Patterico's Pontifications

1/28/2025

White House Spokesperson on the Issue of Birthright Citizenship

Filed under: General — Dana @ 2:18 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Today at the White House press conference, new press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to questions about the Trump administration and birthright citizenship:

Q: . . .22 state attorney generals have said that this is unconstitutional. A federal judge has just agreed with their argument. What’s the administration’s argument for doing away with birthright citizenship?

A: The folks that you mention have a right to have that legal opinion, but it is in disagreement with the legal opinion of this administration. This administration believes that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and that is why President Trump signed that order. Illegal immigrants who come to this country and have a child are not subject to the laws of this jurisdiction. That’s the opinion of this administration. We have already ruled, uh, appealed the lawsuit that was filed against this administration and we are prepared to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, if we have to, because President Trump believes that this is a necessary step to secure our nation’s borders and protect our homeland.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

—Dana

86 Responses to “White House Spokesperson on the Issue of Birthright Citizenship”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (499eaa)

  2. By signing this EO, Trump isn’t actually claiming he is changing the law. Rather, he is claiming that, as the President entrusted with executing the law, the law as properly interpreted does not include within its term the children of illegal immigrants.

    …..as the President entrusted with executing the law…..

    He stopped doing that on Day One.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  3. Yeah, this one is going to be hard to push through. Especially the way they are doing it. But at least the battle will consume much of the opposition’s time, and when the opposition wins, they will have won …. nothing.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  4. I happen to believe that children of tourists and students who are required to return to their own country ought not be given US citizenship by birth. To the degree this is gamed, it makes a mockery of US immigration law.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  5. “Read just pages 70 and 71.”

    Seems open and shut to me

    Those born, within the territory of the United States, of alien parents, (Indians, and the official representatives of foreign states excepted,) who are permanently domiciled within the United States.

    I think the disconnect comes from this section on naturalization. Look how simple it used to be to become naturalized:

    Those statutes recognize four classes of persons as entitled to become adopted citizens: (1) Those who have resided in the United States since June ISth, 1812; (2) Those who have resided in the United States for a period of at least five years, and legally declared their intention to become citizens of the United States more than two years before their naturalization; (3) Those who have resided in the United States for a continuous period of five years, three of which was during their minority; (4) Those who have served in the military forces of the United States and have been honorably discharged therefrom. Any such persons appearing before a court of record, proving their compliance with these conditions, and taking the requisite oaths of allegiance, are admitted, together with such of their minor children as are resident in the United States, to all the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship.

    Because there was no concept here of an illegal alien

    An alien is a person born outside of the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States and not naturalized therein. Such persons, (Indians, and the representatives of foreign states excepted,) when within the territory of the United States, owe thereto a local and temporary allegiance. They are of two classes : Alien-friends and Alien-enemies. An alien-friend is an alien, resident in the United States, and with whose state the United States is at peace. An alien-enemy is an alien, resident in the United States, and with whose state the United States is at war.

    So, if you moved to the United States with the intent of becoming a permanent resident, your children were citizens at birth. We’ve made it a lot harder for people to naturalize, but the intent is still there.

    Davethulhu (14e9e4)

  6. Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/28/2025 @ 4:00 pm

    To the degree this is gamed, it makes a mockery of US immigration law.

    The 4th amendment was passed before there was any law that limited immigration.

    Citizenship mainly conferred the right to vote and the right to be employed by the government. There were few other discriminatory laws.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  7. 1790 called and they want their legacy returned.

    BuDuh (7a5fe0)

  8. It’s a Living Constitution.

    lloyd (72406a)

  9. The 4th amendment was passed before there was any law that limited immigration.

    Or any cars and airplanes. The ease. low cost and general safety of long-distance travel made immigration laws necessary. In 1865, nobody traveled from Europe and back in the same week.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  10. Citizenship mainly conferred the right to vote and the right to be employed by the government. There were few other discriminatory laws.

    There were few other laws, period.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  11. @6

    “Read just pages 70 and 71.”

