Supreme Court rejects (6-3) Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship

City_Of_Adam said:

The High Court decided to uphold the Birthright Citizenship "law.".

Click to expand...

Hey, great first post! Welcome to CF. Where is the Emerald Coast?

City_Of_Adam said:

Yet, Trump's Executive Order, didnt try to overturn this LAW, it only tried to deny the "undocumented" and those with Temporary Visa's from abusing this Kindhearted Law, illegally.

Click to expand...

U're right, the EO only tried to partially overturn this longstanding interpretation of this LAW.

City_Of_Adam said:

So, the High Court could have sided with the current Law and just ammended it slightly regarding just those 2 stipulations.
Instead they have decided to find a way for illegals to remain INVITED into the USA, legally.

Click to expand...

Not just the High Court but the Highest Court, the Supreme Court of the US. EO's are NOT law. The USSC is not permitted to amend laws - that is for Congress.

City_Of_Adam said:

The High Court decided to just leave the gate wide open for anyone who wants to come here illegally using a pregnancy as their way to remain, after they are here.
This means that any illegal who gets pregnant while they are defined as an undocumented Illegal alien, or if they are pregnant before they arrive to the USA illegally....will become permanently Legal once the baby arrives, because this Law is NOW going to be continually used to "keep illegal families together".
See it?
In other words, once you have the baby, then YOU get to STAY also, because the current Law is going to be ABUSED to "keep families together".
This means the Illegal DAD and Illegal MOM will be allowed to remain in the USA "legally" to take care of : BABY.

Click to expand...

That's not how it works.

The parents don't get to stay simply because the baby has citizenship. If the parents are deported, they have the option to take their baby with them or leave the baby with a guardian; most will take the child. The baby will likely have citizenship rights in the parents' country. When the child becomes eighteen twenty-one, he can apply for residency for his parents.

City_Of_Adam said:

So, this is an insidious workaround regarding its total abuse of a genuinely fair law, that will be abused by Illegals and Democrats working together far into the future.

Click to expand...

Those sneaky illegals and Democrats! Too bad it's just a fantasy as only the baby gets citizenship. Still, after twenty-one years, those parents might get residency after the adult child, who has to prove he can financially support them, applies for sponsorship. Then there is a waiting/processing time that can last for years and years. If successful, the parents can then apply for citizenship five years later.

So, we're looking at 25 to 30 years in the future.

City_Of_Adam said:

So......The future is looking bright again for the Democratic Socialist Party regarding their attept to change everything about the USA and stay in control forever...... by hosting and birthing Legalized Illegals who will all "vote Democratic party".
All the Dems have to do is just be patient and let all those MILLIONS turn into Dem Voters.

Click to expand...

To stay in control, they first would have to get control - first of the Democratic Party, then of the electorate. Question: how do they make all those anchor baby citizens and their parents vote right?

City_Of_Adam said:

And "Trump's court" ....(2) of them, has made sure of it.
Its intersting that one of the Trump nominees who has now sided against border control is a practicing: Roman Catholic.
So, the reality is, she sided with the POPE's point of view, as this current Pope is 100% against stopping Illegals from entering into the USA.

Click to expand...

So, anti-Catholic bigotry, too? Most the USSC justices are Roman Catholic.

Do you have any evidence that "his current Pope is 100% against stopping Illegals from entering into the USA"? Or is your 100% mere hyperbole?

City_Of_Adam said:

Also, there will be no blood test or Dna test or any type of test to prove that the Illegal undocumented MALE is the Legit Father., so the illegal mother can simply claim that ANY Illegal male she knows (that she wants to keep in the USA) is going to get the Free Pass to the Gravy Train.
So, this decision by the High Court now allows at least a Trio of Illegals to remain here, per birth, unless the mother produces Twins or Triplets.
But we'll just use the first model : (Mom + Male + Baby) and realize that all 3 will be planted firmly on the Gravy Train of Food Stamps, Housing, Health Care, Free Education, and whatever else that can be found to give to them For FREE that the Taxpayer will SUPPLY for them.

Click to expand...

This goes back to the misapprehension that the parents are automatically entitled to citizenship or even residency through the child: they are not. Again, the child is NOT illegal, but a possible citizen (the child can always apply later for citizenship by birthright if removed from the country as a minor). Again, in twenty-one years, the child can sponsor his father or in thirty years, the woman can file for her husband, after she becomes a permanent resident or citizen.

