#birthright citizenship debate

[latestnews-now]

Discover President-elect Donald Trump’s controversial plans to end birthright citizenship, address Dreamers, and enforce stricter immigration laws. In this detailed breakdown, we explore his recent interview, the challenges to the 14th Amendment, and what it means for the future of U.S. immigration policy. Watch to stay informed on this critical topic!

[leohtttbriar]

There is an important line between cynicism and nihilism. Assuming that SCOTUS will authorize the end of birthright citizenship would cross that line. Trump’s reascendency to the White House is a pitch-black moment in this country’s history, but that is no license to indulge in preemptive defeat.

Why should we expect the Supreme Court to uphold birthright citizenship? There are three main reasons: one legal, one practical, and another related to the court’s own power. Start with the legal issue: There are few constitutional provisions with a clearer and more settled meaning than the citizenship clause of the 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.” This guarantee is rooted in common lawand traces back to the nation’s founding. Congress enshrined it in the Constitution after the Civil War to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott, which had erroneously denied citizenship to Black Americans. During ratification, senators explicitly recognized that the citizenship clause’s broad language would encompass not just freed slaves but also the children of immigrants. They debated and ultimately approved the extension of birthright citizenship to these children, concluding that their parents’ lack of American citizenship should not abridge their own civil rights. The Supreme Court affirmed this understanding of the 14th Amendment in 1898’s Wong Kim Arkand has never retreated from it.

Trump attempts to get around this plain meaning by latching onto the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” His order claims that the children of immigrants are not “subject to” the United States’ jurisdiction, presumably because their parents are citizens of another country. This argument is an indefensible misreading of both the text and the historical record. Once again, senators discussed this issue when drafting the 14th Amendment, and agreed that the “jurisdiction” language simply means “subject to our laws.�� And the Supreme Court has clarified that all immigrants, both lawful and undocumented, are fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Why, then, did Congress mention jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment? Because it intended to exclude the offspring of three groups who were not fully “subject” to U.S. law: foreign diplomats, invading soldiers, and Native tribes. Diplomats and soldiers were viewed as agents of a foreign sovereign, while tribes were, at the time, viewed as “quasi foreign nations.” But Congress was adamant that all other people, including immigrants’ offspring, be included in the promise of birthright citizenship.

To uphold Trump’s executive order, then, the Supreme Court would have to jettison 126 years of precedent, abolishing an ancient right at the heart of constitutional liberty. That will give the court serious pause. A large majority of justices almost certainly do not want to destabilize American law in this way, abruptly eradicating a right upon which millions have come to rely. Trump’s order also goes far beyond undocumented immigrants, denying citizenship to the children of “temporary” immigrants who are here lawfully. People with H-1B visas, Temporary Protected Status, DACA, and others who’ve long resided in the U.S. would evidently fall under this category, meaning their offspring would not receive citizenship. If implemented, this policy would be extremely unpopular: Most Americans do not want to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented people, let alone the children of legal immigrants. It would also upend the practical realities of citizenship, creating immense confusion that would invariably wind up in the judiciary’s lap.

not sure how much i agree that “the court” wants to not be seen as trump’s lapdog but i agree that this is one of those issues that roberts, barrett, gorsuch, and kavanaugh would be very likely to not side with him on.

[banji-effect]

“The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period,” New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said. ...Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a U.S. citizen by birthright and the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him. “The 14th Amendment says what it means, and it means what it says —- if you are born on American soil, you are an American. Period. Full stop,” he said. “There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own.”

[darkmaga-returns]

Trump Ends Birthright Citizenship - I could cry reading this article. FINALLY someone of influence that truly understands the original intent of the Constitution and namely the 14th Amendment. I often refer to the US Senate Debate of 1866 and Mr. Wolverton refers to the same. He also refers the real definition of natural born citizen from the Law of Nations a document referred to by our founders while creating our founding documents. This was the definition understood by all people at the time of our founding and there has never been a law passed to change the definition. KUDDOS to Mr. Wolverton. He will be speaking in Johnson City, TN on February 4, 2025 and I cannot wait for this presentation entitled: MAKE AMERICA STATES AGAIN. The audience will get a good lesson in the states authority over the federal government. Most people think the federal government has power over the states. The federal government’s power comes from the states and the people of the states and is limited to Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the US Constitution and it is about time the lies spewed from the federal government are put to bed. The deliberate dumbing down of America has been all about Americans not knowing the truth of the power derived in the states and the people and the VERY LIMITED legislative power given to the federal government by the states and the people of the states. We here in TN have been fighting for almost 3 years now to restore our rightful authority. In this article Mr. Wolverton also explains the true definition of NBC (Natural Born Citizen) Place of birth has no bearing on NBC. The citizenship of the father is what determines the NBC of the children. ARTICLE