    Seems open and shut to me

    Those born, within the territory of the United States, of alien parents, (Indians, and the official representatives of foreign states excepted,) who are permanently domiciled within the United States.

    Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 1/28/2025 @ 4:04 pm

    Illegal aliens are not “permanently domiciled”.

    Permanently domiciled means there was some prior authorization.

    whembly (c87394)

  12. I’m wondering about this quote: “Illegal immigrants who come to this country and have a child are not subject to the laws of this jurisdiction.” [emphasis added] That would seem to suggest that illegal immigrants shouldn’t be held accountable for violating federal law. Of course, I’m not an attorney, so this may involve a legal term of art I’m not familiar with.

    Chris Leach (0c03f0)

  13. @13

    I’m wondering about this quote: “Illegal immigrants who come to this country and have a child are not subject to the laws of this jurisdiction.” [emphasis added] That would seem to suggest that illegal immigrants shouldn’t be held accountable for violating federal law. Of course, I’m not an attorney, so this may involve a legal term of art I’m not familiar with.

    Chris Leach (0c03f0) — 1/29/2025 @ 6:54 am

    Its a legal term of art of the time.

    Jurisdiction in this context means what allegiance does this person hold, or what claims does the foreign state have over that person.

    whembly (c87394)

  14. Chris Leach (0c03f0) — 1/29/2025 @ 6:54 am

    It seems more likely that she bungled her words and inadvertently set up a clever “gotcha.”

    But if it brings life to this comment section, maybe it was purposeful.

    One never knows when Hanlon’s razor gets applied around here..

    BuDuh (7a5fe0)

  15. “Illegal aliens are not “permanently domiciled”.

    Permanently domiciled means there was some prior authorization.”

    No it doesn’t and I explained why. There was no need or requirement for prior authorization at the time it was written.

    Davethulhu (d57f86)

  16. @17 Davethulhu (d57f86) — 1/29/2025 @ 7:27 am
    No, your explanation doesn’t make any sense.

    The writers of the time had a term for the illegal immigrants… aliens. More specifically, “Alien-friend” or “Alien-enemy”.

    Because you’re making the case that I could “permanently domiciled” in your living room and you’d have no recourse.

    whembly (c87394)

  17. Taking it further, “Alien-enemy” would be also be the illegal migrants today as they broke the laws by entering this country.

    whembly (c87394)

  18. “The writers of the time had a term for the illegal immigrants… aliens. More specifically, “Alien-friend” or “Alien-enemy”.

    Because you’re making the case that I could “permanently domiciled” in your living room and you’d have no recourse.”

    I feel like I’m repeating myself. There were no “illegal immigrants” as the term is understood today.

    “Taking it further, “Alien-enemy” would be also be the illegal migrants today as they broke the laws by entering this country.”

    The text defines “alien-enemy”, and it’s not your definition.

    Davethulhu (14e9e4)

  19. There were no “illegal immigrants” as the term is understood today.

    What did they have?

    BuDuh (7a5fe0)

  20. Davethulhu, the strict originalist.

    lloyd (f0afd6)

  21. @19

    I feel like I’m repeating myself. There were no “illegal immigrants” as the term is understood today.
    Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 1/29/2025 @ 8:06 am

    Because you are wrong.
    https://archive.org/details/cu31924018811426/page/n91/mode/2up
    See pg 70, 1st paragraph:

    Subjects are of two kinds: Citizens and Aliens. A citizen is one who who owes to the state, of which he is a citizen, an universal and perpetual allegiance.

    See pg 71, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence:

    An alien is a person born outside of the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States and not naturalized therein.

    The illegal migrants are not “Citizens”.

    Then, they must be an “Alien”.

    As understood by this logic, today’s illegal migrants ARE the “Alien” described here.

    See pg 70, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence:

    …persons (except Indians, and the official representative of foreign states), who are permanently domiciled within its jurisdiction. The persons born within this jurisdiction and allegiance are the following:
    (1) Those born, either at home or abroad, of parents who are citizens;

    If the illegal migrant’s parents are not citizens, then this doesn’t apply.

