Birthright citizenship: the Battle is Joined!

Trump has signed an EO eliminating it! Whod’ya think will be first to sue: the ACLU? The state of California? But, way to get the question determined promptly! Bravo!
As I recall, SCOTUS never directly upheld the idea that children born to illegal entrants have automatic citizenship; there was just one sentence of dicta in one of those Wing-Wong named cases. So there’s no obstacle to the Court properly interpreting the 14th Amendment, to exclude children of tourists (see “birth tourism” as practiced by the Chinese) as well as children of people who are here illegally.
I just hope Trump gets to replace one of the Lefty justices before the case hits.
If it were my court, I’d look at the 5th Amendment, which guarantees all “persons” in the U.S. no matter where they were born, the right to due process of law. So the 14th “equal protection of laws” language is superfluous EXCEPT in the context of the immediate aftermath of the civil war, Furthermore the Fifth does NOT limit its protections to persons “”subject to the jurisdiction”,of the U.S., as the 14th does. Those words, like all words in any statute, must be given effect. If we don’t give them effect, but treat them as mere superfluity, then the 14th is merely repetitive of the Fifth. C’mon SCOTUS, show us your Constitutional chops!

10 Likes

The order:

Suits listed by federal judicial district:

D MA:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69560579/doe-v-trump-president-of-the-united-states/

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69560588/doe-v-trump/

State of New Jersey v. Trump, 1:25-cv-10139 – CourtListener.com (this is a bunch of states plus DC)

D NH:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69560542/new-hampshire-indonesian-community-support-v-trump/

WD WA:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69561931/state-of-washington-v-trump/

7 Likes

So, guys, what are the odds any of this will stick?

4 Likes

Yes, the Usual Suspects will sue. Damn lawyers! This is the Jane Doe/Abortion Far Left approach again – get 5 unelected politically-active individuals to make national policy regardless of what the people want, and then the country suffers for decades.

As far as I am aware, none of the Euro countries allows birthright citizenship – even though the Far Lefties are always telling us how much better the EuroScum are than red-necked racist homophobic Americans. There is no UN mandate requiring countries to allow birthright citizenship, even though the Usual Suspects are always looking to the UN (when it happens to be convenient for them).

What should happen in a “democratic” polity is that We the People should vote on a key issue like this, and the majority view should become policy. It is time for the Supreme Court to be cut down to size.

[As a side note – I personally do not trust the CongressScum to represent We the People properly on this – or indeed on any other – issue]

3 Likes

Actually I don’t think any plaintiffs have standing to sue right now. They’ll have to wait and add as plaintiff some baby born after the order takes effect. (Yes I know about “Sierra club” standing, but courts don’t always apply it, see BAMP v. Pittsburgh.)

3 Likes

“Damn lawyers!” ? I’ll betcha it was one of us who drafted that EO for Trump! We’re the Tommy Atkins of the professions……

2 Likes

Damn [some] lawyers! :laughing:

2 Likes

55 percent

I am cautiously optimistic

1 Like

Apparently Ireland was the only Euro country which offered birthright citizenship – or used to offer. More recently, they changed that, so now at least one of the parents has to be an Irish citizen … or a UK citizen, for some reason. Colonial respect dies hard in Europe!

That suggests how illegal aliens will get round any anchor baby legal problems. We are so past marriage in the US – all that will be required is for some limp-wristed US male to claim that “the child is mine”, even if he never met the lady and she is married to someone else; baby is then a US citizen. Insisting on DNA testing for fatherhood would clearly be intrusive, and the Usual Suspects would tie up any demands for that in the constipated court system forever.

2 Likes

D MD:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69563660/casa-inc-v-trump/

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69563661/casa-inc-v-trump/

3 Likes

Unfortunately SCOTUS has used the 14th to gut the 9th and 10th, thereby gutting the the remnant protections against a rhyme with Thirty Years War afforded by The Treaty of Westphalia. We are now teetering on the brink with the Internet serving as the Gutenberg Press to open up a chasm between the lies of a de facto theocracy and We The People.

Why?

Why would SCOTUS so imperil the West?

Simple:

SCOTUS is part of That Unspeakable Thing In DC which absorbed the legitimate constitutional government of the USA when Federalism ceased respecting the 4th branch of government:

The States

This is, in part, because The Treaty of Westphalia failed to provide for reallocation of territory based on assortative migration. The US failed to recognize the importance of territorial reallocation because it had so much land to settle and so many people wanting to relocate in an uncontrolled manner. The founders were too fascinated with Rome to pay attention to the more recent history of the bloodiest war in European history and its resolution with Cuius regio, eius religio.

See sortocracy.org

4 Likes
3 Likes

I just saw a headline that some federal court has blocked this order as “blatantly unconstitutional”. And this brings back to the surface the question of “nationwide injunctions”. The writ of that federal court should run only in its jurisdiction.
I remember Thomas discussed this in connection with a case that came up a few years ago. But now, SCOTUS had better tackle it head on, because there are going to be multiple challenges to everything Trump does.

5 Likes

“This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” US District Judge John Coughenour was reported as saying during the hearing in Washington state.

edit: I forgot to add…

The ruling imposes a 14-day halt on the enforcement of one of the most controversial executive orders Trump signed in the hours after he was sworn into office for a second term.

3 Likes

This is a re-run of Trump 45. Let’s hope that Trump and his advisors learned something from that experience.

3 Likes

I hope maybe he did. I read that in 2017, he confided to an advisor that he really thought after the election, “we’d all come together”. This time, I think he knows what he’s facing. Yes,every single goal he has, every single promise he made to us who elected him, is going to be a battle. But the fact that all these EOs were ready for his signature on Day One indicates to me that he’s got his troops lined up.:crossed_fingers:, may he prevail!

4 Likes

Gavin

2d

Damn [some] lawyers! :laughing:

In the 1993 legal drama “Philadelphia”, Tom Hanks asks Denzel Washington;
“What do you call a thousand lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean?”
“A good start.”

I’m sorry to divert, but I have only have known ONE “Good” lawyer personally, unfortunately he passed away.
All the others I had to employ were evil necessities and still they didn’t fight for what was right.

1 Like

One could argue that it was a taxpayer-paid federal judge – an actual human being – who blocked the order, not some kind of amorphous court. What is there to prevent such human beings (fallible, as are we all) from legislating from the bench?

Here is my suggestion: Any judge whose order is subsequently overturned by an appeals court is automatically immediately fired, permanently debarred from the legal profession, prohibited from doing any book deals, and is given a compulsory one way ticket to the Ukraine, or wherever else the conflict-du-jour is happening.

If judges know that any political action in their official capacity will bring down the Wrath of the Lord, they might be less inclined to play politics. I could be persuaded to extend analogous provisions to State Attorney Generals who file politicized lawfare.

3 Likes

That might actually pass as enhancing amendment to article 2 section 4, were it not for how insane the Democrats have become.

2 Likes

Oh CTFO! You’re probably kidding, but, we have an adversary system. There are always (at least) two sides to every question. The fact that some judge agrees with the other side doesn’t merit the death penalty.

1 Like