City_Of_Adam said:

Reader, How are your math skills today?

Click to expand...

Abysmal, sadly, as usual.

City_Of_Adam said:

Add this up.

Currently, its possible that up to 9% of all TOTAL BIRTHs in the USA in 2026 are Illegals.

Click to expand...

Well, that is unlikely as children born in the USA have birthright citizenship, which makes them legal.

City_Of_Adam said:

That is nearly 1 out of every 10 births, in 2026 through ............... always.
That's a huge number of Democratic Voters being produced by this "law", in just 5 yrs........and in 10 yrs that is an enormous number of little baby democratic voters in training.

No doubt the Democratic party is "over the moon" with Glee, as they realize that the majority of the Supreme court has literally sided with "open borders".

Click to expand...

This is just fantasy fearmongering. Babies can't vote and by the time they grow up, who knows what they will want, electorally.

essentialsaltes said:

This just in from brilliant legal mind Senator Lee, JD:

Click to expand...

Wow that guy is genuinely not very smart. Or perhaps he thinks that of his audience.

essentialsaltes said:

This just in from brilliant legal mind Senator Lee, JD:

View attachment 380977

Click to expand...

Well for 6 of the 9 the baby might be overqualified.

Goonie said:

If 5/4s of the supreme court decides to reinterpret the 14th amendment to rule out birthright citizenship it would not require any amendment. At the moment 4/5 state it is unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

I really want to see how this campaign strategy plays out in the future. For the past 50 years, Republicans campaigned on, “Give us the majority, and we’ll overturn Roe v. Wade.” Now the new slogan is apparently, “Give us one more Supreme Court justice, and maybe we can figure out how to undermine a written constitutional amendment too.”

Hey, when it comes to campaign slogans, the sky’s the limit. When it comes to actual votes? Well… good luck with that.

essentialsaltes said:

Conservatives going bananas over this quite humdrum obvious decision. Rep Troy Nehls (R-TX)



One of the Founders of the Federalist

View attachment 380942

Click to expand...

Haaaa, the unelected judges.
Has anyone seen conservatives complain about unelected judges when Roe v Wade was overturned?
Sore losers.

essentialsaltes said:

Sen Ted Cruz 2011: “I’ve looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you, as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good. As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it’s in the U.S. Constitution.”

Sen Ted Cruz 2026 :

View attachment 380989

Click to expand...

Ted Cruz is either a dishonest liar, or illiterate.

Goonie said:

Ted Cruz is either a dishonest liar, or illiterate.

Click to expand...

Ted Cruz has no guiding star except power. He'll go with whatever works for the particular approval he desires.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

I really want to see how this campaign strategy plays out in the future. For the past 50 years, Republicans campaigned on, “Give us the majority, and we’ll overturn Roe v. Wade.” Now the new slogan is apparently, “Give us one more Supreme Court justice, and maybe we can figure out how to undermine a written constitutional amendment too.”

Hey, when it comes to campaign slogans, the sky’s the limit. When it comes to actual votes? Well… good luck with that.

Click to expand...

I have seen some try to claim this is going to be the new Roe, but I doubt it for several reasons, even aside from the fact that there's a good chance that despite this initial outcry, in a matter of months the decision will be largely accepted, even if people don't particularly care for it.

First, Roe was astoundingly sweeping in what it did. It declared unconstitutional the abortion regulations in just about every state. Trump v. Barbara essentially just kept the status quo the same. Because before Trump gave his Executive Order, the children of temporary or illegal immigrants were considered citizens, and had been for quite a long time. Trump was the one trying to effect a change. And even Trump himself made no change, as his order never went into effect. So this case produced no actual change in law or policy.

Second, one of the reasons Roe was such a good target was because, as a matter of constitutional law, the decision was extremely questionable, far more so than Trump v. Barbara. Now, obviously different people will disagree on what decisions are well reasoned or poorly reasoned, but what's notable about Roe is how even people who were favorable to its result as a policy matter were critical of it. One of the most famous critiques of Roe v. Wade was John Hart Ely's article "The Wages of Crying Wolf" which was published soon after the decision. John Hart Ely was no opponent to abortion legalization; he explicitly says in his article "Were I a legislator I would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court ends up drafting." And yet, his conclusion is:

"It is, nevertheless, a very bad decision. Not because it will perceptibly weaken the Court-it won't; and not because it conflicts with either my idea of progress or what the evidence suggests is society's-it doesn't. It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Harsh words from someone who is in agreement with it as policy! One can find other legal scholars who are pro-choice who will admit that Roe was a bunch of nonsense. Roe was an excellent target precisely because its legal basis was so questionable that even those who favored its policy outcomes criticized it. One doesn't see that with Trump v. Barbara. Instead, you can find people who don't like birthright citizenship on policy grounds saying the decision was right (or, at least, not egregiously wrong).