CALL YOUR US REP. AND SENATORS - Tell them to vote NO on this bill. It is dangerous and will do away with doctors diagnosing and caring for patients. If AI diagnosis a person with cancer and their diagnosis is wrong……how do you sue AI?? Watch this bill and if it gets passed be sure to organize and make sure your state does not allow AI to prescribe drugs to sick people - HB238

Bill Gates wants to reduce the population - VIDEO

6 Presidents worth before they became President and what they were worth when they left office. What is your answer to the question at the end of the video -Thanks to Brent B. - 1 min. VIDEO

Fear And Loathing In DC: Why Did Trump Push Larry Ellison's Deranged AI mRNA Cancer Shots, Days Before RFK Jr. Is To Be Confirmed As Head Of HHS? Not A Reason To Abandon Hope, But Very Odd by Celia Farber - ARTICLE/VIDEOS

URGENT: Mike Pence's Big-Pharma-Funded Advocacy Group Attacking RFK Jr. Has Ties To Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson - I have NEVER like Pence and was very disappointed when Trump chose him as his VP. Pence has always been a snake - ARTICLE

[vomitdodger]

This is interesting if you like debate, take an active interest in true constitutionality issues and mental gymnastics. About a six min vid. Discusses whether Harris is eligible for presidency based on the constitutional requirements. Not that I think it will make a difference. Discussion centers around what is a “natural born citizen” and “subject to the jurisdiction within”. Point being Harris was born on US soil while her non-US citizen parents had expired stays.

I’ve tried to find a definite answer for about two days and no such luck.

Points of considerations:

The Supreme Court has never officially ruled on this. There is much academic inference but it’s never ruled on a case/scenario like this.

The founding fathers original intent of “natural born citizens” was what most people would think…born to US citizens…not an anchor baby (Harris). Note they included the specific word “natural”.

Citizenship was later clarified to children of citizens born overseas…basically. Example: Ted Cruz born in Canada and McCain born in Panama Canal zone. Both considered “natural born citizens” so eligible to run.

Anchor baby’s are often referred to as “birthright citizens”. This is comrade Haley. Difference is her parents were in the US legally although not yet naturalized. Harris’ parents were neither…they stayed past their defined term. This is really key.

Most academics and some court rulings have made or attempted to make the terms “natural born” and “birthright” interchangeable. Others have said..not so fast…go back to original intent…they are not the same for constitutional legalities.

Truly a constitutional scholar/legal issue that would only be officially settled by the SCOTUS. Again not that it will likely make a difference anytime soon, if at all.

If you try to find info disregard anything in the last year or so…it’s clearly a setup for future Harris runs. Disregard fact checkers and the usual media. Disregard any source that simple lists the 3 presidential requirements as worthless, low IQ input.

I also suspect there’s heavy media censorship of arguments against Harris’ scenario. Most articles simply list those 3 basic requirements without any constitutional scholar authority….so again low IQ, meaningless input to influence the masses with repetition. Which is exactly what the media does.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Oliver Willis at Daily Kos:

On the issue of immigration, Trump once again claimed he would end birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship has been a part of American law for 156 years, since 1868, and the adoption of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The law gives people born in the country automatic citizenship if they are born on U.S. soil or if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of their birth. Trump told NBC’s Kristen Welker that he planned to abolish this right on the first day of his presidency. When Welker noted that it is a constitutional right, Trump said, “Well, we’re going to have to get a change, maybe have to go back to the people but we have to end it.” No matter the meager size of Trump’s electoral victory, getting rid of this bedrock American right cannot be done via an executive order and a constitutional change requires an involved multi-state process that historically has taken years. The last time an amendment was made official was 1992 and the amendment in question, the 27th Amendment (regulating congressional pay) was introduced in 1789—a 202-year gap.

