patrick.net

How? EO?

Canada is the only other developed nation that offers this absurdly generous door prize.
In a couple more generations we will no longer share a language with our northern cousins, they will be speaking Mandarin and we will be speaking Spanish

The concept may be a good idea, but it's a little late for an outgoing president to change the Constitution.

BACAH, the 14th amendment didn’t intend to make the children of aliens citizens.

So, the Supreme Court will likely agree with Trump.

clambo says

BACAH, the 14th amendment didn’t intend to make the children of aliens citizens.

It's the wording of the statement.

Originally, slaves were not considered citizens and thus, the 14th amendment cleared that up.

Children in orphanages, with no identifiable parents, even if those parents' were aliens (as in from another country [not outer space] w/o a green card), were covered by this.

clambo says

The children of illegals (of whom I know many) in California are bastards usually but aren’t in orphanages.

Sure, that's today's world but back then, there were a lot of kids in orphanages who had no identifiable parents.

Remember Dicken's Oliver Twist?

clambo says

The only way to reverse it will be at the Supreme Court.

Not if it's an executive order. You don't realize the game is tilted.

DACA should have been able to be ended with an executive order, but it wasn't - was it?

The president is not the supreme ruler of this nation, the reality is, our corrupt judges are.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/waterloo-monday-february-17-2025

Another reason the overwrought ‘dictator’ charges keep falling flat is because Trump keeps following the law. On Saturday, no less than the New York Times ran a narrative-smashing op-ed headlined, “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship.” The Democrats’ first ‘win’ against Trump is already crumbling—and even the Gray Lady is sounding the retreat. Like Napoleon at Waterloo, they confidently stormed into battle, realizing too late they marched straight into a legal ambush.

On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order ending so-called birthright citizenship for certain children of illegal immigrants. Democrats sued, wailing that his EO violated the 14th Amendment, which provides, “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.”

The key issue, intentionally provoked by the executive order, is what exactly does the Constitution mean by “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? Federal judges in four states promptly enjoined Trump’s order. One of the judges claimed it “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment.”

But, the article advised, “Not necessarily.”

The Supreme Court has never held that children born to illegal immigrants are citizens — never. But thanks to decades of judicial hand-waving and bureaucratic indifference, citizenship has been quietly doled out with all the discretion of Social Security numbers.

The 14th Amendment’s well-known purpose was to convey citizenship to children of freed slaves. At the time it passed, Lincoln’s administration had rejected the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision, and had already recognized free African Americans as citizens. The 14th Amendment resolved the Constitutional crisis in Lincoln’s favor.

The carefully considered article delved into the history of citizenship through the centuries. Then it noted the Supreme Court’s awareness of that storied common law history, which has long provided that only those born “in amity” receive the sovereign blessings of citizenship status:

In Wong Kim Ark, the leading case on birthright citizenship, the
Supreme Court explained that "jurisdiction" referred to being born
"within the allegiance" of the sovereign. The court held that a child
born of parents with a "permanent domicile and residence in the
United States" was a birthright citizen. Wong Kim Ark's parents, as
persons who came in amity, had entered into the social compact
and were entitled to all the benefits of that compact, including not
only the protection of the laws but also the benefits of citizenship
for their children. Under the common law, the court observed,
"such allegiance and protection were mutual."

This isn’t just some obscure legal technicality—the principle was common knowledge at the time the 14th passed. Citizenship was for people who owed allegiance to the U.S., not just anyone who happened to be born here. As our forefathers never fought for millions of imaginary Social Security recipients, the 14th Amendment wasn’t written to pass out citizenship to millions of undocumented invaders lacking loyalty to the country.

This editorial’s publication was a massive shift in the Overton Window, preparing the Times’ readers for bad news. The left’s sacred cow of birthright citizenship is finally getting serious legal scrutiny, and the fact that the New York Times is already conceding ground means they know their side’s legal foundation is much shakier than they’ve previously pretended.

IMO, the fact that American Indians did not have US citizenship no matter whether born on the reservation or in US territory proves that the 14th Amendment did not make anyone born on US soil an automatic citizen. American Indians did not get US Citizenship until 1924.

It was also meant not to create another group of slaves. It's not an easy choice, if they remove it, it'll remove anchor babies for sure, but it'll give them all the incentive to spam this country with illegals consequence free... cheap labor like many rich middle eastern countries are. In those places it's about 15% natives and 85% foreign workers. It's not all guaranteed to work well. There it's this way because only citizenship requires father to also be a citizen, hence no anchor babies, but you can see the tradeoffs.