    (2) Those born, within the territory of the United States, of alien parents, (Indians, and the official representatives of foreign states excepted,) who are permanently domiciled within the United States.

    You want to hand wave away the meaning of “permanently domiciled”, a phrase that is repeated in this book, is arguing in bad faith.

    Permanently domiciled has meaning in this context, and it means an “authorization” was given for that alien to be allowed to live in this country.

    Which does NOT apply to illegal migrants.

    So, to recap, I’ve demonstrated that when that book was published in 1875, a few years after the 14th was ratified, that:
    a – legally, there was understanding what was the difference between an alien vs a citizen.

    b – by simple logic, today’s illegal migrants are those “Aliens” as understood at the time.

    c – the phrase “permanent domicile” cannot be applied to today’s illegal migrants.

    d – today’s illegal migrants were NOT a class of people who would be covered by birthright citizenships, as understood at the time of the publishing of this book.

    The fact the subsequent courts seems to get this wrong, doesn’t mean courts today couldn’t fix it. (the real fix, is really congress passing statutory law clarifying who is covered under the birthright citizenship).

    whembly (c87394)

  22. I think I will let the Courts dispose of this one. Trump thinks the courts are wrong and this is how he gets his viewpoint through. Bet we don’t get a ruling based on the 14th amendment though. The SC (because that’s where this is going) will base their ruling on legislation which contains language similar to what’s in the 14th.

    Appalled (4684fe)

  23. “Davethulhu, the strict originalist.”

    lloyd, the whitenoise troll

    Davethulhu (14e9e4)

  24. “Permanently domiciled has meaning in this context, and it means an “authorization” was given for that alien to be allowed to live in this country.”

    Permanently domiciled is not defined in the text.

    “arguing in bad faith”

    GFY

    Davethulhu (14e9e4)

  25. @25

    GFY

    Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 1/29/2025 @ 9:20 am

    Ah, so when losing an argument elicit such a response.

    How about…

    No.

    whembly (c87394)

  26. @’thulu

    Words have meaning… not necessarily what you wished it to be.

    If you were one who argued in the past that the 2nd amendment “A well regulated Militia” meant only something like a state unit like the national guard, and not an individual right, only to be proven wrong by evidence of what it meant when it was drafted… then, I would ask that you refrain from asking others to GFY and reconsider.

    whembly (c87394)

  27. “If you were one who argued in the past that the 2nd amendment “A well regulated Militia” meant only something like a state unit like the national guard, and not an individual right, only to be proven wrong by evidence of what it meant when it was drafted… then, I would ask that you refrain from asking others to GFY and reconsider.”

    If I had, then perhaps you might have a point, but you’re making assumptions that you can’t back up, which is the definition of arguing in bad faith.

    Davethulhu (14e9e4)

  28. There is an argument that an illegal alien in a sanctuary city or state is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States — or even of the locality given the willingness of local authorities to look the other way.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  29. Dave, I promise you my question was in good faith.

    BuDuh (7a5fe0)

  30. Comparing immigration between a period where there were no tourists or casual travelers and where the difficulty and expense of international travel was a once-in-a-lifetime endeavor, to the modern era where one can travel from Podunk Nevada to South Africa in at most two days is just not reasonable.

    In 1790 or 1890 if you traveled to America the odds were great you were staying and making a home here. If there were any rules, it was that you did not bring disease. The numbers of immigrants were low even at the height of Ellis Island — at the peak, less than 1 million a year were entering. Numbers were limited by cost and hardship.

    Today, similarly open borders would result in 10s of millions showing up at our door each year. The results of that would be horrific.

    So, yes, in 1865 there were no immigration rules. That does not mean that extending that to today is wise or proper.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  31. @28

    If I had, then perhaps you might have a point, but you’re making assumptions that you can’t back up, which is the definition of arguing in bad faith.

    Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 1/29/2025 @ 9:55 am

    You see… I didn’t say that you did.

    I said, which you pointed out, “If you had…”.

    More bad faith from you it would seem.

    whembly (c87394)

  32. “Dave, I promise you my question was in good faith.”

    My answer would be substantially the same as Kevin’s @31. Immigration was essentially unrestricted.