Related to immigration, Trump also said that he would not just push to deport undocumented immigrants, but entire families. Asked about families where children are legally in the United States while living with undocumented parents, Trump said, “I don’t want to be breaking up families, so the only way you don’t break up the family is if you keep them together, and you have to send them all back.” Trump isn’t even being consistent with his own actions. It was under his first presidency that U.S. immigration policy was changed so that families were separated at the border. The policy created enormous international and domestic criticism, and the Biden administration has spent all four years of its existence trying to reunite those families. When he first ran for president in 2016, Trump ran on a platform of repealing the Affordable Care Act and promised he would reveal a replacement. He never did. Asked by Welker about health care on Sunday, Trump still had nothing to offer. “We have the concepts of a plan that will be better,” Trump said, repeating the phrase that was widely mocked after most agreed he lost the presidential debate to Vice President Kamala Harris.

Donald Trump went on NBC’s Meet The Press Sunday, in which he called for the repeal of birthright citizenship and deportation of entire families, including those that have undocumented immigrants and US citizens in the family.

[us-cj]

DONALD TRUMP'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SAVES DEMOCRACY -- SORRY LIBS

Few issues ignite national debate as intensely as immigration, particularly during the Trump era.

When then-candidate Donald Trump criticized birthright citizenship on the campaign trail in 2015, it sparked widespread controversy. Voices on both the Left and the Right issued swift condemnations.

Fast forward to Tuesday, when news broke that President Trump was considering ending birthright citizenship via executive order. Once again, many critics condemned the idea, asserting that birthright citizenship is constitutionally guaranteed.

But if birthright citizenship is indeed rooted in the Constitution, why wasn’t the 14th Amendment applied to illegal or temporary immigrants before the 1960s?

The doctrine of birthright citizenship—the notion that citizenship is automatically granted to anyone born within U.S. borders—is absent from the Constitution’s text.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, collectively known as the Civil War Amendments, were enacted to ensure newly freed slaves were recognized as citizens with equal rights under the law. These amendments were designed to address the specific circumstances of the Reconstruction era, not to provide an open pathway to citizenship for children of non-citizens.

It’s no coincidence that the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment is part of the exact text as the Equal Protection Clause. Before the Civil War, state citizenship often conferred national citizenship. After the war, Congress sought to nationalize citizenship, ensuring that freed slaves could not be denied their rights by states resistant to Reconstruction.

The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Critics of birthright citizenship argue that proponents often ignore the key phrase: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This phrase fundamentally limits the scope of who qualifies for automatic citizenship.

Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, the amendment’s author, clarified this intent during debates in Congress. He stated that “jurisdiction thereof” excluded individuals such as “foreigners, aliens, and children of ambassadors or foreign ministers,” emphasizing that the term referred to “full and complete jurisdiction.” This understanding was widely disseminated and accepted at the time.

The distinction between territorial jurisdiction and political jurisdiction is critical. While anyone on U.S. soil must follow American laws, this does not confer full political jurisdiction. For example, an illegal immigrant is not granted the right to vote, serve on juries, or claim other rights reserved for citizens. Full political jurisdiction is only granted through naturalization when an individual takes the Oath of Allegiance to the United States.

Legal scholars of the late 19th century supported this interpretation. Judge Thomas Cooley wrote in The General Principles of Constitutional Law in America:

“A citizen by birth must not only be born within the United States, but he must also be subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and by this is meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens generally are subject, and not any qualified or partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to another government.”

Howard echoed this view in 1866 when he introduced the citizenship clause, referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which stated:

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Attorney General George Williams further reinforced this understanding in an 1873 legal opinion, explaining that “jurisdiction” meant “absolute and complete jurisdiction,” excluding even children of aliens born on U.S. soil. At the time, Native Americans were also excluded because their allegiance lay with their tribes.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, clarified that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

This principle was upheld in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), where the Supreme Court affirmed that children born to individuals owing allegiance to foreign governments were not automatically granted U.S. citizenship. Only with the consent of the sovereign people can jurisdiction—and thus citizenship—be conferred.

It wasn’t until United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that the Court ruled children born in the U.S. to legal immigrant parents with permanent residence qualified for citizenship under the 14th Amendment. This decision did not extend to children of illegal immigrants, and no precedent has since established such an interpretation.

Moreover, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution grants Congress plenary power over naturalization. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment also grants Congress authority to enforce its provisions. In 1924, Congress, not the executive or judiciary, extended citizenship to Native Americans.

As of now, no law passed by Congress explicitly grants jurisdiction—or citizenship—to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant parents. No SCOTUS decision forces the president to enforce what the executive bureaucracy itself created. Therefore, Trump can unilaterally rescind what the executive created.

[h0nkyk0ng1o1p]

The TRUTH About Birthright Citizenship: 14th Amendment Debate!

