Article

2026-04-02 -Land of the Free

Restoring Meaning To American Citizenship

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Skidmark 2026-04-02 07:17|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [1827 views ] Top

1 Trump says he will attend birthright citizenship arguments at Supreme Court

Posted by Skidmark 2026-04-01 07:46|| 2026-04-01 07:46|| Front Page Top

2 Prob a bad time to announce where he's going to be.

Posted by Skidmark 2026-04-01 13:02|| 2026-04-01 13:02|| Front Page Top

3 He's already been there and left before the ACLU ~~Bitch~~ Lawyer started

Posted by Frank G 2026-04-01 13:14|| 2026-04-01 13:14|| Front Page Top

4 "It was deliberately inserted to exclude from automatic citizenship those who owe allegiance to another country."

If this interpretation were true, this would also exclude children of parents who are not U.S. citizens but lawful residents, as we were when one of our daughters was born in the U.S. At this time, we of course owed allegiance to a foreign nation (Germany).

She of course is a U.S. citizen. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" isn't "Subject to the exclusive jurisdiction thereof"

Posted by European Conservative 2026-04-01 14:47|| 2026-04-01 14:47|| Front Page Top

5 Alito invokes Scalia analogy in birthright citizenship fight over illegal immigration

Posted by Skidmark 2026-04-01 17:32|| 2026-04-01 17:32|| Front Page Top

6 isn't "Subject to the exclusive jurisdiction thereof"

That is the question, of course. As we have seen with slavery, a national income tax, and Prohibition, the judicial understanding of the words in the Constitution can change over time.

Posted by trailing wife 2026-04-01 18:27|| 2026-04-01 18:27|| Front Page Top

7 ^ It just takes the ideological oiliness to determine what the meaning of "is" is and penumbras of emanations. KBJ is just an imbecile, and will base whatever on "feelings". The other two dimwits (Paul Blart - Mall Cop, and Wise Latina) aren't much better

Posted by Frank G 2026-04-01 18:56|| 2026-04-01 18:56|| Front Page Top

8 But you can't smuggle in a word that simply isn't there and makes no sense.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply can't be construed to mean "Subject to the exclusive jurisdiction thereof".

Had the framers of the 14A meant that, they could have added that word. Throughout most of the 19th century, becoming a U.S. citizen typically required a minimum of 5 years of residency, based on the Naturalization Act of 1802. Do you think the framers wanted to exclude ALL children of those immigrants before they became U.S. citizens?

Posted by European Conservative 2026-04-01 19:15|| 2026-04-01 19:15|| Front Page Top

9 Do you think Illegal Immigration (without vetting at Ellis Island, et al) was a big issue then? Or dual citizenships?

Posted by Frank G 2026-04-01 19:21|| 2026-04-01 19:21|| Front Page Top

10 No, but this is besides the (legal) point. The U.S. born child of an illegal immigrant on U.S. soil would be as much subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. as the U.S. born child of a legal (non citizen) immigrant would be.

Posted by European Conservative 2026-04-01 19:28|| 2026-04-01 19:28|| Front Page Top

11 and given a nice parting gift on the deportation of their illegal parents (I have no sympathy for the parents). It was never an invitation for anchor babies. The jurisdiction is based on whether they even TRIED to immigrate legally, IMNSHO, first. Jumping the border cancels all warranties and implied contracts, consumer beware.

Posted by Frank G 2026-04-01 19:44|| 2026-04-01 19:44|| Front Page Top

12 BTW - I have met/known Illegals who jumped the border. I liked them personally, but they spit on the lawful immigration process, diminishing an important American standard

Posted by Frank G 2026-04-01 19:46|| 2026-04-01 19:46|| Front Page Top

13 Past bedtime here. If possible I'd like to continue this tomorrow.

Posted by European Conservative 2026-04-01 19:52|| 2026-04-01 19:52|| Front Page Top

14 But I had to watch Artemis. A little bit of EC tech included...

Posted by European Conservative 2026-04-01 19:54|| 2026-04-01 19:54|| Front Page Top

15 Discussion to continue tomorrow

Posted by badanov 2026-04-01 20:46|| 2026-04-01 20:46|| Front Page Top

16 Artemis was a smooooooth launch. Haven't seen one that smooth with no glitches in a while.

Posted by DarthVader 2026-04-01 21:36|| 2026-04-01 21:36|| Front Page Top

17 ^ It was awesome

Posted by Frank G 2026-04-01 22:02|| 2026-04-01 22:02|| Front Page Top

18 Artemis. A little bit of EC tech included...

How exciting! Heartiest congratulations, European Conservative! I have no doubt it was not your tech that gave a faulty temperature reading this afternoon.

Posted by trailing wife 2026-04-01 23:27|| 2026-04-01 23:27|| Front Page Top

19 Where is the consistency? Children born of Americans who are military stationed overseas or diplomats, are they citizens of the country they were born in? Or are they citizens of the bloodline of the parents? Are the children of diplomats in America, Americans or that of the home country of the diplomat?

