Blow to Trump as Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship

1 hour ago, Front Row said:

Also worth pointing out that at that time Chinese were generally not allowed to travel to Hong Kong, never mind to any other foreign country. So getting into the territory was no simple stroll across the border.

Good point. A bit different than getting into the USA when Biden was supposedly in charge when it basically was a stroll across the border.

A terrible left-wing actgvist judge decision. The Supreme Court will overrule it.

2 hours ago, JerryM said:

A terrible left-wing actgvist judge decision. The Supreme Court will overrule it.

What!!!! It was a Supreme Court ruling and it wasn't just the three progressives. You are right though it's a terrible decision.

12 hours ago, dinsdale said:

1. I don't know what this is meant to mean.

2. What's a "birthright immigrant"? If your are born in the US by absolutely any woman no matter who that woman is be it legal status or country of residence, you cannot be an immigrant. You're an automatic citizen and as such cannot be classified as an immigrant. Child of an immigrant, an illegal or a birth tourist mother yes but not an immigrant. As for "fought for the country they were born in, a country which now wants to dis-own them" this is fanciful. It's about stopping it happening.

Get it straight the 14th Amendment is Law !! Using an executive order by trump was wrong !! there is a procedure to change the 14th Amendment but trump does not have the numbers to change until it is changed it is law whether you like it or not get on with it !! as a point you need to understand duel nationality Each country is different Uk can have duel Nationality, China NO

6 hours ago, JerryM said:

A terrible left-wing actgvist judge decision. The Supreme Court will overrule it.

Read the news !!!!

NB This is the comment of Ultra-conservative Professor John Yoo -- he of the (in)famous Bush Waterboard memo:

“I think this issue has been settled for another 100 years,” said John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who was a top Justice Department lawyer during the George W. Bush administration.

Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion, Professor Yoo said, “is very confident and declaratory about the meaning of the 14th Amendment.” It was a sign, he said, that affirming the principle of birthright citizenship for almost everyone was “never in doubt.”

https://newyorkgazette.com/the-birthright-decision-was-surprisingly-close-some-legal-scholars-say/

The strange thing is that the 14th has been oft amended, stretched, and tweaked. American Indians were not covered for a long time. The children of diplomats are STILL not included for some reason...

So it is only logical that it can be further tweaked based on the current situation. At the very least, birth tourism and the children of illegal alien mothers need to be excluded.

20 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The strange thing is that the 14th has been oft amended, stretched, and tweaked.

The 14th Amendment has never been amended,

The 14th Amendment is one of the most litigated sections of the U.S. Constitution. Its core clauses—Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection—have shaped foundational legal doctrines across American history, ranging from civil rights to bodily autonomy.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment

1 hour ago, JerryM said:

The 14th Amendment has never been amended,

The 14th Amendment is one of the most litigated sections of the U.S. Constitution. Its core clauses—Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection—have shaped foundational legal doctrines across American history, ranging from civil rights to bodily autonomy.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment

Fair enough, poor choice of words on my part. I should say perhaps "clarified" to include or exclude certain groups.

But beyond that, it is clear that the purpose was to grant citizenship to freed slaves. I do not think the writers had thought to include every stray body who staggers into the country and produces a baby.

9 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Good point. A bit different than getting into the USA when Biden was supposedly in charge when it basically was a stroll across the border.

So we’re back at Biden this, Biden that. Really?

6 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Fair enough, poor choice of words on my part. I should say perhaps "clarified" to include or exclude certain groups.

OK. But you say as did Thomas in his dissent that the interpretation was "clear" but for 150 years the interpretation was different. And things as in the EO as to what a hospital would have to do about new borns to comply with the EO per Kavanaugh in the orals was a mess.

22 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Fair enough, poor choice of words on my part. I should say perhaps "clarified" to include or exclude certain groups.

But beyond that, it is clear that the purpose was to grant citizenship to freed slaves. I do not think the writers had thought to include every stray body who staggers into the country and produces a baby.

Clear to you maybe.

Its goal was to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which had ruled that Black people could never be U.S. citizens.

Did you fail American History in Canadian

During the Supreme Court oral arguments over President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, Justice Brett Kavanaugh grilled the administration's lawyer on the practical logistics of the policy.

Kavanaugh repeatedly asked, "how is it going to work—what do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?" The Trump administration's Solicitor General struggled to answer, conceding that federal officials would "have to figure that out".

When Kavanaugh pressed on the fact that the administration's plan would require checking the immigration status of the parents of over 3.6 million babies born in the U.S. every year, the lawyer admitted, "we just don't know".

https://www.law.virginia.edu/node/2199376

NB This line of questioning highlighted the legal chaos that opponents of the order—including the states challenging the policy—argued would occur in delivery rooms across the country. And Sauer could say nothing other than they'll have to work it out.