So I don't think Barbara will have the kind of effect Roe did. It's nowhere near as good as a target, because it didn't actually change anything (it merely made the current status quo very hard to change), and it doesn't have the same legal issues that Roe did.

JSRG said:

I have seen some try to claim this is going to be the new Roe, but I doubt it for several reasons, even aside from the fact that there's a good chance that despite this initial outcry, in a matter of months the decision will be largely accepted, even if people don't particularly care for it.

First, Roe was astoundingly sweeping in what it did. It declared unconstitutional the abortion regulations in just about every state. Trump v. Barbara essentially just kept the status quo the same. Because before Trump gave his Executive Order, the children of temporary or illegal immigrants were considered citizens, and had been for quite a long time. Trump was the one trying to effect a change. And even Trump himself made no change, as his order never went into effect. So this case produced no actual change in law or policy.

Second, one of the reasons Roe was such a good target was because, as a matter of constitutional law, the decision was extremely questionable, far more so than Trump v. Barbara. Now, obviously different people will disagree on what decisions are well reasoned or poorly reasoned, but what's notable about Roe is how even people who were favorable to its result as a policy matter were critical of it. One of the most famous critiques of Roe v. Wade was John Hart Ely's article "The Wages of Crying Wolf" which was published soon after the decision. John Hart Ely was no opponent to abortion legalization; he explicitly says in his article "Were I a legislator I would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court ends up drafting." And yet, his conclusion is:

"It is, nevertheless, a very bad decision. Not because it will perceptibly weaken the Court-it won't; and not because it conflicts with either my idea of progress or what the evidence suggests is society's-it doesn't. It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Harsh words from someone who is in agreement with it as policy! One can find other legal scholars who are pro-choice who will admit that Roe was a bunch of nonsense. Roe was an excellent target precisely because its legal basis was so questionable that even those who favored its policy outcomes criticized it. One doesn't see that with Trump v. Barbara. Instead, you can find people who don't like birthright citizenship on policy grounds saying the decision was right (or, at least, not egregiously wrong).


So I don't think Barbara will have the kind of effect Roe did. It's nowhere near as good as a target, because it didn't actually change anything (it merely made the current status quo very hard to change), and it doesn't have the same legal issues that Roe did.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the post and your analysis. To be honest, my legal knowledge is limited, so much of your post went over my head.

I was speaking mainly from a political point of view. Overturning Roe v. Wade was driven largely by emotion and faith, which made it politically achievable. It took 50 years, but Republicans eventually won that issue, and for decades it helped them politically.

Repealing the 14th Amendment through the courts or Congress is not a politically winnable strategy. There are not enough Americans who would support overturning a constitutional amendment. Also, after the November midterms, American politics will likely shift significantly. The era of MAGA politics may change dramatically. Some politicians will try to continue carrying that mantle, but others will need to find their own lane. Some politician will have similar immigration politics as the sitting president has, but other will have different polies which may be much softer.

On top of that, if Hispanic voters move away from the GOP, as some results from last November suggested, hard-line immigration policies may become less effective for winning national elections. The revocation of TPS for many Cubans and Haitians could also make Florida more competitive again. Of course, this is still speculation, and we will have to see how the midterms play out.

Current polls, media reports, focus groups, and interviews suggest that many Hispanic, Cuban, and other Latino voters supported closing the border and deporting serious criminals when they voted for the GOP in 2024. But some now appear concerned that the policy is being applied more broadly, affecting people who look like them, including families and children. For example, reports of children born in America being deported because a parent is undocumented may change how voters view these policies.

These are still only media reports, interviews, and polling, so the real test will be whether those concerns translate into votes in November. If they do, the GOP may receive a wake-up call. Any politician serious about winning the White House will likely need to consider how immigration policy affects Cuban American voters in Florida and Hispanic voters in Arizona. We will see how this issue plays out in 2028, but I doubt the effort to repeal the 14th Amendment will gain much momentum after November.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

Thanks for the post and your analysis. To be honest, my legal knowledge is limited, so much of your post went over my head.

