18 Democrat State Attorneys General Sue to Stop Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship

[excalibur]

The question should be, do they have standing? I say no, they do not.

But we see over and over how Democrats care nothing for the American people and want to subdue us with overwhelming numbers of foreign born women coming here illegally, popping out a baby, thus an 'anchor baby', and neither baby not mommy can be removed.

In fact, this begins chain migration where those two will become 10, 20, 30, 40, or more over a decade or so.

What other nation allows this? None.

President Trump declared a national border emergency as one of his first official acts as the 47th US President on Monday.

Trump also signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship.

According to President Trump’s order, the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted by the left to give citizenship to ‘anchor babies.’

“It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that 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 that 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,” Trump’s order stated.

Trump’s order argued the 14th Amendment has always excluded babies born to people in the US illegally.

“[The] Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text,” the order stated.

On Tuesday, Democrat state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to halt Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

...​

IT BEGINS: 18 Democrat State Attorneys General Sue to Stop Trump's Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Eighteen Democratic state attorneys general have united in a lawsuit challenging President Trump's executive order aimed at altering birthright citizenship, arguing it violates constitutional principles and threatens the rights of American-born children.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[WEATHER53]

Tough tooties tantruming against America won’t deter a President working For Americans

 

[White 6]

The question should be, do they have standing? I say no, they do not.

But we see over and over how Democrats care nothing for the American people and want to subdue us with overwhelming numbers of foreign born women coming here illegally, popping out a baby, thus an 'anchor baby', and neither baby not mommy can be removed.

In fact, this begins chain migration where those two will become 10, 20, 30, 40, or more over a decade or so.

What other nation allows this? None.

​

President Trump declared a national border emergency as one of his first official acts as the 47th US President on Monday.​

​

Trump also signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship.​

​

According to President Trump’s order, the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted by the left to give citizenship to ‘anchor babies.’​

​

“It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that 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 that 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,” Trump’s order stated.​

​

Trump’s order argued the 14th Amendment has always excluded babies born to people in the US illegally.​

​

“[The] Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text,” the order stated.​

​

On Tuesday, Democrat state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to halt Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.​

​

...​

IT BEGINS: 18 Democrat State Attorneys General Sue to Stop Trump's Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Eighteen Democratic state attorneys general have united in a lawsuit challenging President Trump's executive order aimed at altering birthright citizenship, arguing it violates constitutional principles and threatens the rights of American-born children.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Another question might be, are these sanctuary states or have sanctuary cities? One of Trumps EOs mentioned withhholding funds, if local authorities did not cooperate with Federal authorities regarding illegals. I have often wondered why federally connected tax dollars should be use to help cities or states that do not even cooperate, much less support. But, that's me.

 

[1srelluc]

I'm sure there's a friendly red state fed judge waiting in the wings to counter them.....It will go to SCOTUS in two years.

 

[skews13]

The question should be, do they have standing? I say no, they do not.

But we see over and over how Democrats care nothing for the American people and want to subdue us with overwhelming numbers of foreign born women coming here illegally, popping out a baby, thus an 'anchor baby', and neither baby not mommy can be removed.

In fact, this begins chain migration where those two will become 10, 20, 30, 40, or more over a decade or so.

What other nation allows this? None.

​

President Trump declared a national border emergency as one of his first official acts as the 47th US President on Monday.​

​

Trump also signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship.​

​

According to President Trump’s order, the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted by the left to give citizenship to ‘anchor babies.’​

​

“It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that 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 that 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,” Trump’s order stated.​

​

Trump’s order argued the 14th Amendment has always excluded babies born to people in the US illegally.​

​

“[The] Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text,” the order stated.​

​

On Tuesday, Democrat state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to halt Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.​

​

...​

IT BEGINS: 18 Democrat State Attorneys General Sue to Stop Trump's Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Eighteen Democratic state attorneys general have united in a lawsuit challenging President Trump's executive order aimed at altering birthright citizenship, arguing it violates constitutional principles and threatens the rights of American-born children.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Doesn't matter. He's going lose. You sycophants should start early preparing yourselves for the losses coming your way.

