S.C. believed to lack 5 votes to affirm non-conditional, U.S. birthright citizenship

[Ben_Natuf]

@Samm

illegal immigrants, again, by definition.

no they are not, by definition, legal definition, they are illegal aliens.

[SpadeMarlowe]

@johnwk2

.
See: Supreme Court doesn’t have 5 votes to uphold birthright citizenship: ex-AG

6/29/2025

“Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during an interview on Sunday speculated that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against nationwide injunctions in a landmark case as a compromise after failing to secure five votes on the issue of birthright citizenship.”

Of course the Supreme Court doesn’t have 5 votes to affirm unconditional birthright citizenship. That’s because those who wrote and agreed to ratify the 14th Amendment provided a qualifier “. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . “ which does in fact need to be satisfied for birthright citizenship.

Let us keep in mind our constitutional system requires and adherence to the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text, e.g., see Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), where our Supreme Court emphatically points out:

”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”

And in the case of the 14th Amendment’s Section one, the qualifier “. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . “disqualifies, for United States Citizenship, a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil. How does one arrive at this conclusion? By adhering to a preponderance of evidence expressing “legislative intent” found in the debates during the framing and ratification process of the 14th Amendment.

As an example of legislative intent see, Senator Reverdy Johnson who notes the absolute necessity connected to citizenship upon birth as follows:
"[A]ll that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

Parents who are subject to the authority of the United States, within the meaning of the Fourteenth, owe allegiance to the United States, enjoy political privileges such as voting, and have military service obligations when called upon, which is not the case of parents who are foreign nationals, and especially of foreign nationals who illegally enter the United States who give birth to offspring.

This and several other examples confirm the qualifier “. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . “ must exclude from United States Citizenship, the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. Our very own Supreme Court noted this exclusion in Elk v. Wilkins ___ that the Citizenship Clause’s jurisdictional qualifier means “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

Additionally, considering that the 14th Amendment’s Section 5, gives Congress, and only Congress, the exclusive power to adopt “appropriate legislation” to enforce the Amendment, it would be an encroachment upon Congress’s exclusive legislative authority for our Supreme Court members to attach their personal meaning to the Fourteenth Amendment’s qualifier, by which United States Citizenship is granted.

Let us also recall that in 1924 Congress did exercised its exclusive power to enforce the Amendment by appropriate legislation and adopted the “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”, extending United States citizenship to Indians as outlined in the Act. Since then, there is no “appropriate legislation” to be found under which Congress has extended citizenship, to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

Moving on, it is important to note that under Article 2 of our Constitution, our President gets to exercise administrative policy changes, such as was exercised by Biden when he was President. Not only did President Biden’s Administration allow, but effectively invited, millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, un-vetted terrorist and religious fanatic foreign nationals to flood across our border and settle in various communities where they began to inflict, and to this very day are inflicting, pain and suffering on American citizens and their children.

Keep in mind there is no wording in our Constitution, nor a federal statute, or a Supreme Court ruling, which pronounces that a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth. Current public policy, and only “policy” not “law”, now recognizes the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

The policy making authority of our President found in Article 2, is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate for change of existing public policy.

It seems abundantly clear from the above, that President Trump’s E.O., "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” is not only constitutional, but is specifically designed to effectuate public policy change which an overwhelming number of American citizens voted for when electing President Trump. And thus, our S.C. members must not get involved in this policy making change authority, except to educate the public how our system works, and that elections have consequences, and one of those consequences is the setting new federal public policy which no longer recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, as citizens of the United States upon birth.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story

It IS important to hang onto every little word because otherwise it’s easy to change the meanning of something over a period of time.
Democrats are very good at that.
So suddenly a lie becomes a fact.
So I agree with Ben.

I f it takes 2 to dance a murder can never be a Tango.
Yes we have 2 participants but one is an unwilling partner.
Same here.
We have Illegal Aliens crashing the border to come live here. And we have Legal Immigrants who come legaly.
Those 2 ARE different and NOT the same by the way they chose to come.
We focus on the way they came and Liberals focus on WHY they crashed the border.
They want EQUITY in everything, even Immigration.
Trump wants Law 'n order and to send them Illegals all out.
Trump will win even THAT fight in the end.

[Samm]

@Ben_Natuf

@Samm

illegal immigrants, again, by definition.

no they are not, by definition, legal definition, they are illegal aliens.

Who cares?

[Samm]

@Ben_Natuf

the thread is about the SC and the law, hopefully they do

The thread is about whatever we choose to make it. And if you want to make is about aliens vs immigrants that’s fine, but you don’t get to make up your own definition and then demand that everyone else accept it.

[Ben_Natuf]

hopefully the SC. The thread is about the court and the law, not about what Sam decides.

[Ben_Natuf]

in a thread about courts and law you don’t get to ignore the legal definition. I have made up nothing, it is the legal definition and classification under the law. You are the one trotting out definitions that are irrelevant, as they are not the law.

[Samm]

@Ben_Natuf

hopefully the SC. The thread is about the court and the law, not about what Sam decides.

My decision has nothing to do with it. The definition of “immigrant” is clear. If you want to call them illegal aliens and not illegal immigrants, that’s fine, but you don’t get to tell me or anyone else what label they put on them.

[Ben_Natuf]

no, meriam webster is not the law. Their intention is not the law. The law is what it is, and they are illegal aliens, not immigrants.