I was speaking mainly from a political point of view. Overturning Roe v. Wade was driven largely by emotion and faith, which made it politically achievable. It took 50 years, but Republicans eventually won that issue, and for decades it helped them politically.

Click to expand...

The thing is, something that aided them politically was they could crusade against it not merely on dislike of it as policy, but also to attack its legal foundations. Saying "this decision is bad because I think it's bad policy" isn't the greatest argument. But "this decision is bad because I think it's bad policy and it also makes no sense as a legal decision" is a lot stronger. Maybe a lot of the general masses didn't know the specifics of the legal arguments, but even the basic rhetorical argument of "where is abortion mentioned in the Constitution at all?" is a pretty good one and works a lot better for Roe than for this one.

There is another important factor, which was how Roe was a microcosm of a larger debate, which is that of originalism. Originalism asserts, correctly I think, that at time of ratification the Constitution or its amendments have a fixed meaning that is not changed by different circumstances and is only changeable by amendment. Conservatives--correctly, I think--embraced originalism against "living constitutionalism" (living constitutionalism was the idea that the meaning of the Constitution shifts even without amendments). But Roe is basically incompatible with originalism; there's really no credible originalist case to be made for it. So you don't need to specifically get a legal movement or community that's anti-Roe, you just have to convince people of originalism, and if you do that, then Roe goes away.

That doesn't seem to work for Trump v. Barbara. Even if someone thinks originalism doesn't support Trump v. Barbara, it's clear someone can make a good case it does, as shown... well, by the fact people have. There's of course the majority opinion in this case, but if one wants a deeper dive, see Michael Ramsey's essay "Originalism and Birthright Citizenship", which argues in detail on originalist grounds for an expansive interpretation of the Citizenship Clause (the first half of the essay, to be fair, is not about the current controversy but a different part of the amendment, but it still talks a lot in detail about "subject to the jurisdiction").

Granted, the decision was only handed down, maybe in a few years we'll see people trying to rally behind some new judicial interpretation that doesn't work with Trump v. Barbara. But my point is that there was a much stronger legal argument against Roe than there seems to be against Barbara, both on the micro level (Roe's reasoning wasn't all that great) and the macro level (Roe's reasoning was emblematic of what was seen as a larger issue in legal interpretation).

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

Repealing the 14th Amendment through the courts or Congress is not a politically winnable strategy. There are not enough Americans who would support overturning a constitutional amendment. Also, after the November midterms, American politics will likely shift significantly. The era of MAGA politics may change dramatically. Some politicians will try to continue carrying that mantle, but others will need to find their own lane. Some politician will have similar immigration politics as the sitting president has, but other will have different polies which may be much softer.

On top of that, if Hispanic voters move away from the GOP, as some results from last November suggested, hard-line immigration policies may become less effective for winning national elections. The revocation of TPS for many Cubans and Haitians could also make Florida more competitive again. Of course, this is still speculation, and we will have to see how the midterms play out.

Current polls, media reports, focus groups, and interviews suggest that many Hispanic, Cuban, and other Latino voters supported closing the border and deporting serious criminals when they voted for the GOP in 2024. But some now appear concerned that the policy is being applied more broadly, affecting people who look like them, including families and children. For example, reports of children born in America being deported because a parent is undocumented may change how voters view these policies.

These are still only media reports, interviews, and polling, so the real test will be whether those concerns translate into votes in November. If they do, the GOP may receive a wake-up call. Any politician serious about winning the White House will likely need to consider how immigration policy affects Cuban American voters in Florida and Hispanic voters in Arizona. We will see how this issue plays out in 2028, but I doubt the effort to repeal the 14th Amendment will gain much momentum after November.

Click to expand...

Well, very few people are suggesting the Fourteenth Amendment be repealed, their problem is just specifically the Citizenship Clause. However, it's also true we are unlikely to see that go; the population is too divided on the issue for an amendment to pass. A movement to try to change the Supreme Court in such a way that you can get a new majority to overturn this decision is more plausible, but for the reasons I gave earlier, I don't think this could succeed as a rallying cry in the way overturning Roe did.

Maybe in a few years I'll look back at this post and think I'm totally wrong. But I do think that this issue will be largely put aside. There was a whole lot of conservative outrage over Obergefell... where is it now? Yeah, some still complain about it, but by and large it's been moved past. The same thing will probably happen with birthright citizenship. Maybe several years from now I'll look back at this remark and wonder "what was I thinking?" but I think that probably will be the case.