Posted by Procopius2k 2026-04-02 07:25|| 2026-04-02 07:25|| Front Page Top

20 Thanks tw! (And not the malfunctioning toilet either...). I'll comment later.

Posted by European Conservative 2026-04-02 07:46|| 2026-04-02 07:46|| Front Page Top

21 All right, I'll try to make a few points.

I followed the Supreme Court proceedings, and my daughter followed them even more closely.

The money quote is from Roberts: "It's a new world, but the same Constitution." So, I think that when the 14th Amendment of 1868 says, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," this remains valid even if the world changes. I understand Frank G. well. Illegal immigration wasn't an issue in 1868, so the 14th Amendment may no longer address the problem of birthright citizenship properly. That may be true, but what can you do?

There are three options:
Option 1: Prove that the framers intended to exclude the children of illegal immigrants (or foreigners in general).
Option 2: Prove that the framers would have excluded the children of illegal immigrants had they known about the problem.
Option 3: Change the 14th Amendment the proper way.

Given the current political situation, option 3 seems impossible.
Option 2 is an uphill battle and not without its own risks. Think about the Second Amendment. Would you argue that the framers might have worded the Second Amendment differently had they known about the trouble automatic guns could cause in the future?
Option 1 seems best, but I don't think it will work. Reinterpreting "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to "not owing allegiance to anybody else" is difficult, as it would change the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" as it has been understood since 1868. Why was the exception for diplomats made? They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., but everyone else in the U.S. is—and this includes illegal aliens. "Not owing allegiance to anybody else" would mean that even children of parents who both have green cards would not qualify. The status of children with one parent who is a legal resident but not a U.S. citizen would also be put into doubt. The 14th Amendment has never been understood this way, as proven by Wong Kim Ark.

As I followed the proceedings, I thought Sauer's best point was the one about "domiciled." The word doesn't appear in the 14A, but it does in Wong Kim Ark. Could the court let Wong Kim Ark stand because his parents were domiciled in the U.S. when he was born? But what does "domiciled" mean? The current government defines it as "legal residence with the intent to stay." However, it would be difficult to prove this at the time of a child's birth. My wife and I were legal residents of the U.S. (with German passports), but did we intend to stay forever? I can't answer that question, and as a matter of fact, we didn't stay. I thought the court could give the government a way out by striking down the executive order while giving the government the opportunity to rephrase it more clearly. However, I think Coney Barrett closed that door with her questions about slaves, who clearly did not intend to stay in a country to which they were brought in chains.
Sauer also messed up the issue with Native Americans. He must have known Gorsuch would bring this up. Kavanaugh stressed the continuity of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in Congress, so I doubt he was won over.

I think the Court will strike down the EO. You'll find a different way to deal with the problem.

Posted by European Conservative 2026-04-02 09:42|| 2026-04-02 09:42|| Front Page Top

22 I've always preferred the "Starship Trooper" approach to granting citizenship. If that isn't possible then I'd welcome the opportunity to remove citizenship from "those who are no longer our countrymen" TWANLOC and deport them. Neither will transpire but either would suit me at this point.

Posted by Clem+Elmish4239 2026-04-02 10:46|| 2026-04-02 10:46|| Front Page Top

23 Something similar. We all are born residents, either American or legal foreigner (with papers) by blood. At the age of 21, you pass a citizenship test and enroll in the militia and thus become a citizen. Your choice. Those who join the armed forces before 21, may apply one year after entering service with good behavior.
Found guilty of a class one felony and you revert to resident.
Those who do not meet the classification of resident or citizen are to be classified as outlaws.

Posted by Procopius2k 2026-04-02 11:00|| 2026-04-02 11:00|| Front Page Top

24 #19 Where is the consistency?

Children born of Americans who are military stationed overseas or diplomats, are they citizens of the country they were born in? Or are they citizens of the bloodline of the parents?

Children born to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens will always be U.S. citizens regardless where they were born. They can ALSO be citizens of the country they were born in if that country has ius solis.

I don't understand the question of consistency. Children of diplomats will never (automatically) be citizens of the (foreign) country they were born in. This makes a lot of sense because the hosting country doesn't have jurisdiction over those parents and their children. Giving them citizenship would assume jurisdiction over them. You can't declare the child of an U.S. ambassador to North Korea a North Korean citizen.

Posted by European Conservative 2026-04-02 11:16|| 2026-04-02 11:16|| Front Page Top

25 The underlying concern is this:

HUNDREDS of companies provide BIRTH TOURISM for foreign moms who want US citizen babies.

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court regarding birthright citizenship, the Trump administration noted the prevalence of “birth tourism,” or the action of an expecting foreign national traveling to the United States with the intention of giving birth to their child on American soil, granting them US citizenship.

Kayleigh McEnany said on Fox News as the Supreme Court was in session, “There are more than 500 firms in China that facilitate people coming from the Chinese Communist Party to give birth here in the United States. Obama enabled this through loopholes dating back to 2009, and what that could mean is 1 million new voters by 2030. Imagine that, Communist Party voters.”