[usgovsummary]

January 20, 2025

POTUS:

Retracted 78 previous executive orders, most regarding COVID-19 actions to ensure public safety, federal DEI programs, several EOs that held the executive branch accountable, climate change, immigration, and healthcare. Full list here.

Announced Cabinet picks: here

Required all federal employees to terminate remote working

Declared a national emergency on the southern border

Removed the US from WHO and the Paris Climate Agreement

Pardoned rioters from the January 6th Insurrection

Imposed new trade standards, supposedly prioritizing America: here

Declared a national energy emergency, ignoring many environmental regulations to lower the cost of energy and promote energy production

Gave the president the ability to remove Career Senior Executives who are deemed to have "failed" the president

Bolstered the death penalty

Signed an EO to stop birthright citizenship

Signed an EO to redefine the two sexes and stated the federal government will not recognize gender identity

Implemented the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Allowed natural gas fracking and drilling in Alaska again

Several EOs were signed to prevent immigration from the southern border

Temporarily ending offshore wind farm projects

Redistributed foreign aid

Ended government DEI programs and insist the government will be hiring on merit

Federally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and Mount Denali to Mount McKinley

Designated international cartels as global terrorists

Ended national emergency that imposed sanctions on settlers invading the West Bank

More details and the actual policies can be found here

SCOTUS:

The Supreme Court was closed

Congress:

2 bills were introduced: One meant to repeal the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The other deals with a nuance finance issue.

Passed the Laken Riley Act, requiring aliens who are being charged with theft in the US to be taken into custody

Confirm the nomination of Marco Rubio for Secretary of State

Debate began on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in the Senate. The law is meant to prevent healthcare professionals from failing to provide proper care in case a child survives an abortion

In the House of Representatives, 12 public bills were introduced: 5 were regarding the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which deals with taxes. One was to advance the US strategy in the Pacific Islands. H. R. 563 is meant to discontinue the collection of records for discontinued firearms sales by the federal government. Others dealt with the law banning TikTok, residency requirements of officials, air pollution, labor representation, and funding for law enforcement to deal with auto theft

Further details can be found here

[doomsday-architect]

So now it's clear........

The Democrats and the media and the medical team at the White House PURPOSELY denied the mental decline of Joe Biden......PURPOSELY!

Why?

The reason is easy.

Lying for power is the coin of the realm in DC.

Honestly, lying is the coin of the realm on planet earth among ALL humanity.

Those with power and influence NEVER give it up willingly.

History teaches that lesson daily.

Birthright citizenship is today's "hot button".

It's in the Constitution.....TRUE.

.......in 1868!

A time when America needed more citizenry to grow our great nation.

That need is no longer necessary.

Does it need to be modified or eliminated today?

Let the Debate (and lawsuits begin).......and they have.

Dynamic, chaotic America!

ALWAYS debating change, always growing, accepting, modifying our culture, not with war but with words.

I'm an American patriot!

At the end of the day, I hope y'all are, too.

[platypusisnotonfire]

Like…

CLEARLY nothing has gone into law yet and the birthright thing is very much up for debate as being unconstitutional but I have dual citizenship and I have NO idea where I might fall on this spectrum as I’m pretty sure my mother was a US citizen but I have NO idea about my father as he was from Ireland and I have NO idea what his legal status was when I was born. And my mother was first generation from Scotland and I’m guessing was a US citizen but I don’t really even know. I have zero clue what my maternal grandparents legal US status was.

That’s kinda wild like if by some absolutely offhand chance that goes into law and like the constitution is amended and I’m no longer a US citizen and that’s crazy

[marta-bee]

News of the Week 1/23/25

It sure has been one heck of a week, hasn't it? (... It's Wednesday, Lemon. ...) If you're up to it, click on through for all the news that's fit to print.

Immigration

US House passes immigration bill requiring deportation of any non-citizen convicted of sexual abuse or domestic violence (X) & an explanation for why this bill is bad for DV survivors. The Senate has also now separately passed a similar bill.

Trump signs executive order to end birthright citizenship. (RP) It's being challenged, but it's still upsetting and dangerous it's even being put out there. It also impacts children born to parents on temporary visas, even if they're in the country legally. (RP)

Trump shuts down the CBP One app, which allowed migrants to schedule appointments connected to asylum claims. Stories of the migrants affected. (12ft.io) Trump also cancelled travel of refugees coming from around the world indefinitely, including families of US military fleeing the Taliban.

Immigration officials will be allowed to arrest people for deportation at schools and churches.

Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde speaks boldly to President Trump at a prayer service linked to the inauguration (VIDEO), urging him to show kindness and mercy to LGBT people and undocumented immigrants.

Foreign Affairs

It should be up to us: Greenlanders on Trump, Denmark - and their land

Trump to withdraw from Paris Climate Accords. (RP)

Trump to withdraw from World Health Organization. (RP)

Trump announces 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, starting 2/1.

Russia warns Trump against taking back Panama Canal (RP). Aside from Panama's obvious interest in not being bullied out of their own territory, this article draws an interesting parallel with Russia and Ukraine, and they're right: seizing or coercing another country to give up their territorial rights makes it that much harder to call out Russia doing much the same there.

Sec. State Marco Rubio Oversees Pause on Foreign Aid. (RP)

Trump cancels security detail for Michael Bolton, former national security advisor critical of him in first term. (RP)

Trump threatens Russia with tariffs and sanctions if they don't end war in Ukraine.

Oligarchy and Autocracy

In his farewell speech, Biden called Elon and the other tech bros' cozying up to Trump an "oligarchy." Experts debate if the term's justified.

Trump plans to reinstate Schedule F, allowing him to fire non-political civil servants more easily. (RP) The article also discusses some truly grisly executive orders on immigration, as well as his plans to pardon the 1/6 traitors.

Trump pardons or commutes sentences for all the January 6th traitors. (RP)

Trump reinstates Schedule F and strips other protections from non-partisan civil servants. (12ft.io)

Trump announces axing of over 1,000 staff, including General Milley, via late-night Truth post. (RP)

Elon Musk makes gesture described as Nazi salute. (RP) Twice, actually.

Russell Vought, the nominated OBM director, is questioned over presidential impoundment. Basically, this would mean the president could simply refuse to distribute funds approved by Congress. (Think when Trump sat on military aid for Ukraine unless they investigated Hunter Biden for him, the scandal behind his first impeachment.)

Gender, LGBT and Abortion-related

Biden says the Equal Rights Amendment is "the law of the land," (RP) but doesn't order the US Archivist to publish and certify it. This may kick off a legal battle or add pressure to the Archivist, but doesn't itself amend the Constitution.

Case attempting to limit access to mifepristone in specific red states allowed to proceed. (12ft.io)

Trump signs executive order that federal government will only recognize your gender assigned at birth.

DC Episcopal bishop urges Trump to show mercy to trans people and migrants in prayer service connected to inauguration. The comments were predictable from this particular bishop (though no less true), raising the question of why Trump chose to platform her. It should have been predictable from any Christian minister, though not all would have been so brave: she just said he claimed to be guided by a God of mercy, and urged him to show that same mercy to scared, vulnerable people.

Trump orders the end of all DEI programs, has put all DEI employees on paid leave until they can legally be fired, and has tasked other federal employees to identify co-workers working in DEI whose jobs aren't labelled as such, or face adverse consequences.

Other Stuff

Trump temporarily halts leasing and permitting for offshore wind farms.

Trump withdraws from Paris Climate Change accords, again.

Trump orders "emergency price relief" on housing by executive order, though it's unclear how he plans to accomplish this. Making undocumented workers, who make up a huge share of the construction industry, and imposing tariffs on Canadian lumber and other building materials seems counter-productive to this goal.

Nazi flag-bearing man gets 8 years in prison for 2023 truck crashing near White House (X) He was also schizophrenic and an Indian immigrant. I'm not sure it's currently all that newsy, but it is fascinating.

Man accused of starting fire at congressional office motivated by TikTok ban, police say. (RP)

Why Trump supporters see sunshine in Trump's dark and foreboding speeches. (RP) Not news, of course, but an interesting and important discussion. It's weird to think of Republicans being disgusted by their own country, and more reason why I need to periodically focus on why I like America.

Trump doubles down on death penalty at the federal level, and pledges to make sure states have access to lethal injection drugs.

Trump administration pauses all external communications to outside health agencies and the public. Meaning if the CDC notes an uptick in avian flu cases, they're not currently allowed to warn us. Because nothing like that's ever been a problem before.

[strictlyfavorites]

At least 59.4 percent of illegal immigrant-led homes use one or more welfare programs, compared with 39 percent of households headed by people born in the United States, according to the Dec. 19 report.

High rates of welfare use among illegal immigrants “primarily reflect their generally lower education levels and their resulting low-incomes, coupled with the large share who have U.S.-born children who are eligible for all welfare programs from birth,” the report reads.

