Birthright Citizenship can a president write an executive order about it?

[2tallbill]

Here is the whole 14th Amendment read this rather than believing some
commentator for your favorite brand of news. Or better yet look it up for
yourselves.

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.

Section 2

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Source
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/#:~:text=No%20State%20shall%20make%20or,equal%20protection%20of%20the%20laws.

[WestCoast]

Soon after Trump signed his EO on birthright citizenship I say a YT video on this subject. The guy doing the  video is a lawyer who said his interpretation of the EO means that if the mother is in the country illegally and had a kid in the US the baby would not be a citizen. However if the mother was in the US legally and had the kid then the baby would be a citizen. Trump's EO would not stop foreigners from entering the US legally and having a kid. The 'anchor baby' practice that is also common in Canada.

[Bodine]

Soon after Trump signed his EO on birthright citizenship I say a YT video on this subject. The guy doing the  video is a lawyer who said his interpretation of the EO means that if the mother is in the country illegally and had a kid in the US the baby would not be a citizen. However if the mother was in the US legally and had the kid then the baby would be a citizen. Trump's EO would not stop foreigners from entering the US legally and having a kid. The 'anchor baby' practice that is also common in Canada.

Not quite.

If a woman is in country 'legally' with absent of intent to stay (non residency), then if she gave birth, birthright is not applicable.

It is reported that there's a rush of 'visitors' scheduling giving birth prematurely before the law take into effect. Crazy.

[Bodine]

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.

The Executive branch of government, the current governing body, just levied a directive with legal authority to condition birthright citizenship. Well within the Constitution.

My argument.

[mhr7]

An EO can't overrule the constitution. Several of Trump's EOs are worthless simply because they are illegal or because Trump oversteps his authority. He wants to be an autocrat and I don't think that bothers many here, unfortunately.

[2tallbill]

An EO can't overrule the constitution. Several of Trump's EOs are worthless simply because they are illegal or because Trump oversteps his authority. He wants to be an autocrat and I don't think that bothers many here, unfortunately.

An EO absolutely can't overrule the constitution. He doesn't try to do that.
If you can't see the legal argument being made. I would be happy to
explain it. If you don't care what the legal argument is being made,
then I won't spend any time trying.

[Contrarian]

mhr7 needs to read reply #3 by Bodine. Immigrants from foreign countries are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, because they were born in a foreign country and are loyal to it. This argument has been going on for decades and the fact is that the original intention was that children should be born to citizens "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA.

Like most liberals he prefers to interpret things contrary to the original intent of the law. Using an executive order to set things right is fine by the majority of Americans because it is just and fair that only children of loyal citizens should also become citizens.

The USA is a separate and distinct country from others in the world and it's in our best interests to keep it that way. Selena Gomez and company should go back to timbuktoo and make timbuktoo great and take their timbuktoo kids with them.

No doubt the wealthy libs will probably try to contest that EO and others. So be it if they do, highly paid highly qualified Lawyers can argue things out.

Elections have consequences and the fact is that the Millions of Trump voters voted for him to do what he is doing. It should not be a mystery but for some folks it is. 

[mhr7]

An EO can't overrule the constitution. Several of Trump's EOs are worthless simply because they are illegal or because Trump oversteps his authority. He wants to be an autocrat and I don't think that bothers many here, unfortunately.

An EO absolutely can't overrule the constitution. He doesn't try to do that.
If you can't see the legal argument being made. I would be happy to
explain it. If you don't care what the legal argument is being made,
then I won't spend any time trying.

Illegals are under the jurisdiction of the United States and are protected by the constitution, according to the Supreme Court. They are not excluded from it. There is no argument to be had here as far as I can see. You can play games all you want with ideas but the SC isn't going to back Trump.

[Contrarian]

Heritage.org clarifies the Constitution.

[Jonas!]

The racetrack by my house is the Santa Anita Racetrack.  There was a hotel close by and they had an unusual number of Asian pregnant ladies at all times.  The Methodist hospital is walking distance away.  It was birth tourism.  It cost 40,000-100,000.  It was largely ignored but at some point, the cat got out of the bag, and it mostly went away at that hotel.  Turns out these places spring up all over the place. Organizers teach the woman how to not look pregnant and say the right things when entering. Shortly after birth they return to their home country.     I don't think that children born in this circumstance should be given citizenship.  They are born to wealthy families and that pumps dollars into the US economy, which might give officials some incentive to look the other way. 

