immigration should be the "Trump gold card" but it should be almost exclusively based on skills or wealth.
But illegal aliens are citizens of other countries who have shown up here in violation of the law. They owe allegiance to other countries, not the United States. They don't meet this criterion.
The left argues that the children of illegal aliens are covered by this clause because of the court’s 1898’s Wong Kim Ark ruling, which gave birthright citizenship to a young man whose parents were barred by the Chinese Exclusion Act. However, the court’s ruling relies on English common law, which required allegiance to be born a subject of the crown.
The children of diplomats, for example, have never been given birthright citizenship, because their parents owe allegiance to another country. Wong Kim Ark applies to children whose parents have a "permanent domicile and residence" in the United States, who owe allegiance to the United States only.
In fact, after the 14th Amendment, several secretaries of state denied passports to the children of tourists and other people who were not permanent residents. Illegal aliens do not have "permanent domicile and residence" here. Just the opposite: they are subject to deportation under our laws.
His parents were non-citizens but they weren't illegals (or "asylees" / "refugees"...)
Irrelevant.
The Court stated that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should be interpreted "in the light of the common law" which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The Court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception"—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction).
A poor illegal immigrant who’s picking strawberries on a farm in California isn’t part of an enemy force engaged in hostile occupation. Any child born here to that immigrant is automatically a US citizen.
It really depends on if it was a Trump sanctuary strawberry farm or not. Your allegedical hypothetical hinges on that critical distinction.
Soybean farms - that's where you want to be. Trump handed them $12 billion in welfare. I sh!t you not. He rewarded their business incompetence with a $12 billion socialist cash infusion. Now it's party time in America's soybean world.
I know you’re too impossibly ignorant to know this, but the application of the 14th Amendment beyond slaves was debated in the US Senate at the time, and it was acknowledged, prior to its ratification, that children born in California to Chinese immigrants would also automatically be US citizens. They knew this and they passed the amendment as written. If and you and your god in the White House don’t like it, the obvious and established method to change it is with a new amendment.
Wong Kim Ark was the equivalent of a green card at that time. Not an illegal.
In oral arguments, Sauer says of the 14th Amendment: "It did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens, who have no such allegiance" and that it was adopted to grant citizenship to free slaves whose "allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here." Wong Kim Ark's parents moved to the US, so there was no "generations of docile here". Wong Kim Ark and his parents all returned to China for most his childhood, and his parents never returned to the US. So clearly they held no allegiance to the US, yet The Supreme Court still found that Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen.
I'm sure Thomas and Alito will have some creative reading of the plain words "All persons born" to mean only "some persons that they approve of," but they will be the minority and The Court rule against Trump. Millions of taxpayer dollars wasted to accomplish nothing; it's the MAGA mantra.
Wong Kim Ark was the equivalent of a green card at that time. Not an illegal.
Wong Bong Chinga Dong?
Ultimately, Bondie was sh!tcanned for her incompetence. Even by the low standards set for Trump lawyers, she was a retard. She should never have been in such an important position in the Trump organization with such limited talent and skills. But that's what happens when you do DEI hires. You end up with mush.
if you really wanted to police incompetence she'd have been fired back when. maybe it would have been when she flipflopped twice on do the epstein files even exist. or how it looked like the documents had been reviewed last spring but then not prepared to send out. which meant they reviewed and redacted again recently. and then DOJ made a meal of that.
ironically i think his comments about political prosecutions or epstein mean the orwellian opposite of what people think. he wants more political prosecutions and is upset she covered his @$$ poorly. she was supposed to deny the files or "list" existed and drag her feet. she didn't do that well and his tookus is in the fire, including with his own base.
he's sending her onto the plank to distract from iran. everything is incompetent right now so this is "competence theater." and really punishment for this being a lasting scandal. but did the man think he could run on epstein then release nothing?
but to me it's like noem. noem's priamry sin is how ICE did its business. i don't think trump cares 2 cents about corruption and feeding at the public trough -- he's trying to get DOJ to settle a lawsuit for his own indictments for tens of millions. but punting her for how bad MN looked would be admitting he went about it wrong. so he waits 3 months or so and fires her for corruption. as epstein rages and iran muddles. sure, donald, sure.
A poor illegal immigrant who’s picking strawberries on a farm in California isn’t part of an enemy force engaged in hostile occupation. Any child born here to that immigrant is automatically a US citizen.
Why should we want the kids of poor illegals to become citizens? They'll likely collect a ton of welfare and be a net drain on the country's finances.
I'm not saying that all immigration should be the "Trump gold card" but it should be almost exclusively based on skills or wealth.