“More than half of all illegal immigrant households have one or more U.S.-born children.”

Children born to illegal immigrants in the United States, also known as “anchor babies,‘ are considered to have automatic birthright citizenship even though the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly ruled on the matter. Illegal immigrants can’t access most welfare programs, a restriction that eases for their children who are born in the country.

“The American welfare system is designed in large part to help low-income families with children, which describes a large share of immigrants,” CIS states in the report.

A dozen states offer Medicaid to all low-income children regardless of immigration status. Such children also have access to various government food and meal programs.

Programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program, free or subsidized lunch and breakfast for students, and Medicaid for children (Children’s Health Insurance Program) were “explicitly created for minors,” the report states.

The CIS report is based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2022 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP).

“The reality is that illegal immigrants are included in the SIPP, a large share of them are poor, and they or their U.S.-born children have welfare eligibility; and many take advantage of this eligibility,” CIS stated.

“A very large share of immigrants come to America, have children, struggle to provide for them, and so turn to taxpayers for support. This can be seen as especially problematic given that there is already a large number of Americans who are also struggling to provide for their children.”

According to data from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the total number of U.S.-born children of illegal aliens in the United States as of June stood at 5.78 million, a population more than two times that of Chicago.

FAIR estimates that “illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children impose a net annual cost of $150.6 billion on American taxpayers as of the beginning of 2023.” Over the past five years, the annual cost has risen by almost $35 billion.

“This burden will only continue to grow as a result of the Biden administration’s open-borders policies,” the organization warns.

Ending Birthright Citizenship

Multiple GOP members have taken a strong stance against birthright citizenship. In 2018, former President Donald Trump said he would remove birthright citizenship via executive order, which didn’t happen.

In his 2024 campaign, President Trump has reiterated his position on the matter. In a May video, President Trump promised to sign an executive order on day one of his second term to solve the issue.

Such an order would end the “unfair practice known as birth tourism, where hundreds of thousands of people from all over the planet squat in hotels for their last few weeks of pregnancy to illegitimately and illegally obtain U.S. citizenship for the child, often to later exploit chain migration to jump the line and get green cards for themselves and their family members.”

“At least one parent will have to be a citizen or a legal resident in order to qualify,” President Trump stated.

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy called for an end to birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants during the second GOP debate, in September.

“Now, the left will howl about the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. The difference between me and them is I’ve actually read the 14th Amendment. And what it says is that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the laws and jurisdiction thereof are citizens,” Mr. Ramaswamy said.

“So nobody believes that the kid of a Mexican diplomat in this country enjoys birthright citizenship—not a judge or legal scholar in this country will disagree with me on that. Well, if the kid of a Mexican diplomat doesn’t enjoy birthright citizenship, then neither does the kid of an illegal migrant who broke the law to come here.”

In July, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced a proposal called “End Birthright Citizenship Fraud Act of 2023,” which aims to abolish automatic birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

Under the legislation, at least one parent of the child must be a U.S. national or a refugee, have lawful permanent citizenship, or be an active member of the military.

“My legislation recognizes that American citizenship is a privilege—not an automatic right to be co-opted by illegal aliens,” Mr. Gaetz said in a statement.

“This is an important step in preserving the sanctity of American citizenship and ensures that citizenship is not treated as a loophole to be exploited but rather a privilege to be earned when legally migrating to our country.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

mike luckovich :: @mluckovichajc

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 16, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 17, 2024

[Warning: paragraphs 6–8 talk about rape.]

In yesterday’s Iowa caucus, 51% of Republican caucusgoers chose former president Donald Trump as their preferred candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Twenty-one percent of Republican caucusgoers chose Florida governor Ron DeSantis. Nineteen percent chose former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley. Seven percent chose technology entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. These results mean that 20 of Iowa’s 40 delegates will go to Trump; 8 to DeSantis; 7 to Haley; and three to Ramaswamy. An apparent Trump surrogate in the primary debates, Ramaswamy suspended his campaign after the caucus and endorsed Trump.  

Turnout was much lower than expected, with only about 110,000 people voting. That’s about 15% of Iowa’s three quarters of a million registered Republicans out of a population of just over 3 million people.

On Friday, January 12, in Des Moines, DeSantis blamed right-wing media for Trump’s continued popularity. “He’s got basically a Praetorian Guard of the conservative media—Fox News, the websites, all this stuff,” DeSantis said, referring to the elite unit of the Roman army that protected the emperor both physically and through intelligence collecting. “They just don’t hold him accountable, because they’re worried about losing viewers and they don’t want to have the ratings go down. And that’s just the reality.”