    The second amendment stuff is really you guys telling on yourselves. You know you’re making the same argument as some (not me) make for repealing or restricting the second amendment. For transparency’s sake, I consider the 2nd a lost cause, and don’t bother to engage on it.

    Davethulhu (14e9e4)

  33. The meaning of amendments and the constitution itself does change with time. This depends on the reason for the original rules and the state of the world today. To say that the Free Press only applies to newspapers, or the right to arms is limited to muskets is silly.

    To impose citizenship rules that were developed for a largely immobile population onto a highly mobile one is not the slam dunk some people think it is.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  34. Immigration was essentially unrestricted.

    I mostly agree. But what about naturalization? I am pretty sure that those rules were in place since 1790 guarding citizenship because they fully accepted that foreigners could be present in the United States with no entitlement to citizenship for them or their children. Immigration laws weren’t really necessary.

    Here is another question: Why do you think the founding fathers did not allow a naturalized citizen to be president? What was their fear?

    BuDuh (7a5fe0)

  35. Having said that, I think that it will take an Amendment. I would like to hear the reasons why people would oppose any such.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  36. they fully accepted that foreigners could be present in the United States with no entitlement to citizenship for them or their children.

    Not so. It was fully accepted that foreigners could be present but DAMN FEW of them were going back home. Diplomats, British soldiers, etc, excepted. But children born here WERE considered citizens even at the Founding.

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

    This implies that being born here conveys a form of citizenship that is more than naturalization. Prior to Adoption, citizenship was by state, under state laws.

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    This essentially defines national citizenship as being conferred by state citizenship.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  37. But children born here WERE considered citizens even at the Founding.

    And then you quote an amendment that was ratified three quarters of a century latter.

    Try again.

    BuDuh (7a5fe0)

  38. Jurisdiction in this context means what allegiance does this person hold, or what claims does the foreign state have over that person.

    whembly (c87394) — 1/29/2025 @ 7:12 am

    Source?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  39. “But what about naturalization?”

    Wembly’s document listed the processes, which were pretty simple.

    “Why do you think the founding fathers did not allow a naturalized citizen to be president? What was their fear?”

    The stated intent, I think, was to guard against foreign influence. As a possible guess, I’d consider how inter-related european royalty was, and that they didn’t want anything to do with that.

    Davethulhu (14e9e4)

  40. Well said whembly. Thank you for your educated comments.

    NJRob (bb9d53)

  41. I think we agree, Dave. Now considering that, and that an Oath fo Allegiance has been around since the first naturalization act in 1790, does it cause you some concern that foreigners who wholly renounce foreign allegiance were not allowed to become president, but a dual citizen newborn had no such restrictions?

    You could almost say that they preferred unquestionable allegiance over the possibility of foreign influence.

    BuDuh (7a5fe0)

  42. There is an argument that an illegal alien in a sanctuary city or state is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States — or even of the locality given the willingness of local authorities to look the other way.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/29/2025 @ 10:03 am

    No there isn’t-whether in a sanctuary state/city or not, they are still illegally in the country and can be arrested, as we have seen in the past couple of weeks.
    State and local governments are not obligated to enforce federal laws, nor can they be compelled to do so. For example, New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc. are sanctuary jurisdictions, yet ICE has is continuing to conduct arrests.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  43. You could almost say that they preferred unquestionable allegiance over the possibility of foreign influence.

    You may want to examine this statement in the context of the current administration.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  44. ICE has is continuing to conduct arrests.

    When the city is not playing 3 card monte with them.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  45. And then you quote an amendment that was ratified three quarters of a century latter.