Why should want the kids of hopeless MAGAs to be citizens? They'll likely collect a ton of welfare and be a net drain on the country's finances.
I'm not saying that all MAGAs are useless, but if you need $12B to figure out how to grow corn in Iowa or have declared bankruptcy more than once? Maybe you don't have the skills needed to be an American.
Wong Kim Ark was the equivalent of a green card at that time. Not an illegal.
In oral arguments, Sauer says of the 14th Amendment: "It did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens, who have no such allegiance" and that it was adopted to grant citizenship to free slaves whose "allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here." Wong Kim Ark's parents moved to the US, so there was no "generations of docile here". Wong Kim Ark and his parents all returned to China for most his childhood, and his parents never returned to the US. So clearly they held no allegiance to the US, yet The Supreme Court still found that Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen.
I'm sure Thomas and Alito will have some creative reading of the plain words "All persons born" to mean only "some persons that they approve of," but they will be the minority and The Court rule against Trump. Millions of taxpayer dollars wasted to accomplish nothing; it's the MAGA mantra.
Do you want to know what a tremendous waste of tax dollars is? Giving welfare to the kids of illegals.
Even just think about it logically – why should the child of 2 illegals (non-citizens) become a citizen?
Ultimately, Bondie was sh!tcanned for her incompetence. Even by the low standards set for Trump lawyers, she was a retard. She should never have been in such an important position in the Trump organization with such limited talent and skills. But that's what happens when you do DEI hires. You end up with mush.
if you really wanted to police incompetence she'd have been fired back when. maybe it would have been when she flipflopped twice on do the epstein files even exist. or how it looked like the documents had been reviewed last spring but then not prepared to send out. which meant they reviewed and redacted again recently. and then DOJ made a meal of that.
ironically i think his comments about political prosecutions or epstein mean the orwellian opposite of what people think. he wants more political prosecutions and is upset she covered his @$ poorly. she was supposed to deny the files or "list" existed and drag her feet. she didn't do that well and his tookus is in the fire, including with his own base.
he's sending her onto the plank to distract from iran. everything is incompetent right now so this is "competence theater." and really punishment for this being a lasting scandal. but did the man think he could run on epstein then release nothing?
but to me it's like noem. noem's priamry sin is how ICE did its business. i don't think trump cares 2 cents about corruption and feeding at the public trough -- he's trying to get DOJ to settle a lawsuit for his own indictments for tens of millions. but punting her for how bad MN looked would be admitting he went about it wrong. so he waits 3 months or so and fires her for corruption. as epstein rages and iran muddles. sure, donald, sure.
Please people!
Do not allow yourself to believe Trump has a thought out plan on these things. I have fallen into this trap and always have egg on my face. All of Trumps decision are childish by nature and governed by narcissistic impulse
Trump needs his women to look sexy and be good on TV. Otherwise they are useless to him. She failed miserably in those Senate hearings. All those other secondary reasons are way down the list.
In oral arguments, Sauer says of the 14th Amendment: "It did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens, who have no such allegiance" and that it was adopted to grant citizenship to free slaves whose "allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here." Wong Kim Ark's parents moved to the US, so there was no "generations of docile here". Wong Kim Ark and his parents all returned to China for most his childhood, and his parents never returned to the US. So clearly they held no allegiance to the US, yet The Supreme Court still found that Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen.
I'm sure Thomas and Alito will have some creative reading of the plain words "All persons born" to mean only "some persons that they approve of," but they will be the minority and The Court rule against Trump. Millions of taxpayer dollars wasted to accomplish nothing; it's the MAGA mantra.
Do you want to know what a tremendous waste of tax dollars is? Giving welfare to the kids of illegals.
Even just think about it logically – why should the child of 2 illegals (non-citizens) become a citizen?
Why is giving welfare to US citizens a waste of tax dollars? Seems like a better use of MY tax dollars than paying a bunch of DOJ flunkies to argue against The Constitution.
Why should the child of 2 non-citizens become a citizen? Because that's what The Constitution says?
Even just think about it logically - why should any loser with a Visa card be able to buy an AR-15?
Do you want to know what a tremendous waste of tax dollars is? Giving welfare to the kids of illegals.
Even just think about it logically – why should the child of 2 illegals (non-citizens) become a citizen?
Why is giving welfare to US citizens a waste of tax dollars? Seems like a better use of MY tax dollars than paying a bunch of DOJ flunkies to argue against The Constitution.
Why should the child of 2 non-citizens become a citizen? Because that's what The Constitution says?
Even just think about it logically - why should any loser with a Visa card be able to buy an AR-15?
What benefit to the country does having the child of 2 destitute, unskilled people become a citizen?