On 7/2/2026 at 1:26 AM, JonnyF said:

Ask the people who voted for Trump who are now seeing him being blocked at every turn by appointed, not elected, supreme Court justices.

Sad day for democracy .

6 of the 9 were appointed by Republican Presidents including Trump.. Occasionally a couple of them grow a pair, that’s democracy.

1 hour ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Clear to you maybe.

Its goal was to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which had ruled that Black people could never be U.S. citizens.

Politics

Did you fail American History in Canadian

Uh, I think they mean the same thing... "grant citizenship to freed slaves" is the reason to overturn Dred Scott.

1 hour ago, JerryM said:

During the Supreme Court oral arguments over President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, Justice Brett Kavanaugh grilled the administration's lawyer on the practical logistics of the policy.

Kavanaugh repeatedly asked, "how is it going to work—what do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?" The Trump administration's Solicitor General struggled to answer, conceding that federal officials would "have to figure that out".

When Kavanaugh pressed on the fact that the administration's plan would require checking the immigration status of the parents of over 3.6 million babies born in the U.S. every year, the lawyer admitted, "we just don't know".

https://www.law.virginia.edu/node/2199376

NB This line of questioning highlighted the legal chaos that opponents of the order—including the states challenging the policy—argued would occur in delivery rooms across the country. And Sauer could say nothing other than they'll have to work it out.

Interesting argument. How do OTHER countries, ones without jus soli citizenship, deal with the situation?

I don't see what is so hard about the hospital issuing a birth certificate. Then the parent takes the certificate, along with the parents' proof of US citizenship, to register their baby as an American citizen.

That is what I did when my son was born in Canada. His mother is Japanese, and we registered his birth with the Japanese embassy so that he could acquire Japanese citizenship. Aliens in the US could do the same. A Mexican mother could register with the Mexican consulate and ensure the child recieves Mexican citizenship, and so on.

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I don't see what is so hard about the hospital issuing a birth certificate.

https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/sites/default/files/hhs-guidance-documents/citizenship-eo-guidance-hhs-508.pdf

And was to be enacted 30 days after the Exec Order was approved

4 minutes ago, JerryM said:

https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/sites/default/files/hhs-guidance-documents/citizenship-eo-guidance-hhs-508.pdf

Seems pretty simple.

Just checked the procedure in Germany, a country without Jus Soli;

1. register the birth with the local government, showing the passport of the parents.

2. obtain a passport for the baby from the embassy of the mother/father

3. apply for a residence permit for the baby using their passport, the birth certificate, and parents' passports.

Japan is similar. Register the birth at city hall, take the city hall issued birth certificate to your embassy to register there, apply for a passport, go to the Immigration Office to apply for a residence certificate.

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Seems pretty simple.

A lot of people didn't see it that way. But that whole aspect of what happens if this was enacted was not part of the decision yea or nay.

This the the current US Standard report of birth. It doesn't ask for the citizenship of the Mother or Father just place of birth for mother and father.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/birth11-03final-acc.pdf

The American Bar Assoc. for one entered an amicus brief pre-decision:

March 02, 2026

ABA amicus brief addresses legal chaos that would result from elimination of birthright citizenship

The brief discusses the ABA’s policy supporting the long-established understanding of the birthright citizenship clause as granting citizenship to any person born in the United States. It then explains how elimination of birthright citizenship would unsettle the law in innumerable areas, forcing attorneys to advise clients under fragmented and indeterminate citizenship-verification regimes. The brief then demonstrates that the executive order’s destabilization of citizenship would reverberate far beyond immigration law. It would adversely affect many areas of the legal system that provide benefits and rights to individuals, including access to civil litigation in federal courts, public benefits and healthcare, and the issuance of government identification. These legal regimes rely on the settled rule of birthright citizenship to operate through clear, administrable standards. Replacing that rule would force attorneys across practice areas to advise clients under doubt about their most basic legal status.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2026/03/aba-amicus-brief-birthright-citizenship/

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Seems pretty simple.

Just checked the procedure in Germany, a country without Jus Soli;

1. register the birth with the local government, showing the passport of the parents.

2. obtain a passport for the baby from the embassy of the mother/father

3. apply for a residence permit for the baby using their passport, the birth certificate, and parents' passports.

Japan is similar. Register the birth at city hall, take the city hall issued birth certificate to your embassy to register there, apply for a passport, go to the Immigration Office to apply for a residence certificate.

Yes easy IF the country has duel nationality bit more difficult if country does not recognizes duel nationality

I imagine that some countries do not have this sort of problem. Russia, China, Africa, etc.