Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Lonestarblue

(12,171 posts)

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

Reply to Miguelito Loveless (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 20, 2025, 12:32 PM

Jan 20

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!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

LeftInTX

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Trump executive order will attempt to end birthright citizenship [View all] hedda_foil Jan 20 OP

WT actual F?!??! underpants Jan 20 #1

It's in the Constitution. He just can't wave a pen and cancel it. Fla Dem Jan 20 #2

He will, Miguelito Loveless Jan 20 #5

The SC would have to come up with an inane meaning to "subject to the jurisdiction of." Lonestarblue Jan 20 #9

I agree, Miguelito Loveless Jan 20 #12

Oh, and even if they rule against Trump Miguelito Loveless Jan 20 #13

Nah, just not accept a case for review after the 5th circuit hears the lawsuit about the Trump order and rules LiberalArkie Jan 20 #16

The "jurisdiction" clause was added to exclude... reACTIONary Jan 20 #20

All except ... VMA131Marine Jan 20 #28

It all rides on the interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"... thesquanderer Jan 20 #10

I disagree because the part before that is "All person BORN or naturalized" jgmiller Jan 20 #14

Every clause counts, you can't leave out some qualifications. thesquanderer Jan 20 #19

Sorry that was my typo jgmiller Jan 20 #24

Even people in the U.S. undocumented VMA131Marine Jan 20 #29

This all comes from the same legal minds that backed the fake electors and challenged Kamala Harris' "natural born" Eugene Jan 20 #34

He'a an illegitimate president, he'll do whatever he wants and nobody stops him! Bluethroughu Jan 20 #30

This is insanity angrychair Jan 20 #3

The Constitution ceased to be relevant after Miguelito Loveless Jan 20 #7

Okay. Round up his fucking spawn and kick the fuckers out. Autumn Jan 20 #4

round up all of Elon's Spawn lapfog_1 Jan 20 #26

He was reportedly making money off it for years Easterncedar Jan 20 #6

Throw out your own anchor baby first. jls4561 Jan 20 #8

EO's can't overrule the Constitution or SCOTUS decisions ScratchCat Jan 20 #11

The only way he can even remotely attempt to do it is to argue that the 14th was improperly ratified Polybius Jan 20 #15

So, does that mean we can actually deport those people who claim to be sovereign citizens? Their alwaysinasnit Jan 20 #17

That's a huge question and Chump can't solve it with an executive order FakeNoose Jan 20 #31

The term "anchor babies" is a bit misleaing. If I could provide a bit of context, I would like to explain. alwaysinasnit Jan 20 #33

This will just be tied up in court till he's gone MacKasey Jan 20 #18

Since he fomented an insurrection, the Constitution is merely a piece of paper to him andym Jan 20 #21

14th Amendment Historic NY Jan 20 #22

Citizenship bromeando Jan 20 #23

They are online LeftInTX Jan 20 #27

It won't succeed. alarimer Jan 20 #25

if he can do that than a dem gov can issu an exec order moonshinegnomie Jan 20 #32

I read the EO they are going the "not in US jurisdiction" route jgmiller Jan 20 #35