    Pretty sure I did not. Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  46. @39

    Source?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/29/2025 @ 11:09 am

    https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/defining-citizens-congress-citizenship-and-the-meaning-the-fourteenth


    One conspicuous departure from the language of the Civil Rights Act was the elimination of the phrase “Indians not taxed.” Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the Citizenship Clause, defended the new language against the charge that it would make Indians citizens of the United States. Howard assured skeptics that “Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else . . . subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Indians, he concluded, were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States because they owed allegiance—even if only partial allegiance—to their tribes. Thus, two requirements were set for United States citizenship: born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

    By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. And “jurisdiction” did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, “jurisdiction” meant exclusive “allegiance” to the United States. Not all who were subject to the laws owed allegiance to the United States. As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of “jurisdiction,” understood in the sense of “allegiance,” “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.”

    whembly (b7cc46)

  47. You got me, Kevin. I completely apologize for that error on my part.

    Are you saying that a “natural born citizen” can have two allegiances?

    BuDuh (7a5fe0)

  48. State and local governments are not obligated to enforce federal laws

    This is true. But 8 U.S.C. § 1324 says

    (a)(1) (A) Any person who—

    (ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

    (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

    (v)
    (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
    (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

    shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

    The punishments can be harsh.

    Cities that declare themselves sanctuaries and have contact with one or more illegal aliens are in violation of some of these. Up to now, the federal government has refrained from such prosecutions. Bet you we see some soon.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  49. “…suggesting…” is better than “…saying…”

    I am just trying to flesh out your reasoning without causing a situation where you think I am trying to put words in your mouth. Thanks.

    BuDuh (7a5fe0)

  50. Church volunteers are exempted.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  51. Are you saying that a “natural born citizen” can have two allegiances?

    For all I know they can have 10. But, at least at the founding, a child born here to anyone other than a diplomat was born to folks who intended lifetime residency, so it’s hard to see how they would still have allegiance to the Old Country. Maybe if they were born to British sleeper agents.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  52. So Loyalist were given the go ahead to be President by mere location of birth?

    BuDuh (7a5fe0)

  53. For all I know they can have 10.

    Is that in conflict with the restrictions of a naturalized citizen becoming President?

    BuDuh (7a5fe0)

  54. Odd thought: Is someone pardoned for all crimes during a period of time “under the jurisdiction of the United States” during that time? Hunter Biden was pardoned for all acts between 2014 and 2024. During that time he had 2 children. Arguably, they do derive citizenship from him, although both mothers were citizens at the time of birth.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  55. *Arguably, they do NOT derive citizenship

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  56. Is that in conflict with the restrictions of a naturalized citizen becoming President?

    No. The two are unrelated. In fact a naturalized citizen could have become president well into the 19th century. Had he not been killed in a duel, Alexander Hamilton would have had his shot.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  57. DYCWIDT?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  58. Mensel, Robert E. (2012) “Jurisdiction in Nineteenth Century International Law and Its Meaning in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Saint Louis University Public Law Review: Vol. 32: No. 2, Article 6.
    Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/plr/vol32/iss2/6

    Abstract

    This article addresses the meaning of the citizenship clauses of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment by augmenting the historical record relevant to those clauses. It argues that the key to understanding their meaning lies in the nineteenth century concept of allegiance, the central concept in the international law of citizenship and subjecthood in the nineteenth century.

    International law, diplomatic history, and international conflict centered around that concept, reveal complexities not fully explored in the previous scholarly literature on the citizenship clauses.

    Conflicting national claims to the allegiance of subjects and citizens and to the duties they owed to sovereigns caused, in part, the War of 1812. They almost led the U.S. to war with Austria in 1853, and they contributed to tensions with other German states.

    They flared up again with Great Britain in conflicts over conscription by the United States of British subjects in 1862, and in the Fenian conflicts of 1866. Conflict arose over the extent to which sovereigns whose subjects emigrated to the United States retained jurisdiction over those emigrants based on allegiance to their native sovereigns.

    This, to which I refer as the jurisdiction arising from allegiance, differed from and to some extent clashed with territorial jurisdiction.

    It was recognized as a matter of international law as an extraterritorial jurisdiction grounded in the relationship between the subject and the subject’s original sovereign.

    It was vastly more extensive and expansive than its enervated twenty-first century descendant, and so, in a seeming paradox, has remained generally invisible to the modern eye.

    To understand it is to gain important insights into the meanings underlying both the Act and the Amendment. The citizenship clauses of the Act and the Amendment offered opportunities to relieve this international tension, even while addressing their principal purpose of making citizens of the freedmen.

