Is Trump right?
-
An argument put forth by The Federalist:
https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/24/trump-is-right-about-birthright-citizenship/
-
I think that's exactly where it's headed.
If they rule in his favor...Birthright citizenship applies to legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants, then we see some hellatious negotiations on the effective date.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
I think that's exactly where it's headed.
If they rule in his favor...Birthright citizenship applies to legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants, then we see some hellatious negotiations on the effective date.
@Jolly said in Is Trump right?:
I think that's exactly where it's headed.
If they rule in his favor...Birthright citizenship applies to legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants, then we see some hellatious negotiations on the effective date.
EO says effective date is date of EO issuance.
-
@jon-nyc said in Is Trump right?:
2 votes max, Thomas and Alito.
Maybe. But a 5-4 solves an awful lot of problems.
- The end of anchor babies and the reasons to have one.
- A greater emphasis on legal immigration.
- It does confirm some status on those born in the U.S. prior to the EO.
-
If they confirm it was never constitutional those prior to 1/20/25 will always be an EO away from statelessness.
Seems to me that you could essentially solve the immigration crisis without booting people who were born here and spent their whole lives here, who’s English is flawless and indistinguishable from white Americans their age.
-
If they confirm it was never constitutional those prior to 1/20/25 will always be an EO away from statelessness.
Seems to me that you could essentially solve the immigration crisis without booting people who were born here and spent their whole lives here, who’s English is flawless and indistinguishable from white Americans their age.
@jon-nyc said in Is Trump right?:
If they confirm it was never constitutional those prior to 1/20/25 are an EO away from stateless.
Seems to me that you could essentially solve the immigration crisis without booting people who were born here and spent their whole lives here, who’s English is flawless and indistinguishable from white Americans their age.
I'd rather solve the anchor baby problem permanently.
Amnesty can always be worked out in Congress.
-
I've watched several lawyers talk about this in the last few days.
Of course, the key words are "subject to..."
Andy McCarthy thinks it stands no chance of surviving. However, two remedies are a constitutional amendment (duh) and some kind of legislation which defines "subject to..." He says that's a heavy lift.
Others feel that the intent of the 14th was do deal with slaves, who were not, at the time, citizens. Also, the children of diplomats born in the US.
SCOTUS reviewed the case in 1898. The case in question was two Chinese citizens who were here legally (SF, iirc). Their son was born here, and he left for a while as a young adult. He returned to the US, claiming to be a citizen. He was at first denied, but SCOTUS said "yeah."
OTOH, if I go to (shudder) England, I am "subject to the jurisdiction." I have to drive on the wrong side of the road, and I can't post dangerous tweets.
SCOTUS should clarify what the law says.
But is the EO lawful? I doubt it.
ETA: The case I mentioned is in the article posted by @Jolly
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
I think it is an interesting question, but like the above smart posters, I dont think it will be legal.
-
I've watched several lawyers talk about this in the last few days.
Of course, the key words are "subject to..."
Andy McCarthy thinks it stands no chance of surviving. However, two remedies are a constitutional amendment (duh) and some kind of legislation which defines "subject to..." He says that's a heavy lift.
Others feel that the intent of the 14th was do deal with slaves, who were not, at the time, citizens. Also, the children of diplomats born in the US.
SCOTUS reviewed the case in 1898. The case in question was two Chinese citizens who were here legally (SF, iirc). Their son was born here, and he left for a while as a young adult. He returned to the US, claiming to be a citizen. He was at first denied, but SCOTUS said "yeah."
OTOH, if I go to (shudder) England, I am "subject to the jurisdiction." I have to drive on the wrong side of the road, and I can't post dangerous tweets.
SCOTUS should clarify what the law says.
But is the EO lawful? I doubt it.
ETA: The case I mentioned is in the article posted by @Jolly
@George-K said in Is Trump right?:
… and some kind of legislation which defines "subject to..." He says that's a heavy lift.
I’ve heard analysts mention this as a possibility. That congress could potentially clarify the definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ but not the president via EO.