Jonas! 

[B.B.]

Illegals are under the jurisdiction of the United States and are protected by the constitution, according to the Supreme Court. They are not excluded from it. There is no argument to be had here as far as I can see. You can play games all you want with ideas but the SC isn't going to back Trump.

I will let Senator Jacob M. Howard, the primary author of the 14th Amendment, explain it:

"...[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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, but will include every other class of person."

(Bolding mine)

So the question becomes, did Howard limit it to the children of ambassadors, thus one class, not three.  I would suggest three because that is in line with prior legislation as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the child of Chinese citizens who were lawful residents of the United States, was deemed to be a citizen of the United States. (emphasis mine.)

I think the "pro birth" folks' strongest argument is a laches argument.

I am not so sure that SCOTUS nukes Trump's argument here.  Sure the 3 liberal justices will, and Roberts will bail also, because he is the squishiest of the conservatives, but that leaves Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB.  If they stick together it's "Adios" to los mojados.  I am not saying it will go that way, but there is a non-zero chance of it going that way.

B/B

[dorbradavid]

Here is the whole 14th Amendment read this rather than believing some
commentator for your favorite brand of news. Or better yet look it up for
yourselves.

Ok, there are legal precedents also - where are they? 

[dorbradavid]

However if the mother was in the US legally and had the kid then the baby would be a citizen. Trump's EO would not stop foreigners from entering the US legally and having a kid. The 'anchor baby' practice that is also common in Canada.

There's also legal precedence re: are the parents "transient" (not planning to stay, ex. working at an embassy) or permanent. 

[dorbradavid]

Illegals are under the jurisdiction of the United States and are protected by the constitution, according to the Supreme Court. They are not excluded from it. There is no argument to be had here as far as I can see. You can play games all you want with ideas but the SC isn't going to back Trump.

I will let Senator Jacob M. Howard, the primary author of the 14th Amendment, explain it:

"...[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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, but will include every other class of person."

(Bolding mine)

So the question becomes, did Howard limit it to the children of ambassadors, thus one class, not three.  I would suggest three because that is in line with prior legislation as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the child of Chinese citizens who were lawful residents of the United States, was deemed to be a citizen of the United States. (emphasis mine.)

I think the "pro birth" folks' strongest argument is a laches argument.

I am not so sure that SCOTUS nukes Trump's argument here.  Sure the 3 liberal justices will, and Roberts will bail also, because he is the squishiest of the conservatives, but that leaves Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB.  If they stick together it's "Adios" to los mojados.  I am not saying it will go that way, but there is a non-zero chance of it going that way.

B/B

Nicely put 

[Manny]

So as I was working with it anyway, I asked GPT to research the topic, as I find it quite interesting. It mentioned the case BB did:

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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." Historically, this clause has been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. The key phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," has been understood to exclude only specific groups, such as children of foreign diplomats or enemy occupiers.

Judicial Precedent:

In the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to foreign parents who were legally residing in the country was a U.S. citizen by birth. This decision reinforced the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil, as a basis for citizenship.

Executive Authority and Legal Challenges:

The executive branch does not possess the authority to unilaterally amend the Constitution. Any attempt to alter the interpretation of the 14th Amendment through an executive order exceeds presidential powers and encroaches upon the legislative and judicial branches. Following the issuance of the executive order, multiple lawsuits were filed challenging its constitutionality. On January 23, 2025, a federal judge temporarily blocked the order, labeling it "blatantly unconstitutional."
VOX.COM

Legal Opinion:

Given the clear language of the 14th Amendment and established Supreme Court precedent, the executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. The Constitution provides that amendments require a rigorous process involving both Congress and the states; thus, any change to birthright citizenship would necessitate a constitutional amendment, not an executive directive. Therefore, the executive order in question is constitutionally infirm and exceeds the scope of presidential authority.

Application to Illegal Immigrants:

Since illegal immigrants are subject to U.S. laws (e.g., they can be arrested, prosecuted, and deported), their children born on U.S. soil are considered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

This means their U.S.-born children automatically acquire citizenship, regardless of the parents' legal status.

[2tallbill]

So as I was working with it anyway, I asked GPT to research the topic, as I find it quite interesting. It mentioned the case BB did:

That could be the way it works out. I wonder if you asked GPT if
congress could make hand guns illegal. I would bet that GPT
designed by leftists with lefty biases would say that yes it could
and they should.