    The congressional debates over the Act and Amendment lapsed into incoherence because one group of legislators discussed the proposed Amendment as if the word ‘jurisdiction’ therein meant the jurisdiction arising from allegiance. That suggests that they intended to exclude from birthright citizenship the children of aliens, of persons who owed allegiance to some other sovereign at the time of the child’s birth in the United States.

    Their opponents discussed the proposed Amendment as if the word ‘jurisdiction’ meant only territorial jurisdiction. That meant that anyone born within the United States would be a citizen by birthright, with only the most trivial exceptions, unless excluded explicitly.

    The greater weight of language and history favors the conclusion that the word “jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment was predominantly understood to mean the jurisdiction arising from allegiance. The weight of the evidence is not overwhelming, however, and the disposition of enormously important modern issues on the basis of that weight, without further research, might well be ill-advised.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  59. In fact a naturalized citizen could have become president well into the 19th century. Had he not been killed in a duel, Alexander Hamilton would have had his shot.

    That isn’t a good example unless the clause said:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to campaign for to the Office of President

    Back to the conundrum. It is not in dispute that a naturalized citizen, who by law has renounced all past allegiances and has taken an oath to the US, is NOT eligible to be president.

    I believe it is your contention that parents who have not taken an oath to the US, nor have they renounced their allegiances to a foreign sovereign, can have a child on US soil, and that child is eligible to be president through no allegiance or renouncing process on the part of the child throughout the child’s life.

    How do you square this?

    BuDuh (64098f)

  60. Strike through failure…

    BuDuh (64098f)

  61. whembly (b7cc46) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:15 pm

    So the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” is someone’s opinion, not supported by case law.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  62. The greater weight of language and history favors the conclusion that the word “jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment was predominantly understood to mean the jurisdiction arising from allegiance. The weight of the evidence is not overwhelming, however, and the disposition of enormously important modern issues on the basis of that weight, without further research, might well be ill-advised.

    whembly (b7cc46) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:40 pm

    Again, an unsupported opinion.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  63. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:56 pm
    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/29/2025 @ 12:57 pm

    I also posted the positions of the writers of the 14th Amendment.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  64. I also posted the positions of the writers of the 14th Amendment.

    whembly (b7cc46) — 1/29/2025 @ 1:02 pm

    Apparently the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed with their position.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  65. @65

    Apparently the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed with their position.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/29/2025 @ 1:05 pm

    Actually, no.

    SCOTUS has never ruled on illegal aliens with respect to birthright citizenship.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  66. > I believe it is your contention that parents who have not taken an oath to the US, nor have they renounced their allegiances to a foreign sovereign, can have a child on US soil, and that child is eligible to be president through no allegiance or renouncing process on the part of the child throughout the child’s life.

    They grew up here, in our culture and society, and are presumed to have no more allegiance to a foreign government than you or I do.

    aphrael (dbf41f)

  67. They grew up here, in our culture and society, and are presumed to have no more allegiance to a foreign government than you or I do.

    Naturalized citizens are eligible for all elected offices(city, state, federal) except for one. They immerse themselves in the very government that they take multiple oaths to as they move upward. Lawmakers for the very same cultural and society. They overtly swear allegiance to The US while promising to renounce all previous allegiances. Why did the Founders presume the naturalized citizen to less equal in society to a dual citizen child and his foreign tied family?

    BuDuh (64098f)

  68. OT: Former Senator Bob Menendez sentenced to 11 years.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  69. Again, I’m trying to demonstrate what the term “jurisdiction thereof” as understood in this time.

    Here’s another good research, with citations of writers of the 14th amendment:
    https://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/


    In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said, “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provide the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

    The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

    In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation. As will be explained shortly, only acts under the laws of naturalization can remove an alien’s allegiance to some other country under United States law.

    So, as understood at the time the 14th was passed… no, an illegal alien intending to live in the US w/o prior authorization doesn’t confer birthright citizenship to their babies born on US soil.

    Do courts get it wrong at times?

    Of course.