 

[Foxfyre]

The question should be, do they have standing? I say no, they do not.

But we see over and over how Democrats care nothing for the American people and want to subdue us with overwhelming numbers of foreign born women coming here illegally, popping out a baby, thus an 'anchor baby', and neither baby not mommy can be removed.

In fact, this begins chain migration where those two will become 10, 20, 30, 40, or more over a decade or so.

What other nation allows this? None.

​

President Trump declared a national border emergency as one of his first official acts as the 47th US President on Monday.​

​

Trump also signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship.​

​

According to President Trump’s order, the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted by the left to give citizenship to ‘anchor babies.’​

​

“It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that 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 that 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,” Trump’s order stated.​

​

Trump’s order argued the 14th Amendment has always excluded babies born to people in the US illegally.​

​

“[The] Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text,” the order stated.​

​

On Tuesday, Democrat state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to halt Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.​

​

...​

IT BEGINS: 18 Democrat State Attorneys General Sue to Stop Trump's Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Eighteen Democratic state attorneys general have united in a lawsuit challenging President Trump's executive order aimed at altering birthright citizenship, arguing it violates constitutional principles and threatens the rights of American-born children.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Congress needs to have President Trump's back and act very quickly on this to get some solid, constitutionally defensible legislation on the books to give SCOTUS more leverage to make the correct ruling.

 

[BULLDOG]

The question should be, do they have standing? I say no, they do not.

But we see over and over how Democrats care nothing for the American people and want to subdue us with overwhelming numbers of foreign born women coming here illegally, popping out a baby, thus an 'anchor baby', and neither baby not mommy can be removed.

In fact, this begins chain migration where those two will become 10, 20, 30, 40, or more over a decade or so.

What other nation allows this? None.

​

President Trump declared a national border emergency as one of his first official acts as the 47th US President on Monday.​

​

Trump also signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship.​

​

According to President Trump’s order, the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted by the left to give citizenship to ‘anchor babies.’​

​

“It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that 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 that 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,” Trump’s order stated.​

​

Trump’s order argued the 14th Amendment has always excluded babies born to people in the US illegally.​

​

“[The] Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text,” the order stated.​

​

On Tuesday, Democrat state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to halt Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.​

​

...​

IT BEGINS: 18 Democrat State Attorneys General Sue to Stop Trump's Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Eighteen Democratic state attorneys general have united in a lawsuit challenging President Trump's executive order aimed at altering birthright citizenship, arguing it violates constitutional principles and threatens the rights of American-born children.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

What right do we have to deport them, if they aren't subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

 

[Thunk]

It will go to SCOTUS in two years.

That was the whole point...to get this before the supreme court.

It's time to have this fight once and for all!

 

[Rawley]

The question should be, do they have standing? I say no, they do not.

Their argument is that if these anchor babies are not US citizens, the family cannot get federal funds for housing, food, healthcare ... and that financial burden falls on the state.

 

[Rawley]

What right do we have to deport them, if they aren't subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Because they are within the jurisdiction of the United States

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

FACT: Birthright Citizenship was never meant for people who entered our country illegally

 

[WEATHER53]

In order for someone to be subject to the jurisdiction and benefit, do they not have to be a legal citizen?
The constitution does not apply to Mexicans in Mexico and when they illegally come here it does not seem likely that constitutionality of citizenship confers to an unborn child when it’s born

 

[toobfreak]

The question should be, do they have standing? I say no, they do not.

How can a state have standing in a matter which is solely a /federal/ matter?

The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth

Wouldn't that exclude Kamala Harris then? She was born here, but neither of her parents were US citizens at the time. She was then subsequently raised and educated in Canada. It was only after that she came back here to go to college at Berkeley.

So just how did that bitch end up on the ticket as a presidential candidate?

 

[WEATHER53]

How can a state have standing in a matter which is solely a /federal/ matter?


Wouldn't that exclude Kamala Harris then? She was born here, but neither of her parents were US citizens at the time. She was then subsequently raised and educated in Canada. It was only after that she came back here to go to college at Berkeley.

