Trump executive order will attempt to end birthright citizenship

[hedda_foil]

Source: Washington Post

The U.S. government will no longer recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States to immigrants who lack legal status, one of 10 immigration-related executive orders President-elect Donald Trump plans to sign Monday, an incoming administration official told reporters.

The incoming official did not provide details on how the administration planned to implement a change that scholars say would be illegal. Trump’s order would reinterpret the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants citizenship to all people born on U.S. soil, and redefine the phrase to exclude babies born to parents illegally in the country.

Trump will issue other executive orders that will ramp up deportations, restart border wall construction and send U.S. troops to patrol the 2,000-mile boundary with Mexico, said the incoming official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the incoming administration for a call with reporters.

After Trump is inaugurated, he plans to declare a national emergency at the southern border. Trump will then issue orders to restart the “Remain in Mexico” policy of his first term, designate drug cartels and gangs as foreign terrorist organizations and suspend refugee resettlement in the United States for at least four months, officials said, reading a list of Inauguration Day actions and orders.

--more--

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/01/20/trump-immigration-executive-orders/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=bluesky

[underpants]

1. WT actual F?!??!

[Fla Dem]

2. It's in the Constitution. He just can't wave a pen and cancel it.

In the United States, birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Specifically, it states that "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." This principle was confirmed by the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which clarified that children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents are citizens, regardless of their parents' immigration status.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/topics/birthright-citizenship

[Miguelito Loveless]

5. He will,

and the SCOTUS will back him.

[Lonestarblue]

9. The SC would have to come up with an inane meaning to "subject to the jurisdiction of."

Of course, this is the same court that purposely prevented a trial for Trump and gave him almost total immunity to do anything he wants. And given Alito’s 15th century reasoning on the Dobbs ruling, I’m sure he can find some obscure quote to justify denying birthright citizenship.

Though I’m not a lawyer, it would seem that saying undocumented parents who are in the US but are not subject to US jurisdiction are essentially not bound by any of our laws, including laws against illegal entry. Feels like a catch 22 argument!

[Miguelito Loveless]

12. I agree,

their ruling will defy logic.

[Miguelito Loveless]

13. Oh, and even if they rule against Trump

on citizenship, he can still deport anyone he chooses, regardless of citizenship, since the very same SCOTUS declared all of his "official acts" beyond the law.

[reACTIONary]

20. The "jurisdiction" clause was added to exclude...

... Native Americans under the jurisdiction of their tribe. That verbiage was made obsolete afterwards by explicitly granting citizenship to native Americans. (I can't remember how that was done.)

All people within the territorial boundaries of the United States, citizens or not, are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

[VMA131Marine]

28. All except ...

Foreign diplomats and the soldiers of foreign armies.
We actually do have foreign soldiers on US soil typically here to train at US facilities but I think the original wording relates more to the soldiers of invading armies which I don’t think has been an issue since WWII when there were Japanese soldiers on US territories like Wake Island and Guam..

[thesquanderer]

10. It all rides on the interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"...

... and just because the court ruled on this in 1898, that doesn't mean today's court can't upend it. See Roe vs. Wade.

[jgmiller]

14. I disagree because the part before that is "All person BORN or naturalized"

I really don't know how even Alito and Thomas could figure out a way to declare that born doesn't mean born.

[thesquanderer]

19. Every clause counts, you can't leave out some qualifications.

It doesn't say born here OR subject to the jurisdiction, it says born here AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. IOW, they have to meet both qualifications, not just one of them. Ignoring that additional qualifier is kind of like the second amendment folk quoting only "shall not be infringed" but leaving out the part about it being based on the need for a well regulated militia.

That said, I admit, it's still a weak argument, even if you start to quibble about the exact definition of subject to jurisdiction. But who knows what this court will do...

For some more context: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5040111-trump-proposal-birthright-citizenship/

[jgmiller]

24. Sorry that was my typo

I know it says AND I just mistyped, you are right of course it matters a lot. The and IMHO actually gives more credance to the validity.

[VMA131Marine]

29. Even people in the U.S. undocumented

because they’ve snuck over the border are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. And people who come in one temporary protected status, or requesting asylum, or on some kind of limited duration visa is also subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

It also seems to me that the last thing you want to do is say that these kinds of people are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction because then they cannot be held accountable for breaking laws and you can’t make them pay income taxes either.

[Eugene]

34. This all comes from the same legal minds that backed the fake electors and challenged Kamala Harris' "natural born"

status. The alt-right Claremont Institute is driving this bus.

They insist US v Wong King Ark (1898) was wrongly decided,
and that the Supreme Court should interpret "subject to the jurisdiction
thereof" as excluding the children of foreign nationals who are
not legal permanent residents.

Liz Dye explains some of the thought process here.

[Bluethroughu]

30. He'a an illegitimate president, he'll do whatever he wants and nobody stops him!

[angrychair]

3. This is insanity

That's not how that works. It's a constitutional right.