For his part, true to form, Trump has shared a story that Haley is not eligible to be president because her parents were not citizens when she was born in the U.S. in 1972. This reflects both his “birther” history and his promise to end the birthright citizenship established in 1868 by the Fourteenth Amendment. Also true to form, he made no accusations of voter fraud or rigged voting last night as he has done in the past when he lost elections; indeed, he told supporters this was his third win in Iowa. The truth is that in 2016 he lost Iowa’s caucus vote to Texas senator Ted Cruz. 

The Iowa results pretty much told us what we already knew. Trump remains the dominant leader of the hard-right older Republicans who turn out for caucuses, but is so generally unpopular that 49% of Iowa caucusgoers—the party’s most dedicated supporters in a deeply Republican state—chose someone else. The Trump base is older—entry polls showed that only 27% of yesterday’s voters were under the age of 50—and Trump won most handily in the rural, white counties that look least like the rest of the country. His greatest increase in support since 2016 came among white evangelicals. 

That support from those who claim fervent religious beliefs seems an odd fit with the candidate, who was in a federal courtroom in New York City today for the start of a trial to determine the additional damages he owes writer E. Jean Carroll for defaming her after she said he raped her in the 1990s, claiming she was lying to sell books. Carroll sued him in 2019, but the case has been delayed as Trump argued that he had presidential immunity for his comments.

While it was delayed, in May 2023 a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse in a second civil trial known as Carroll II. The jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million. When Trump’s team countersued Carroll for defamation, saying the jury had found him liable not for rape, but for sexual abuse, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan said Carroll’s words were “substantially true.” Kaplan made it clear that New York law defines rape very narrowly. He said “the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact…‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’” “The jury,” he wrote, “found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina.” 

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Trump’s claim of presidential immunity for his defamation of Carroll and dismissed his argument that his comments weren’t defamatory. 

Carroll II established guidelines for the previous case as it finally moved forward. In a pretrial judgment, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan determined that Trump is liable for defamation for his ridicule of Carroll. Trump remains undeterred. As he arrived at the courthouse this morning, Alex Woodward noted in The Independent, his social media account released a flood of “potentially defamatory statements” attacking Carroll.  

In Politico, Erica Orden noted that today’s trial is just down the street from the Trump trial for civil fraud that ended last Thursday. In that case, Judge Arthur Engoron has already ruled that Trump committed business fraud. The trial was over fines, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and the Trump Organization’s continuing ability to do business in New York. Trump’s outburst at the end of the trial attacking the judge and New York attorney general Letitia James suggests that he has little faith that he is going to win that case and is instead turning it into a political pulpit as part of his attempt to undermine the American justice system. On Thursday morning, law enforcement officers showed up at Judge Engoron’s house in a “swatting” incident after someone falsely told police a violent crime was being committed there.  

Attorney Joe Tacopina filed papers to withdraw himself and his two partners from Trump’s defense team yesterday. 

White evangelicals heartily endorse a crook and a rapist apparently because they expect that he will put in place the world they envision, one controlled by white, patriarchal evangelical Christians.

But as even the Iowa caucuses indicated, the idea of replacing American democracy with an authoritarian who will enact Christian nationalism is not generally popular. In the Washington Post on January 11, Philip Bump explored a new poll by YouGov showing that when U.S. adult citizens are presented with 30 of Trump’s declared policies, majorities oppose 22 of them. A majority approved only four of them, and those were the ones the right wing has been hammering: banning hormonal or surgical treatment for transgender minors (57%), legally limiting recognized genders (53%), requiring immigrants to remain in Mexico while their asylum claims are being processed (56%), and—by a narrow majority of 51%—deporting immigrants in the U.S. illegally. 

Some of Trump’s signature policies are deeply unpopular. Only 21% of Americans support getting rid of the nonpartisan civil service; only 18% support giving the president control over regulatory agencies like the Federal Communications Commission. Only 31% support sending U.S. troops into U.S. cities to enforce order; only 33% support sending troops into Mexico to fight drug cartels. Only 23% support further cuts to taxes on corporations. Only 29% want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act (which has seen a record 20.5 million Americans enroll so far in the current enrollment period); only 28% support withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Only 38% want to end birthright citizenship, the same percentage as those who want to end U.S. aid to Ukraine. 