So just how did that bitch end up on the ticket as a presidential candidate?

By being a Dem

 

[scruffy]

Nope. States do not have standing on immigration issues.

 

[Doc7505]

How can a state have standing in a matter which is solely a /federal/ matter?


Wouldn't that exclude Kamala Harris then? She was born here, but neither of her parents were US citizens at the time. She was then subsequently raised and educated in Canada. It was only after that she came back here to go to college at Berkeley.

So just how did that bitch end up on the ticket as a presidential candidate?

~~~~~
If this was to go into effect. It wouldn't affect those already born here, but it would affect all those born after the effective date of implementation.

 

[johnwk]

As many here must know by now, a number of states have FILED A LAWSUIT against Trump’s EXECUTIVE ORDER (PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP).


To substantiate their claim, Plaintiffs argue that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to confer citizenship upon any person born on American soil. Plaintiffs assert “. . . when proposing the language of the Citizenship Clause to the Senate, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan explained that, “[t]his amendment … is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is … a citizen of the United States.”

Keep in mind Howard’s comment does not address the important question of what is meant by “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, and that omission is in addition to Plaintiffs suspiciously avoiding the inclusion of Senator Reverdy Johnson’s clarification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Johnson notes the absolute necessity connected to citizenship upon birth as follows:

[A]ll that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

Parents who are subject to the authority of the United States, within the meaning of the Fourteenth, enjoy political privileges such as voting, and have military service obligations when called upon, which is not the case of parents who are foreign nationals, and especially of foreign nationals who illegally enter the United States who give birth to offspring.

Petitioners in claiming the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to confer citizenship upon "any person" born on American soil gloss over the intended purpose and meaning of the qualifier “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and they dismiss the qualifier as being relating only to “tribal members and the children of foreign ministers”, when in fact the historical debates of the Fourteenth Amendment show otherwise, in addition to our very own Supreme Court noting in Elk v. Wilkins the Citizenship Clause’s jurisdictional qualifier means “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

Finally, Petitioners trout out and rely upon United States v. Wong Kim Ark as confirming “[a]ll persons born” in and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States…” “. . . entitles a child born in the United States to noncitizen parents to automatic citizenship…”. What Petitioners disingenuously omit is that the parents of Wong were Chinese immigrants who were legally living in the U.S., had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. and were carry on a business. The Court, in Wong, did not consider citizenship with respect to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, who certainly are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the well documented meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The bottom line for rejecting the lawsuit against Trump’s PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP is, to date Congress has not exercised its Section V exclusive power under the Fourteenth Amendment to recognize and grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, nor has there been a Supreme Court case called to decide if a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizen upon birth. The fact is, mere current and unwritten policy, not law, now recognizes them as such.


Our current president, under Article 2 of our Constitution, has administrative power allowing him to set new public policy ___ just as Biden did with his open border policy that has caused great harm to the United States.

President Trump has acted within the law, and exercised his administrative policy-making-power, so the offspring of an illegal entrant born on American soil will no longer be recognized as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Elections have consequences, and part of the consequences of an election allows the setting new public policy . . . this is a fundamental hallmark of our constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed by our Constitution.

If the State Plaintiffs do not like the lawfully adopted new policy their remedy is to be found under Article V of our Constitution, not through judicial lawfair, and they ought to propose a constitutional amendment declaring, as suggested in their lawsuit, that all persons born in the United States, regardless of their parent's citizenship or entry into the United States, are heretofore citizens of the United states" and would thus entitle them to all welfare benefits including programs administered by the States and jointly funded by federal and state dollars [see page 21 of their lawsuit] and explains what their lawsuit is really about . . . free government cheese provided by American citizen taxpayers.

JWK

America's wage-earning citizens are being made into taxed slaves by todays Democrat Leadership to pay for the economic and social needs of millions upon millions of foreign nationals who have invaded the United States’ border.

 

[Auld Phart]

time to call in the cavalry.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Let it play out.

 

[1srelluc]

Some fed judge will block it.....Then another will approve it.....2.5 years later SCOTUS will rule on it.