A poor illegal immigrant who’s picking strawberries on a farm in California isn’t part of an enemy force engaged in hostile occupation. Any child born here to that immigrant is automatically a US citizen.
Why should we want the kids of poor illegals to become citizens? They'll likely collect a ton of welfare and be a net drain on the country's finances.
I'm not saying that all immigration should be the "Trump gold card" but it should be almost exclusively based on skills or wealth.
You bring up an interesting, if horribly cruel question: to what extent should children be burdened by the crimes of their parents? If a child is born to two American career criminal parents, should that child be a US citizen, given their likelihood of also becoming a criminal or general blight on society? Since we’re now determining citizenship by an individual’s usefulness, as determined by you. Why not withhold US citizenship from that newborn and ship it off to CECOT? You also offer no data to support your prejudiced claims and, even if the trends are true, when did we start giving out rights from statistical trends? Poor people are more likely to commit violent crimes, thus we should strip citizenship and deport all poor people. That’s your thinking here.
What you’re failing to understand is that this isn’t about welfare. The MAGA candidates you support want to end that for poor Americans, too. This is about creating a permanent underclass of people in the US who can’t vote, have no rights and can be exploited on threat of expulsion at any time and whose children will also have that same dire status. A perfect example of this is that couple in Maryland who had half a dozen illegal immigrants from Guatemala do $10,000 worth of home improvements to their house and then called ICE on them right after they finished the job to avoid paying for the job. You probably think that was a brilliant move, why not take advantage of people in dire circumstances for your own benefit?
Trump’s not going to get there on this one. The 14th Amendment is too plainly written and “subject to the jurisdiction of” has been so clearly understood for over a century, I think this ends up being a 7-2 loss for the administration. When do you want to start impeachment proceedings on ACB, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh when they rule against Trump on this one?
Wong Kim Ark was the equivalent of a green card at that time. Not an illegal.
In oral arguments, Sauer says of the 14th Amendment: "It did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens, who have no such allegiance" and that it was adopted to grant citizenship to free slaves whose "allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here." Wong Kim Ark's parents moved to the US, so there was no "generations of docile here". Wong Kim Ark and his parents all returned to China for most his childhood, and his parents never returned to the US. So clearly they held no allegiance to the US, yet The Supreme Court still found that Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen.
I'm sure Thomas and Alito will have some creative reading of the plain words "All persons born" to mean only "some persons that they approve of," but they will be the minority and The Court rule against Trump. Millions of taxpayer dollars wasted to accomplish nothing; it's the MAGA mantra.
the "generations" theory is a patch for how do you deal with citizenship for most americans, whose families emigrated, if birthright doesn't count?? donald's granddad was german. donald's mom was scottish. at what point does being born here suffice?
because if you try to unravel the onion too far, donald's dad is an anchor baby, or donald is an anchor baby, or donald's kids with ivana and melania are children of foreigners. if birthright goes away, that's a problem for everyone.
because if you think about it, if your first ancestor born here did not have birthright, and we're then saying their kids don't have birthright because dad didn't have birthright, how many generations can we go back and say you're not legal? if the earlier generations wouldn't have been. retroactively. it's a mess.
that and it turns getting a passport or proving citizenship under various new laws requiring you be a citizen to get licenses or whatnot, from "show me your birth certiificate," into some horrifying geneaology exercise, where we try to decide if grandpa had the right intent, etc. and you would have to do that one by one for every passport.
unworkable. you'd get your passport in months or years. and in terms of the state laws now being based on citizenship -- heck no, i don't trust someone at the DMV figuring that mess out.
birthright is simple and a nice clean line. you're in, you're out.
In oral arguments, Sauer says of the 14th Amendment: "It did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens, who have no such allegiance" and that it was adopted to grant citizenship to free slaves whose "allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here." Wong Kim Ark's parents moved to the US, so there was no "generations of docile here". Wong Kim Ark and his parents all returned to China for most his childhood, and his parents never returned to the US. So clearly they held no allegiance to the US, yet The Supreme Court still found that Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen.
I'm sure Thomas and Alito will have some creative reading of the plain words "All persons born" to mean only "some persons that they approve of," but they will be the minority and The Court rule against Trump. Millions of taxpayer dollars wasted to accomplish nothing; it's the MAGA mantra.
Do you want to know what a tremendous waste of tax dollars is? Giving welfare to the kids of illegals.
Even just think about it logically – why should the child of 2 illegals (non-citizens) become a citizen?
Like Fred Trump? Both of his parents were non-citizens.
A poor illegal immigrant who’s picking strawberries on a farm in California isn’t part of an enemy force engaged in hostile occupation. Any child born here to that immigrant is automatically a US citizen.
