Search Results
7/6/2025, 2:11:42 AM
Contrary to what many jews will say in this thread there is NO RULING from SCOTUS that states that the children of illegal aliens are citizens, that is NOT what the 14th amendment says either and it is NOT what the author of Clause 1 of the 14th amendment says in constitutional record, and it is NOT what SCOTUS precedent says in Wong Kim Ark.
>Here is how it stands today:
1: The Trump Administration is arguing from the position of UPHOLDING the US Constitution and SCOTUS precedent.
2: Precedent set by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark states that children of LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS have citizenship.
3: The author of 14th Amendment Clause 1 Senator Jacob Howard, specifically excludes the children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship when he offers his definition of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
4: On June 27th, 2025 SCOTUS ruled that the National Injunctions that were placed against Trumps Executive Order were unlawful and thus the Trump Administration was granted the ability in 28 States to enforce his Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship.
>Trumps Executive Order is as follows:
“policy of the United States” to no longer ISSUE or ACCEPT documentation of citizenship in two scenarios: “(1) when [a] person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when [a] person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
THEREFORE a ruling is required by SCOTUS NOW to clarify if the children of illegal aliens are covered under the 14th amendment and given all of the historical context and precedent set by previous SCOTUS majority opinions... the answer is CRYSTAL CLEAR that they are NOT protected under the 14th Amendment.
>Here is how it stands today:
1: The Trump Administration is arguing from the position of UPHOLDING the US Constitution and SCOTUS precedent.
2: Precedent set by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark states that children of LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS have citizenship.
3: The author of 14th Amendment Clause 1 Senator Jacob Howard, specifically excludes the children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship when he offers his definition of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
4: On June 27th, 2025 SCOTUS ruled that the National Injunctions that were placed against Trumps Executive Order were unlawful and thus the Trump Administration was granted the ability in 28 States to enforce his Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship.
>Trumps Executive Order is as follows:
“policy of the United States” to no longer ISSUE or ACCEPT documentation of citizenship in two scenarios: “(1) when [a] person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when [a] person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
THEREFORE a ruling is required by SCOTUS NOW to clarify if the children of illegal aliens are covered under the 14th amendment and given all of the historical context and precedent set by previous SCOTUS majority opinions... the answer is CRYSTAL CLEAR that they are NOT protected under the 14th Amendment.
7/4/2025, 10:58:38 PM
>>509521071
Senator Trumbles language illuminate two important points about the intended meaning of the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by its authors. First, they intended that the children of Tribal Indians who resided on reservations and owed their direct allegiance to their tribes would not be entitled to Birthright Citizenship, but the children of assimilated Indians, who had left their reservations, who had established a PERMANENT RESIDENCE among the body politic of the states would be entitled to birthright citizenship.
Second, it is not at all plausible that the framers of the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment intended that tribal Indians to be able to evade this limitation on Birthright Citizenship for their children by the simple expedient of leaving the reservation long enough to give birth to a child.
The KEY DISTINCTION between the tribal Indians and the assimilated Indians was ALLEGIANCE. Tribal Indians owed their direct allegiance to the Tribe while an Indian who had established a permanent domicile within the state and assimilated into the body politic committed his PRIMARY ALLEGIANCE to the United States and thus entitled his children to Citizenship at Birth.
Senator Trumbles language illuminate two important points about the intended meaning of the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by its authors. First, they intended that the children of Tribal Indians who resided on reservations and owed their direct allegiance to their tribes would not be entitled to Birthright Citizenship, but the children of assimilated Indians, who had left their reservations, who had established a PERMANENT RESIDENCE among the body politic of the states would be entitled to birthright citizenship.
Second, it is not at all plausible that the framers of the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment intended that tribal Indians to be able to evade this limitation on Birthright Citizenship for their children by the simple expedient of leaving the reservation long enough to give birth to a child.
The KEY DISTINCTION between the tribal Indians and the assimilated Indians was ALLEGIANCE. Tribal Indians owed their direct allegiance to the Tribe while an Indian who had established a permanent domicile within the state and assimilated into the body politic committed his PRIMARY ALLEGIANCE to the United States and thus entitled his children to Citizenship at Birth.
Page 1