I am glad I live in Virginia and not a state choosing up spend its money to fight this. If you are against the EO you get the brilliant legal minds of Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and Rob Bonta fighting for you.

Because it’s a Trojan horse for mass chain migration and looting & scamming government assistance programs Americans pay for.

Anonymous wrote:Actually no.


The “jurisdiction” clause was meant to exclude invading military and foreign diplomats.

So if an embassy employee from Japan had a kid here, they would not be giver US citizenship as they were here under the jurisdiction of the Japanese govt.

Also, if British military officers who were invading the US, had a wife who had kids on US soil, they would also not be given American citizenship.

So if you are here illegally, not granted parole or a court date, then you are under the jurisdiction of your home country. Hence also not given citizenship.


All the Supreme Court has to do is apply the “jurisdiction” clause to exclude illegals. A simple ruling in defining the scope of that term is all you need.

The jurisdiction clause was also meant to exclude native Americans. We later passed the native citizenship act which granted them citizenship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, the United States finally joins the rest of the world in 2025 where citizenship requires at least one parent be a citizen. Way to go with common sense USA. Birthright citizenship as it was previously done was nutso.

Sorry, but this EO is unconstitutional.

If you don't like the Fourteenth Amendment, then propose an amendment to change it.

Scotus will uphold it

The mother and father's citizenship and status are not on the birth certificate.

This is going to create thousands, millions of stateless babies. When we need all the people we can get, as we approach population decline.

I’m ambivalent on this… It won’t hold in the courts. If Republicans want to take action on this, they can try to amend the constitution. However, good luck getting 2/3s of both houses and 3/4 of state legislatures to pass this.

Also, to be clear, these babies would not be stateless. They would receive the citizenship of their parents’ home country. It’s called jus sanguini-citizenship through the blood

I don't have strong feelings about birthright citizenship, but I do have strong feelings about creating more chaos and creating a permanent, ongoing part of society that has no legal status in the US. Those chickens will eventually come home to roost, and not in a good way.

It's time for Congress to grow up and face reality - we aren't going to realistically deport 11 million people and we aren't going to stop people from coming. Time for Congress to actually do the work. We need an extensive guest worker program with a path to citizenship, or even better, other incentives for those workers to maintain their families in their home countries.

And if we want to amend the Constitution to disallow birthright citizenship, then let's go through the process and do it. Not through an executive order that can just be overturned after the next election.

I am surprised green card marriage fraud isnt as large of a scandal as anchor babies/birthright citizenships. I know hotel chains that largely benefit from rich foreigners who have maternity tourism at 6-7 months pregnant to the US to give birth to a US citizen baby before flying back after the baby is 8 weeks old.

On a related topic, I bet there is going to be a surge in induced/premature birth in the coming days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's called Uni-Party, the swamp, whatever. Both sides are just theater kid puppets controlled by the same open borders bankers, multi-national corps, and PACs.

AKA. Them Jews?

DP. It’s interesting that that’s apparently where your mind immediately went.

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS will do what Trump wants it to do.

Roberts won't. And ACB doesn't like Trump. So, maybe.

SCOTUS will do what Trump wants it to do.

I support ending birth right citizenship but don’t think SCOTUS will allow the change except through a constitutional amendment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JD’s wife and Vivek wouldn’t be US citizens.

And lots of other people. This is really silly to have a president just be able to change the Constitution with an order. They're going to get rid of every other piece of the Constitution depending on who is in office. Change the amendment the way you're supposed to change the amendment.

This is my only beef with this. I'd be perfectly fine changing the parameters around birthright citizenship to be more in line with reality and avoid the birthing tourism that is a real problem. Do it properly.
signed, lifelong Democrat

This is not changing the constitution - just a policy of interpretation. Just like Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause as providing it enumerated authority to pass civil rights laws regulating small in-state businesses.

Apparently the wife of the vice president of the United States is a beneficiary of this policy. It's good enough for the wife of the vice president of the United States of America, but it's not a good policy?

Not addressing the “goodness” of the policy, just that its an interpretation of the Constitution- not changing it.

Yes, it is changing it. It has meant one thing for 156 years and now he's saying it actually means the opposite.

From 1788 until 1964 the interstate Commerce Clause was read to limit Congress’s regulation of intrastate commerce. Until it was interpreted that because a BBQ restaurant sources products from out of state, Congress’s proscription on discrimination against customers was actually regulation of interstate commerce.

Which pre-1964 case said Congress couldn't regulate intrastate commerce?

Well the Constitution says Congress can only regulate “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes.” And then what is not specifically enumerated is reserved to States in the 10th Amendment. So there’s that.

And that has been interpreted since the founding to allow regulation only intrastate commerce. One of the first SCOTUS cases in history held that. So much for your gotcha.

I think you don’t know the difference between interstate and intrastate.

Anonymous wrote:It's called Uni-Party, the swamp, whatever. Both sides are just theater kid puppets controlled by the same open borders bankers, multi-national corps, and PACs.

AKA. Them Jews?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have good friends in the US on work visas. I think they have Green Cards, but I’m not sure. Their 14 year old and 7 year old haven’t ever lived anywhere else. The idea, in the future, that children born in those circumstances could be “sent back” seems complicated or disturbing to me. In cases where the children might not have family or know the language it seems pretty inhumane.

Im reading it as - if you came here illegally, your kids can't be a US citizen. If you came here legally, but aren't yourself a US citizen, they can be a US citizen.

No, the EO is specific in allowing citizenship only for children of US citizens and permanent residents. Guest workers, though they are here legally, are not eligible.

Work visas are dual intent. People on work visas can apply for green cards, and many do.

They can't apply, employers must sponsor and it's not automatic at all.

Not automatic, but not especially hard, either.
Most people on H1 visas eventually get Green cards and American citizenship. Absent criminal history it takes exceptional bad luck not to convert a skilled worker visa into a Green card status for self, spouse and kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JD’s wife and Vivek wouldn’t be US citizens.

And lots of other people. This is really silly to have a president just be able to change the Constitution with an order. They're going to get rid of every other piece of the Constitution depending on who is in office. Change the amendment the way you're supposed to change the amendment.

This is my only beef with this. I'd be perfectly fine changing the parameters around birthright citizenship to be more in line with reality and avoid the birthing tourism that is a real problem. Do it properly.
signed, lifelong Democrat

This is not changing the constitution - just a policy of interpretation. Just like Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause as providing it enumerated authority to pass civil rights laws regulating small in-state businesses.

Apparently the wife of the vice president of the United States is a beneficiary of this policy. It's good enough for the wife of the vice president of the United States of America, but it's not a good policy?

Not addressing the “goodness” of the policy, just that its an interpretation of the Constitution- not changing it.

Yes, it is changing it. It has meant one thing for 156 years and now he's saying it actually means the opposite.

From 1788 until 1964 the interstate Commerce Clause was read to limit Congress’s regulation of intrastate commerce. Until it was interpreted that because a BBQ restaurant sources products from out of state, Congress’s proscription on discrimination against customers was actually regulation of interstate commerce.

Which pre-1964 case said Congress couldn't regulate intrastate commerce?

Well the Constitution says Congress can only regulate “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes.” And then what is not specifically enumerated is reserved to States in the 10th Amendment. So there’s that.

And that has been interpreted since the founding to allow regulation only intrastate commerce. One of the first SCOTUS cases in history held that. So much for your gotcha.