    Is this one of them?

    I think so, but requires final rule from SCOTUS and/or Congress passing laws.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  70. SCOTUS has never ruled on illegal aliens with respect to birthright citizenship.

    Indeed. There are a few dicta-level comments in later decisions, but the issue did not bear on the decisions.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  71. Still, it would surprise me if children born to immigrants of any kind — those who wish to live and remain here — would not be covered. Temporary visitors OTOH might be excluded.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  72. My real worry is that some of the current family deportations include native-born children who are denied recognition of their citizenship in the process.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  73. My real worry is that some of the current family deportations include native-born children who are denied recognition of their citizenship in the process.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:02 am

    As you say, the children should be given up for adoption.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  74. @74

    As you say, the children should be given up for adoption.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:10 am

    No. That should only be the last resort, as in, the parents wants to give child up.

    The default should be to keep the family together, and repatriate all of them.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  75. Both of you miss my point. The apparent administration policy, which may be applied by ICE, is that children born to illegals are NOT CITIZENS. How they handle the children in deporting them, and any eventual attempt by the children to re-enter as citizens, will be altered by the way they approach this issue.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  76. As you say, the children should be given up for adoption.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:10 am

    No. That should only be the last resort, as in, the parents wants to give child up.

    The default should be to keep the family together, and repatriate all of them.

    whembly (b7cc46) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:29 am

    I disagree. They should be separated, so the children can grow up as Americans.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  77. I disagree. They should be separated, so the children can grow up as Americans.

    Suppose ICE is operating under new rules saying they CANNOT be Americans?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  78. In any event it should be the parent’s choice, with local Child Services the default alternative. BUt ICE may assert than no child of illegals is a citizen.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  79. Most of the articles I see indicate that “migrant” families are being wound up by scaremongers in the press and community. People not going to the grocery store or doctors because they’ve been told that they will be fingered for ICE. That kind of thing.

    As I’ve said, TRUTH was the first casualty of this, with all sides misrepresenting and conflating.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  80. Texas Public Radio

    As mass deportation sweeps by ICE increase across the United States, undocumented immigrants must be prepared in case they are detained. Without a plan, families can be torn apart, children left without caregivers, and vital possessions lost. Preparation is key to ensuring that families can navigate this difficult situation with some level of security.

    Civil rights groups recommend that undocumented individuals should keep copies of important documents—including passports, birth certificates, work records, utility bills, and any pending immigration paperwork—both with them and in a safe place. These documents should also be accessible to a trusted friend or family member. Having the contact information of an immigration lawyer or legal aid group is essential, as legal representation can mean the difference between deportation and relief.

    Families should discuss and establish emergency plans, including identifying a trusted adult to care for children if parents are detained. Children should know who to contact and where to go in case of separation. Additionally, immigrants should memorize key phone numbers, as detained individuals may not have access to their cell phones.

    By preparing ahead of time, undocumented immigrants can protect their families, safeguard their rights, and improve their chances of fighting deportation. Planning now can make an enormous difference in an unpredictable and difficult situation.

    Civil rights and immigration attorneys are reminding undocumented residents that they still have constitutional rights, and it’s crucial they are aware of them as mass deportation raids increase. Here are key rights and protections they should know:

    1. Right to Remain Silent

    You do not have to answer questions from ICE or law enforcement about your immigration status.
    You can say: “I am exercising my right to remain silent.”
    Do not provide false information or fake documents.

    2. Right to Refuse a Search Without a Warrant

    You do not have to open your door unless ICE agents show a signed judicial warrant (issued by a court, not just ICE).
    You can ask: “May I see the warrant?”
    If they only have an ICE warrant (Form I-200 or I-205), you do not have to let them in.

    3. Right to an Attorney

    You have the right to speak to a lawyer before answering any questions.
    You can say: “I want to speak to an attorney before I answer any questions.”
    Do not sign anything without a lawyer reviewing it.

    4. Right to Refuse to Sign Documents

    ICE may try to pressure you into signing voluntary deportation papers.
    Do not sign anything unless your lawyer advises you to.