[B.B.]

Application to Illegal Immigrants:

Since illegal immigrants are subject to U.S. laws (e.g., they can be arrested, prosecuted, and deported), their children born on U.S. soil are considered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

This means their U.S.-born children automatically acquire citizenship, regardless of the parents' legal status.

I think ChatGPT goes astray here, in that the interpretation of "subject" under US v Wong is not whether they are subject to the laws while here (which is everybody, theoretically) rather than subject to the laws of a foreign nation because of their citizenship thereof.  So Wong's parents were subjects of the Emperor of China, but bc they were lawfully domiciled in the USA, Wong became a citizen of the USA.  That would preclude "anchor babies" and "birth tourism" but not sure about subsequent precedent, although to my knowledge, Wong has never been overruled.

Ofc, the libtards will SCREAM.

B/B

Note: There was a subsequent "Wong" case.  It was unrelated to immigration, so ultimately "Two Wongs Didn't Make it a Right." 

[Bodine]

Judicial Precedent:

In the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to foreign parents who were legally residing in the country was a U.S. citizen by birth. This decision reinforced the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil, as a basis for citizenship.

That's where I'm hanging my argument in. You're in-country with intent to stay (residency). Should a child born in a plane during a one hour layover be a naturalized US citizen?

[Contrarian]

Imagine this: from now on, only children born to citizens who come here legally would gain citizenship. Having that as a law, as well as no more free handouts such as section 8 housing and free food via EBT, and one can imagine how fast attempts to come here illegally would decrease. Add heavy penalties to any employer who employs illegal immigrants and suddenly we would have close to zero illegals. The rest who come here legally would need to be properly vetted.

In the meantime illegals need to continue to go back home, whether because they get caught by ICE or preferably because they self deport. This is necessary because the Biden administration simply did not think things through prior to opening a floodgate of illegals who would not have housing, costing cities and states Billions of dollars. Even worse are all the unvetted people who had criminal records, such as the gangs from Venezuela, and many others.

It is long overdue that we have an administration which puts American citizens already here first, and keeps it that way. What a concept! 

[mhr7]

Application to Illegal Immigrants:

Since illegal immigrants are subject to U.S. laws (e.g., they can be arrested, prosecuted, and deported), their children born on U.S. soil are considered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

This means their U.S.-born children automatically acquire citizenship, regardless of the parents' legal status.

This is all you need as far as I (a layman) can see.

[2tallbill]

Application to Illegal Immigrants:

Since illegal immigrants are subject to U.S. laws (e.g., they can be arrested, prosecuted, and deported), their children born on U.S. soil are considered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."


This means their U.S.-born children automatically acquire citizenship, regardless of the parents' legal status.
This is all you need as far as I (a layman) can see.

That might be what the court decides as well, but it's not impossible that they
could have a more nuanced approach too.

I also read the amendment as a law subject to laws written by congress
which other amendments are not able to be changed or altered with out
amending the constitution. 


Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[B.B.]

Application to Illegal Immigrants:

Since illegal immigrants are subject to U.S. laws (e.g., they can be arrested, prosecuted, and deported), their children born on U.S. soil are considered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

This means their U.S.-born children automatically acquire citizenship, regardless of the parents' legal status.

This is all you need as far as I (a layman) can see.

As a specialist, I can say that's not really how that works, but I understand why you would think that. 

It's the same with "Congress shall make no law" in the 1st Am.  They make plenty of laws abridging religion/speech/etc.  It's not absolute.

B/B

[Contrarian]

Here is the actual Executive Order, it's very interesting to read the logic contained in it. You're welcome. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

[Manny]

I wonder if you asked GPT if
congress could make hand guns illegal. I would bet that GPT
designed by leftists with lefty biases would say that yes it could
and they should.

GPT said:

No, Congress cannot outright ban handguns in the U.S. due to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects the right to "keep and bear arms." The Supreme Court has interpreted this right to include personal ownership of handguns, particularly in cases like:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) – The Court ruled that an outright ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., was unconstitutional.
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) – This extended the Heller ruling to state and local governments, affirming that individuals have a right to own handguns for self-defense.
Congress could impose stricter regulations, such as mandatory licensing, background checks, or restrictions on certain types of firearms, but an outright ban would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional unless the Supreme Court reversed its previous rulings or the Constitution was amended—both highly unlikely given the political landscape.