Birthright citizenship case scheduled for Supreme Court hearing in May
The case challenging President Donald Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship is due to be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court. The cases related to this order will be consolidated and arguments presented on May 15, 2025. Trump’s argument is based on what was intended with the 14th Amendment. Those opposed to his order argue that birthright citizenship applies to those born in the US, regardless of the parents’ statuses.
From Fox News:
Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris asked the justices to limit the scope of the rulings to cover only individuals directly impacted by the relevant courts.
“These cases — which involve challenges to the President’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship — raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border,” Harris wrote in their appeal.
To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration’s executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship, though multiple district courts have blocked it from taking effect.
Implementation of Trump’s executive order was initially set for Feb. 19. The policy would have affected hundreds of thousands of children born in the U.S. each year.
The order sought to reinterpret the 14th Amendment, which states: “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.”
Under the Trump administration’s proposed interpretation — later blocked by federal courts — children born to illegal immigrants or to those who were here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas, are not citizens by birthright.
Additional Reading:
Deppisch, B. (2025, April 17). Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in birthright citizenship case. Fox News. Link.
Category: Donald Trump, Historical, Society
One illegal fooking another illegal shouldn’t result in an American citizen.
“Two wrongs don’t make a right”?
But two Wrights make an aeroplane…
The rulings haven’t aged well for the modern world. I can tell you that embassy staffers in DC don’t see their kids born in the US as Americans. It is actually seen as government over reach and hubris.
I’m not sure that children of embassy and diplomatic staff are covered by birthright citizenship.
But, but, they must be US Citizens, they were born here (unless they were born at the embassy).
Diplomatic personnel and their families are specifically excepted by the foreign relations act; they’re not U.S. citizens.
I had to crack open my notebooks to answer this one.
In short, birthright citizenship hangs on “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”.
Ambassadors and others with full diplomatic immunity wouldn’t be subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but an embassy staffer (depending on what visa they are admitted under) would likely be.
This is correct and most likely why they will lose the court challenge. Whatever the original intent, courts have interpreted it differently over the decades.
The only way to fix it would be with a constitutional amendment.
“The only way to fix it would be with a constitutional amendment.”
I concur.
Though the end result may be tasty, I’m leery of creating a legal precedent that can be turned around and rammed up our collective asses under a (d)ifferent executive branch.
I think that’s where “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” comes into play.
John McCain, for instance, was born in Panama.
Also born to two American citizen parents, so the location was moot.
It was moot in Panama. Our law apparently says two Panamanians make an American.
“On every question of construction [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text of invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
–Thomas Jefferson
Had he gotten his legal education at Harvard or Columbia he probably wouldn’t have said that.
The concept of anchor babies has been around for several decades as mothers to be cross the border soley for the purpose of delivering in the US thereby securing an “anchor” for the mother and possibly the father to stay in the country. Quite frankly, I think that is wrong and if an illegal alien cannot abide by the laws of the land they invaded to become lawful citizens, their spawn should not be citizens either.
Not just anchor babies. The Chinese are doing infiltration babies. They fly into LA give birth and fly home. 18 years later they show up and sign up for the military and all kinds of things.
We can’t even think ahead to the election after next. They are building Manchurian Candidates from scratch.
A loooong time ago I dated a Mexican lady from Tucson. Her parents were Mexican citizens, ran a very successful cattle ranch outside Nogales. Mom delivered all her babies in Tucson hospitals, kids all had dual citizenship. The boys all got agricultural degrees and took over the family business, the girls all went into business or nursing in Tucson. I don’t want to say they worked the system, but they damn sure managed it very well!
Another data point why too many Amendments should have been laws instead.
Once an Amendment is passed, it is nigh on impossible to modify or repeal it.
Laws are much easier to amend, modify, or repeal.
The key phrase in the 14th that is so conveniently ignored in the 14th is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Illegals are not citizens of the US, and are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (except for getting jailed and deported), and therefore neither are their children, no matter where or when they’re born.
The intent of the 14th was to ensure citizenship rights to freed slaves and their children. It should’ve had an expiration date.
“Illegals are not citizens of the US, and are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – uh, no, that is wrong. They are SUBJECT to the jurisdiction, laws, etc. but they are breaking them. That is why they can be deported – they broke the law coming in, the US exercises its jurisdiction, and throws them out. Diplomatic immunity is a “not subject to jurisdiction” status – about all the government can do is ask that the diplomat leave – unless the parent country waived immunity, an ambassador can literally kill someone here and saunter onto a departing airplane unmolested. There have been cases in which the child of someone with diplomatic immunity tried to claim US citizenship based on the 14th – and were refused because of the jurisdiction clause.
The 14th is actually very clearly written (actually more so than the 2nd, with that damned subordinate ‘militia’ clause), and sans changing/amending it, no decent judge can support the administration’s plea.
I said nothing about illegal aliens, I spoke of ambassadors and embassy staff. And the intent of the court case is to decide whether or not illegals aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction, laws, etc.”, your opinion on it is duly noted. I can understand arguments on both sides of this. You state that “The 14th is actually very clearly written (actually more so than the 2nd, with that damned subordinate ‘militia’ clause)”. Many people would argue otherwise.
Now if you could kindly explain why you just ran up my ass over something I did not say, my day would be complete.
Yep, that’s where the problem lies; how to define “jurisdiction”. Definitions are important.
“It depends on what the definition of the word “is” is”.
More like what “subject” means or meant.
It also covered the various “Native American” Tribes. Somewhat.
If they made a treaty with the United States, they accepted jurisdiction.
Yes “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means, if you didn’t accept jurisdiction and climbed over the fence instead of asking to be here, your kid born here ain’t a citizen.