Over the years, a number of companies across the US and its territories have catered to mothers from countries such as Russia and China. Recent reports have revealed companies operating in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a US territory in the Pacific.

The more so since China still intends to replace America as world hegemon, by war after undermining our culture and our economy. Prosperous Communist Chinese are buying their children Canadian citizenship or sending their pregnant wives and daughters here to give birth without any intention of them living here until it’s time for them to make use of university options at native rather than foreigner prices. But the Chinese army and spy services must be thinking of the opportunity to insert fifth columnists who are American citizens when the time comes.

We see the prototype in Al Qaeda in Yemen’s Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born here while his father was here for grad school on a Fulbright scholarship. The family moved back to Yemen when he was seven, then he was sent back to America for university. When President Obama had him killed in Yemen in 2011, there were those who argued it was extrajudicial murder because of his citizenship rather than a straightforward act of war because he was directing a terror organization that was actively waging jihad in America and the West.

Posted by trailing wife 2026-04-02 12:30|| 2026-04-02 12:30|| Front Page Top

26 Amending the Constitution is a long, hard process. The Founding Fathers made it that way to prevent the country from veering wildly back and forth on issues like birthright citizenship. The fever must pass and the hard work must be done by determined people to gather an overwhelming consensus. And if you think birthright citizenship is a difficult issue, try abortion.

The last time someone tried to amend the Constitution was back in the 1970s and 1980s with The Equal Rights Amendment and that effort failed.

Ideally, the Fourteenth Amendment needs clarification and revisions but, in today's polarized America, it ain't gonna happen. Democrats will do anything to get power and keep it, whether it's good for the country or not, and they need unlimited immigration to maintain their grip on power. They need an unlimited stream of ignorant, illiterate voters from the Third World because educated people with skin in the game will not vote for them. Democrats won't stop until America is an overcrowded Third World socialist police state and elections are a thing of the past.

We can only hope that squishy Justices like Roberts can find their way through the ambiguity to realize that people who came here illegally have no right to claim citizenship for their babies. In fact, illegal aliens should be considered hostile foreign invaders with no rights except for a plane ticket back to their country of origin.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2026-04-02 12:43|| 2026-04-02 12:43|| Front Page Top

27 In fact, illegal aliens should be considered hostile foreign invaders with no rights ~~except for a plane ticket back to their country of origin~~.

Posted by Grom the Affective 2026-04-02 13:17|| 2026-04-02 13:17|| Front Page Top

28 I like the 'foreign invaders' idea. A little bit like the 1942 invasion of - New York.

Well, not exactly the same thing...

Posted by Bobby 2026-04-02 13:20|| 2026-04-02 13:20|| Front Page Top

29 "Restoring Meaning To American Citizenship"

Looks like we will need a cull.

There is no meaning in being an American. I deal with people everyday that do not speak my language, do not look my forefathers that spilt their blood for the country, they have names I cannot pronounce or spell. They have traditions like genital mutilations, inbreeding, and rape that is so foreign to me. They have all the pagan religions, it is so bad that I hear more about pagan holidays than I ever hear about Easter.

Americana is nostalgia. It's yesterday news. What we have today is hell. Low vibration, feral, and trash.

If it burnt down tomorrow, what would I miss?

Posted by mossomo 2026-04-02 14:32|| 2026-04-02 14:32|| Front Page Top

30 Children born to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens will always be U.S. citizens regardless where they were born.

When we were expats in Europe, we were told that it only took one American citizen parent to bequeath American citizenship to a child born abroad (excluding those born on US military bases or other designated external American enclaves who count as born on American soil). But the child of such a child citizen had to have a second American citizen parent or be born on American soil in order to retain citizenship in the next generation. In other words, nothing like the Volksdeutsch who were in Russia for centuries before being welcomed back to Germany, or the Israeli thing for Jews as hereditary birthright citizens beyond the single generation settled abroad.

In other words, European Conservative, your American daughter would need to either marry an American-born American citizen or give birth in America to fulfill the current conditions for her children.

Posted by trailing wife 2026-04-02 14:40|| 2026-04-02 14:40|| Front Page Top

31 What we have today is hell. Low vibration, feral, and trash.

You see a bottom line reality I am sheltered from, mossomo. You are who the Supreme Court needs to answer to.

Posted by trailing wife 2026-04-02 14:51|| 2026-04-02 14:51|| Front Page Top

23:27 trailing wife
23:18 trailing wife
23:14 trailing wife
22:41 Skidmark
22:02 Frank G
21:36 DarthVader
21:35 NoMoreBS
21:26 Frank G
21:13 ed in texas
20:58 SteveS
20:49 Frank G
20:46 badanov
19:55 Secret Master
19:54 European Conservative
19:52 European Conservative
19:47 Glenmore
19:46 Frank G
19:44 Frank G
19:28 European Conservative
19:21 Frank G
19:15 European Conservative
18:57 Frank G
18:56 Frank G
18:34 Seeking Cure For Ignorance
Merry-Go-Blog