Why should we want the kids of poor illegals to become citizens? They'll likely collect a ton of welfare and be a net drain on the country's finances.
I'm not saying that all immigration should be the "Trump gold card" but it should be almost exclusively based on skills or wealth.
Then again, maybe the follow the American Dream. Get an education against all odds, become a leader in their field and find the cure for cancer. You know, everything you are not.
Why is giving welfare to US citizens a waste of tax dollars? Seems like a better use of MY tax dollars than paying a bunch of DOJ flunkies to argue against The Constitution.
Why should the child of 2 non-citizens become a citizen? Because that's what The Constitution says?
Even just think about it logically - why should any loser with a Visa card be able to buy an AR-15?
What benefit to the country does having the child of 2 destitute, unskilled people become a citizen?
The children of the typical MAGA family shouldn't be citizens?
Why should we want the kids of poor illegals to become citizens? They'll likely collect a ton of welfare and be a net drain on the country's finances.
I'm not saying that all immigration should be the "Trump gold card" but it should be almost exclusively based on skills or wealth.
You bring up an interesting, if horribly cruel question: to what extent should children be burdened by the crimes of their parents? If a child is born to two American career criminal parents, should that child be a US citizen, given their likelihood of also becoming a criminal or general blight on society? Since we’re now determining citizenship by an individual’s usefulness, as determined by you. Why not withhold US citizenship from that newborn and ship it off to CECOT? You also offer no data to support your prejudiced claims and, even if the trends are true, when did we start giving out rights from statistical trends? Poor people are more likely to commit violent crimes, thus we should strip citizenship and deport all poor people. That’s your thinking here.
What you’re failing to understand is that this isn’t about welfare. The MAGA candidates you support want to end that for poor Americans, too. This is about creating a permanent underclass of people in the US who can’t vote, have no rights and can be exploited on threat of expulsion at any time and whose children will also have that same dire status. A perfect example of this is that couple in Maryland who had half a dozen illegal immigrants from Guatemala do $10,000 worth of home improvements to their house and then called ICE on them right after they finished the job to avoid paying for the job. You probably think that was a brilliant move, why not take advantage of people in dire circumstances for your own benefit?
Trump’s not going to get there on this one. The 14th Amendment is too plainly written and “subject to the jurisdiction of” has been so clearly understood for over a century, I think this ends up being a 7-2 loss for the administration. When do you want to start impeachment proceedings on ACB, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh when they rule against Trump on this one?
Every country has jus sanguinis and, by definition, every country will have people who are below median income. I think it's a bad thing for society that birth has basically "flipped" from the past – in the past it'd be richer and more intelligent people who have more kids, but now it's the polar opposite. Elon is a massive exception to the rule but he's only one man. The national IQ has steadily been dropping
Also, the national debt is a serious issue. If we don't give citizenship to non-citizens who almost certainly will be on welfare, we can reduce the deficit greatly – and that can result in reducing the debt, or at least lowering its rate of increase.
Parra & Kirkegaard 2025 just published an update on national IQs, along with robustness tests. Results shown below: pic.twitter.com/QTk75KrQqu
Why is giving welfare to US citizens a waste of tax dollars? Seems like a better use of MY tax dollars than paying a bunch of DOJ flunkies to argue against The Constitution.
Why should the child of 2 non-citizens become a citizen? Because that's what The Constitution says?
Even just think about it logically - why should any loser with a Visa card be able to buy an AR-15?
What benefit to the country does having the child of 2 destitute, unskilled people become a citizen?
You really are a fascist at heart. Forget the fact that the children of immigrant parents tend to achieve more upward mobility than the children of US born parents. Let’s consider the disabled. It sounds like you would advocate just liquidating any and all persons with disabilities that would prevent them from benefiting the state, as you see it.
Why is giving welfare to US citizens a waste of tax dollars? Seems like a better use of MY tax dollars than paying a bunch of DOJ flunkies to argue against The Constitution.
Why should the child of 2 non-citizens become a citizen? Because that's what The Constitution says?
Even just think about it logically - why should any loser with a Visa card be able to buy an AR-15?
What benefit to the country does having the child of 2 destitute, unskilled people become a citizen?
dude, i could say that about white folks in the ozarks. i grew up where it was 95% white. there were still crimes and stupid people. quit being a racist.
you're also making Bell Curve type arguments where we assume dumb parents = dumb kids. my parents didn't graduate college and lived in the cheapest subdivision in our suburb. my brother and i graduated college with honors. you're making a false assumption.
last, you're selling the bs where well educated people from mixed economies with social safety nets would even want to move here for any reason other than making money. personally i see the far bigger problem right now as loyalty and narrowly coming here for cash.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