    5. Right to a Hearing

    You have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge before being deported.
    Only an immigration judge can order deportation, not ICE agents.
    If detained, ask for a bond hearing to request release.

    6. Emergency Planning

    Memorize the phone number of a lawyer or legal aid group.
    Have a plan with family members in case of detention.
    Carry copies of important documents in a safe place.

    7. If Stopped in Public or at Work

    Remain calm and do not run.
    You can ask: “Am I free to leave?” If yes, walk away.
    If detained, remain silent and request a lawyer.

    8. If Arrested or Taken to a Detention Center

    Do not disclose your country of origin or immigration status.
    Request a bond hearing.
    Contact an attorney or family member.

    9. Special Protections for Certain Groups

    DACA Recipients: May have some protections but should consult a lawyer.
    Victims of Crime or Domestic Violence: May be eligible for legal protections like U Visas or VAWA.
    Asylum Seekers: If in danger, express your fear of returning to your home country to an immigration

    officer.

    I don’t know how many of these legal remedies are operative right now.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  81. >I don’t know how many of these legal remedies are operative right now.

    And if they’re not operative for people who are *presumed but not proven to be illegal immigrant*, that means they’re not operative for *anyone* if the government or its agents decide to assert that you are an illegal immigrant.

    Civil rights were great when we had them.

    aphrael (dbf41f)

  82. I disagree. (Citizen children) should be separated, so the children can grow up as Americans.

    Suppose ICE is operating under new rules saying they CANNOT be Americans?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:48 am

    If the courts rule that the children of illegal immigrants are not US citizens, then there is no question they are deportable. Until then, children should be separated from their parents.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  83. BUt ICE may assert than no child of illegals is a citizen.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:50 am

    ICE doesn’t make or interpret the rules, courts do.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  84. ICE doesn’t make or interpret the rules, courts do.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/30/2025 @ 3:47 pm

    Or Congress.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  85. Kevin M (a9545f) — 1/30/2025 @ 9:50 am

    But ICE may assert than no child of illegals is a citizen.

    Only if Trump orders them to, and Trump has limited his order to the future. If they try, immigration judges (even them!) and federal courts will likely decide.

    Anyway Trump only ordered that babies without U.S. citizen or permanent resident parents not be given passports or Social Security cards.

    I don’t know what happened or what is the status of the baby who was sitting on a pile/bed of U.S. currency in the Bronx apartment to which a leading member of Tren de Aragua had fled to from Aurora, Colorado.. (which also shows you that Colorado already had the situation half in hand) He (or close relatives?) had other children there but that one could have been U.S. born.

    The whole thing was a publicity stunt designed to mislead people about what was going on (and the scale of it). The only way they legally broke in was the arrest warrant for kidnapping, assault and burglary and the DEA was also there, but they asked only one question about immigration. Maybe he’ll wind up in El Salvador or maybe in Guantanamo. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem showed up at one raid in person to give the impression that it was all about arresting dangerous criminals (in other forums Homan or others say they are going after everyone)

    They got an OK from Mayor Adams (that at least he would not criticise them – he says he agreed not to criticize anything ICE does in public) and in return maybe the Justice Department will drop the criminal charges against him. (the mayor)

    He’s allowing himself to be used as an argument that even in blue cities they see Trump’s policy is right.

    Mayor Adams was out of contact, claiming he was getting medical tests, for two or three days this week – now he says God selected him. He’s said that before. Citing Gideon in the Bible and Esther 4:14. The mayor suddenly appeared in public at some religious service.

    I also had word of mouth that the Walmart in Green Acres in Nassau County was closed that day because of lack of workers. Also reported is that there are fewer people or no people standing in the street looking for work. That would be in Queens. But not in the newspapers.

    I did hear and read, first Sid Rosenberg on WABC radio claiming that the mayor would resign in 72 hours, and later it was reported that there was a tape of him engaging in witness tampering. But now the news rumor is that the bribery charges will be dropped (It’s weak legally)

    But there is also the straw donor fraud with him having the defense that he didn’t know his fund raising people were doing that.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0952 secs.