[Miguelito Loveless]

7. The Constitution ceased to be relevant after

the Citizen's United ruling. This was affirmed in the Snyder ruling in 2024, which legalized bribery of public officials as long as the payment was called a "gratuity" and was made AFTER the official act.

[Autumn]

4. Okay. Round up his fucking spawn and kick the fuckers out.

[lapfog_1]

26. round up all of Elon's Spawn

and ship them all to South Africa.

Elon is an illegal immigrant, overstayed his student visa... and his children are now no longer citizens of the USA. Kick all of them out.

[Easterncedar]

6. He was reportedly making money off it for years

Renting property in Florida to women from Russia who wanted to give their children US citizenship. Sorry I don’t have a citation today. Not looking right now.

[jls4561]

8. Throw out your own anchor baby first.

[ScratchCat]

11. EO's can't overrule the Constitution or SCOTUS decisions

Or otherwise Trump wouldn't be POTUS right now, he wouldn't have been allowed to run for President and would likely be in prison right now.

[Polybius]

15. The only way he can even remotely attempt to do it is to argue that the 14th was improperly ratified

This has long been argued by the fringe Right.

[alwaysinasnit]

17. So, does that mean we can actually deport those people who claim to be sovereign citizens? Their

argument is that they are not subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the US. And if you go up far enough up their family trees, I'm sure you could find at least one or more undocumented ancestors.

[FakeNoose]

31. That's a huge question and Chump can't solve it with an executive order

In fact the undocumented immigrants and their "anchor babies" have been abusing our Constitutional privileges for a long time. If it weren't for the last 70 or 80 years of government failures to control the border problems, we wouldn't be where we are today. No previous administration wants to admit that they added to the problems but they all have - Dems and Repukes alike.

What we really need to do is call a certain year as "Year Zero" and issue every undocumented person who is here in Year Zero a proof of citizenship (or greencard) and a social security number. If we do that, then as of Year Zero + One there will be no more undocumented persons within our borders. Once we've taken that step, going forward everyone should have proof of ID and citizenship. If they don't have any, they're breaking the law and they get detained and prosecuted, perhaps even deported.

I'm thinking it will come down to an ID chip inserted into each person's arm or something. We're still a long way from that happening though. We can't even get people to wear masks or get vaccinated to save their own lives.

[alwaysinasnit]

33. The term "anchor babies" is a bit misleaing. If I could provide a bit of context, I would like to explain.

After the first World Trade bombing in the early '90s, Congress passed a series of punitive bills aimed at immigrants. (Mid 1990s)
Prior to the mid 1990s, (undocumented, mostly from Mexico) seasonal workers would come to the US and return to Mexico after the growing season was over, and return the next year. While here, those workers would send money back home to support their families. The 1990s punitive laws had the effect of making the annual migrations exponentially more difficult, with the addition of criminal liability. The net effect was that many of these workers now stayed year-round and eventually brought their families here. As their families expanded, the number of so-called anchor babies increased. The pejorative term "anchor babies" came from the fact that these children, once they turned 21, could petition the government for legal status for their undocumented parents. However, what many people don't realize is that, because the parents entered the US without inspection and accumulated more than 1 year of non-permitted presence, the parents were statutorily barred for 10 years from receiving immigration benefits. They must first leave the US and stay out for 10 years before that can be considered "admissible" to receive benefits. So, while the term "anchor babies" may make initial sense, the reality for so many undocumented parents is much more complicated.

[MacKasey]

18. This will just be tied up in court till he's gone

[andym]

21. Since he fomented an insurrection, the Constitution is merely a piece of paper to him

Of course he will attempt to do anything he wants, with no concern for the Constitution. "It's good to be king" as Mel Brooks said.

[Historic NY]

22. 14th Amendment

"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."

If People go look at your family history. I'll bet you many Italian, German, Irish and other grandparents or great grandparent that never were naturalized! Look for the A-2 files or US census filed

Between 1850 - 1950 US Census had either naturalized or not, date of arrival place of birth etc.

Naturalization is the voluntary legal process by which a foreign-born person becomes a citizen of the United States.

https://historyhub.history.gov/genealogy/census-records/b/census-blog/posts/census-records-may-help-locate-immigration-and-naturalization-records

https://www.archives.gov/research/immigration/alien-registration-ar-2

[bromeando]

23. Citizenship

Felon trump could apply his order to everyone. Does anyone still have their ancestors' immigration/citizenship papers.

[LeftInTX]

27. They are online

[alarimer]

25. It won't succeed.

That's a Constitutional Amendment and would require another one to undo.

[moonshinegnomie]

32. if he can do that than a dem gov can issu an exec order

banning guns in their state

[jgmiller]

35. I read the EO they are going the "not in US jurisdiction" route

Which is really funny because I would guess this means the mother's become like diplomats and have immunity? This is really going to be hysterical to hear the SCOTUS arguments.