JSRG said:

I have seen some try to claim this is going to be the new Roe, but I doubt it for several reasons, even aside from the fact that there's a good chance that despite this initial outcry, in a matter of months the decision will be largely accepted, even if people don't particularly care for it.

First, Roe was astoundingly sweeping in what it did. It declared unconstitutional the abortion regulations in just about every state. Trump v. Barbara essentially just kept the status quo the same. Because before Trump gave his Executive Order, the children of temporary or illegal immigrants were considered citizens, and had been for quite a long time. Trump was the one trying to effect a change. And even Trump himself made no change, as his order never went into effect. So this case produced no actual change in law or policy.

Second, one of the reasons Roe was such a good target was because, as a matter of constitutional law, the decision was extremely questionable, far more so than Trump v. Barbara. Now, obviously different people will disagree on what decisions are well reasoned or poorly reasoned, but what's notable about Roe is how even people who were favorable to its result as a policy matter were critical of it. One of the most famous critiques of Roe v. Wade was John Hart Ely's article "The Wages of Crying Wolf" which was published soon after the decision. John Hart Ely was no opponent to abortion legalization; he explicitly says in his article "Were I a legislator I would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court ends up drafting." And yet, his conclusion is:

"It is, nevertheless, a very bad decision. Not because it will perceptibly weaken the Court-it won't; and not because it conflicts with either my idea of progress or what the evidence suggests is society's-it doesn't. It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Harsh words from someone who is in agreement with it as policy! One can find other legal scholars who are pro-choice who will admit that Roe was a bunch of nonsense. Roe was an excellent target precisely because its legal basis was so questionable that even those who favored its policy outcomes criticized it. One doesn't see that with Trump v. Barbara. Instead, you can find people who don't like birthright citizenship on policy grounds saying the decision was right (or, at least, not egregiously wrong).


So I don't think Barbara will have the kind of effect Roe did. It's nowhere near as good as a target, because it didn't actually change anything (it merely made the current status quo very hard to change), and it doesn't have the same legal issues that Roe did.

Click to expand...

Great post.

Roe had to reason-in a new right that wasnt specifically enumerated. Thats a tall order.

Birthright citizenship, by contrast, is right there in the text, plainly spelled out. To me its a little concerning that 3 (or 3.5) justices could find a way to ignore that.

essentialsaltes said:

Roberts with the opinion of the court. Jackson concurring (joined by Sotomayor in part). Kavanaugh concurring in the judgment, dissenting in part. Thomas dissenting (joined by Gorsuch). Alito dissenting. Gorsuch dissenting.

Just about everybody's got an opinion!

Click to expand...

I'm glad that SCOTUS got something right considering how often it's been bending the knee to Lord Donald, such as gutting the Voting Rights Act.

I'm horrified that anyone dissented on what is, so obviously, an easy homerun. This is Teeball, the Constitution says if you're born here, you're a citizen. Full stop.

True patriots should consider the dire situation we are in, as we mark the 250th anniversary of the republic's birth. This is a time of mourning and reflection for our nation.

essentialsaltes said:

'Conservatives' are continuing to lose their dang minds.

Sean Davis, the CEO and co-founder of The Federalist online magazine, wrote in a social media post that there are "several ways forward" after the ruling. Among them: Adding more justices to the Supreme Court and mandating "sterilization of all foreign visitors prior to entry."

Davis also mentioned dissolving the union, writing "A nation which can't even restrict who gets to be a citizen isn't a nation."

Jack Posobiec, another conservative media figure, said in a social media post that "The court never said we can't mandate spot pregnancy tests for foreigners."

"Impeach rogue, activist judges," Rep. Nancy Mace, R-South Carolina, wrote on social media. "We're looking at you Amy Coney Barrett."

"I'm sick of Barrett. I'm sick of this [cowpoop] by Barrett, I gotta be honest," [Megan] Kelly said on her show.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, when have any of them been decent people?

essentialsaltes said:

The outpouring of anger on the right prompted pushback from some conservatives.

"The right-wing meltdown over the citizenship case is shockingly dishonest," wrote Gregg Nunziata, an aide for Secretary of State Marco Rubio when he was in the Senate and now the executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law, a group founded by conservative legal figures from previous Republican administrations.

Click to expand...

good for them.

essentialsaltes said:

'Conservatives' are continuing to lose their dang minds.