Consider you invite someone to stay in an extra BR in your home. If things don’t go well you ask them to leave. They have legal recourse as it becomes their residence. You have to go through a legal process to evict them because they entered legally.

Now consider someone breaks down your front door and takes up residence in your extra BR uninvited and claims they now reside there… are they a resident?

Immigration is a process; it involves filling out the proper paperwork and having permission to enter the country. People who follow the process are immigrants. Wanting to immigrate does not make one an immigrant, the process does.

Crashing the gate does not make one an immigrant. Overstaying a Visa does not make one an immigrant. It makes them exactly what they are regardless of their intent, illegal aliens.

[johnwk2]

@Samm

@johnwk2

You falsely misconstrue “illegal aliens” as being “immigrants”, which evades the fact those you reference are illegal entrants.

No I didn’t. Anyone who leaves their country and comes to America with the intent to live here is an immigrant by definition. If they enter the country without the proper visa, they are illegal immigrants, again, by definition. What about that is do hard for you to understand?

Bless your heart! You finally got it correct. Once they cross our border illegally, they are not “immigrants” but rather, they are illegal entrant foreign nationals or illegal aliens.

[biggestal99]

boy that was easy

Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order despite Supreme Court ruling

“Laplante agreed the plaintiffs could proceed as a class, allowing him to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president’s policy nationally.”

score: ACLU 1 trump 0

Allan

[Samm]

@Ben_Natuf

no, meriam webster is not the law. Their intention is not the law. The law is what it is, and they are illegal aliens, not immigrants.

Consider you invite someone to stay in an extra BR in your home. If things don’t go well you ask them to leave. They have legal recourse as it becomes their residence. You have to go through a legal process to evict them because they entered legally.

Now consider someone breaks down your front door and takes up residence in your extra BR uninvited and claims they now reside there… are they a resident?

Immigration is a process; it involves filling out the proper paperwork and having permission to enter the country. People who follow the process are immigrants. Wanting to immigrate does not make one an immigrant, the process does.

Crashing the gate does not make one an immigrant. Overstaying a Visa does not make one an immigrant. It makes them exactly what they are regardless of their intent, illegal aliens.

We are not bound to the vocabulary of the law in this forum. I will continue to call them illegal immigrants regardless of your outrage, because that description best fits them. And if you want to continue to throw a hissy fit over it, that is entirely up to you.

[Samm]

@johnwk2

@Samm

@johnwk2

You falsely misconstrue “illegal aliens” as being “immigrants”, which evades the fact those you reference are illegal entrants.

No I didn’t. Anyone who leaves their country and comes to America with the intent to live here is an immigrant by definition. If they enter the country without the proper visa, they are illegal immigrants, again, by definition. What about that is do hard for you to understand?

Bless your heart! You finally got it correct. Once they cross our border illegally, they are not “immigrants” but rather, they are illegal entrant foreign nationals or illegal aliens.

Who cares?

[johnwk2]

@Samm

@Ben_Natuf

no, meriam webster is not the law. Their intention is not the law. The law is what it is, and they are illegal aliens, not immigrants.

Consider you invite someone to stay in an extra BR in your home. If things don’t go well you ask them to leave. They have legal recourse as it becomes their residence. You have to go through a legal process to evict them because they entered legally.

Now consider someone breaks down your front door and takes up residence in your extra BR uninvited and claims they now reside there… are they a resident?

Immigration is a process; it involves filling out the proper paperwork and having permission to enter the country. People who follow the process are immigrants. Wanting to immigrate does not make one an immigrant, the process does.

Crashing the gate does not make one an immigrant. Overstaying a Visa does not make one an immigrant. It makes them exactly what they are regardless of their intent, illegal aliens.

We are not bound to the vocabulary of the law in this forum. I will continue to call them illegal immigrants regardless of your outrage, because that description best fits them. And if you want to continue to throw a hissy fit over it, that is entirely up to you.

If misrepresenting illegal entrant foreign nationals as illegal “immigrants” floats your boat, have at it.

[Samm]

It’s not a misrepresentation of anything. It’s an apt description of a group of people using the English language definition of words.

This conversation is stupider than the argument over calling people on the political left libs instead of liberals.

[Ben_Natuf]

correcting your wrong legal terminology is not a fit, its a fix

[Samm]

@Ben_Natuf

correcting your wrong legal terminology is not a fit, its a fix

Just stop. There is nothing wrong with using words as defined in the dictionary.

[SpadeMarlowe]

@Samm

@Ben_Natuf

hopefully the SC. The thread is about the court and the law, not about what Sam decides.

My decision has nothing to do with it. The definition of “immigrant” is clear. If you want to call them illegal aliens and not illegal immigrants, that’s fine, but you don’t get to tell me or anyone else what label they put on them.

I think it’s time to change the name of prison ‘inmates’ to something else since they’re all there not of their free will.
A name or a label is important.
If possession is 90 % of the law then a name/label ought to do most of the describing that individual or a thing.

[SpadeMarlowe]

@Samm

@Ben_Natuf

correcting your wrong legal terminology is not a fit, its a fix

Just stop. There is nothing wrong with using words as defined in the dictionary.

How does a lawyer call them when they hand in a legal document?
Or…what’s in the law, what are they called ? Immigrants or Aliens.
A while back the Left Activists tried to get rid of the name ‘Alien’. They said it is insulting or something to call Illegals ‘Aliens’.
I looked at my Green Card…the language everywhere about it is “Alien”.
Just another example where Liberals repeat a lie once to often until it gets adopted as truth.