Sean Davis, the CEO and co-founder of The Federalist online magazine, wrote in a social media post that there are "several ways forward" after the ruling. Among them: Adding more justices to the Supreme Court and mandating "sterilization of all foreign visitors prior to entry."

Davis also mentioned dissolving the union, writing "A nation which can't even restrict who gets to be a citizen isn't a nation."

Click to expand...

First, fun fact, The Federalist (not to be confused with The Federalist Society, a totally different thing) published this article back in 2015:

Yes, that's right, an article arguing very strongly--and in my view, very persuasively--for a broad interpretation of the Citizenship Clause that is the same as what the Supreme Court ruled in Turmp v. Barbarba. Granted, this was by a guest writer (this was the only article James Ho--now a judge on the Fifth Circuit--wrote for them), but Sean Davis was a co-founder so obviously he would have been involved in the site and presumably had some say on what articles could be published. Heck, I'd expect an owner of a website would pay more attention to content of guest writers before publishing them.

Sure, this was nearly 11 years ago, but I still do find it a bit funny that there's right there on his own site an article saying the Supreme Court decision he's freaking out about was right.

The Federalist itself seems to have shifted a lot since back then, though. Although most of the below article from 2020 is just complaining about the Federalist's coverage of coronavirus stuff, the author used to work for them and talks about how the website has shifted since its start, and it seems to me it's only gotten worse since this article was written:

This seems like a good time to answer the question a lot of people have been asking me over the last year and a half: [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] happened to The Federalist?

It may seem hard to remember, but in its first few years, when The Federalist grew rapidly in readership and influence, it did so by publishing interesting and, yes, provocative articles from writers representing a wide range of views within the right. Ben Domenech built it up by finding writers who were underused and under-appreciated elsewhere for a variety of reasons—mostly because a lot of us lived outside the big media centers of D.C. and New York, or because we didn’t mesh with the ideological lines of existing publications. (I was about the fourth person they hired, and I qualified on both counts.)

But from the very beginning, there was always something of a contest for The Federalist’s soul.

Ben used to talk about wanting his publication to be like The Atlantic, but for the right. That was the vision that sold me. The idea was to provide thoughtful, in-depth articles that represented a vibrant intellectual diversity. On that score, we would be even better than The Atlantic, because we wouldn’t fire Kevin Williamson. That sounded really great—right up to the point, about a year and a half ago, that The Federalist fired me. Another former contributor (who quietly drifted away at about the same time, when the paychecks stopped arriving) agreed that we were let go because we weren’t willing to work for peanuts and we were “not Trumpy enough.”

That was the other model vying for The Federalist’s soul and embodied by its other co-founder, Sean Davis. It’s a model that’s about quantity over quality, about churning out the articles—quick, dirty, and relentlessly partisan—where the only motto is: Always Be Trolling. In the years following the rise of Donald Trump, The Federalist finally went all in on this model.

JSRG said:

First, fun fact, The Federalist (not to be confused with The Federalist Society, a totally different thing) published this article back in 2015:

Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

The Citizenship Clause applies to the children of aliens and citizens alike. But that may not stop Congress from repealing birthright citizenship.

thefederalist.com

Yes, that's right, an article arguing very strongly--and in my view, very persuasively--for a broad interpretation of the Citizenship Clause that is the same as what the Supreme Court ruled in Turmp v. Barbarba. Granted, this was by a guest writer (this was the only article James Ho--now a judge on the Fifth Circuit--wrote for them), but Sean Davis was a co-founder so obviously he would have been involved in the site and presumably had some say on what articles could be published. Heck, I'd expect an owner of a website would pay more attention to content of guest writers before publishing them.

Sure, this was nearly 11 years ago, but I still do find it a bit funny that there's right there on his own site an article saying the Supreme Court decision he's freaking out about was right.

Click to expand...

James Ho said:

Of course, when we speak of a person who is subject to our jurisdiction, we do not limit ourselves to only those who have sworn allegiance to the U.S. Howard Stern need not swear allegiance to the FCC to be bound by Commission orders. Nor is being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. limited to those who have always complied with U.S. law. Criminals cannot immunize themselves from prosecution by violating Title 18. Likewise, aliens cannot immunize themselves from U.S. law by entering our country in violation of Title 8. Indeed, illegal aliens are such because they are subject to U.S. law.

Click to expand...

(colored emphasis mine)
The same thing that makes immigrants “illegal“, shows that they are also “subject to the jurisdiction“.