The YouGov study shows that only 30% of Americans support withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords, and a December 2023 CNN poll showed that 73% want the government to do more to address climate change. And yet, today, Scott Waldman of Politico previewed the Trump team’s preparation for ending all efforts to address climate change. Complaining that the people in Trump’s first administration were “weak,” Trump advisor Steve Milloy told Waldman that  “The approach is to go back to all-out fossil fuel production and sit on the EPA.” 

“We are writing a battle plan, and we are marshaling our forces,” Paul Dans, director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation, said last year. “Never before has the whole conservative movement banded together to systematically prepare to take power Day 1 and deconstruct the administrative state.”

Meanwhile, Politico’s roundup of Washington, D.C., news shows that President Joe Biden has invited top congressional leaders of both parties—Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), and House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—and relevant committee chairs to a meeting at the White House tomorrow to discuss the stalled aid package to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the U.S. border. Also today, the Senate is considering the continuing resolution to fund the government before the current continuing resolution ends on Friday. 

Speaker Johnson has pushed off House votes until Wednesday out of apparent concern about the snow in Washington today.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[darkmaga-returns]

Should Babies Born to Illegal Alien Mothers, on U.S. Soil, be Automatic U.S. Citizens? the quote in this article by Senator Howard is straight from the US Senate Hearings of 1866 which created the 14th Amendment which was ratified (?) in 1868. It is clear the 14th Amendment was NEVER about giving EVERYONE born on US soil citizenship. There were requirements like US parents and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (which foreigners have only limited jurisdiction) It is such a shame that Americans just refuse to take the time to do some research on the meaning of each Amendment and Article in the Constitution. It truly does not take a lot time. But people today are happy with being told what to think instead of how to think. Trump only has to follow the original intent of the 14th Amendment and ending the birthright citizenship lie in America will easily become a thing of the past. BUT how many lawyers and so called constitutional experts have ever read the US Senate Debate of 1866???? How many even know about it?? Most so called experts are texturalists. They believe the Constitution is a living document and changes with the times. This is not true. The Constitution is changed throught the Amendment process not because the times have changed. ARTICLE

Aaron Siri Issues Legal Notice to HHS, Demands Preservation of Records, Threatens DOJ Referral by Jon Fleetwood - ARTICLE

Inside The UN Plan To “Fundamentally Restructure The Global Economy” by Alex Newman - ARTICLE/VIDEO (49 min.)

COVID lockdowns, carbon taxes, and the coming ‘climate emergency’ - ARTICLE

Woman sues top medical mutilation doctor for ‘fast-tracking’ gender transition - I had shared information about this doctor and how she is withholding information on the study of blockers/surgery but it appears as if she is also being sued by a patient - ARTICLE

[mariacallous]

KYIV—As Ukraine gears up for a counteroffensive, Moscow has ramped up its campaign to get Ukrainian civilians in occupied territories to accept Russian citizenship. Ukrainian officials are now fiercely debating how to treat fellow citizens who have done so.

The catalyst is a new decree signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin on April 27, which states that Ukrainians residing in the illegally annexed territories of Ukraine who have not received Russian citizenship are considered foreigners or stateless individuals. Foreign citizens will have “the right” to reside on these territories until July 2024. No deadline for their registration is given. Disturbingly, they may be deported if they “present a threat to national security.”

Aggressive decrees such as these are just the latest stage of Russia’s “passportization.” Before its full-scale invasion of Ukraine began last February, Russia had used this foreign-policy tool in the breakaway states of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria, as well as Ukraine’s Donbas region.

But in those areas of Ukraine occupied since Russia’s invasion started on Feb. 24, 2022, passportization has unfolded in record time. Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin stated on May 30 that since their illegal annexation in September 2022, almost 1.5 million Ukrainians in the four provinces of Ukraine illegally annexed by Russia last year had received Russian passports.

Ivan Fedorov is the mayor of Melitopol, a strategically important Russian-occupied city in southern Ukraine. The first stage of the campaign was to propagandize Russian passports, he told Foreign Policy—though only a handful of local collaborators took them.

“In the second stage, they tried to put up restrictions for Ukrainian citizens; they’d face problems using medical services, education, transport, or health care,” said Fedorov, whose team relocated to the safety of the city of Zaporizhzhia. The mayor’s account of distinct stages to passportization is corroborated by Russian officials’ own statements in local pro-Russian newspapers, such as the official publication of the Kherson occupation authorities. The occupiers first promoted the Russian passport as a birthright and source of pride. Later, they declared the passport as a source of security, giving lengthening lists of the social services which could not be accessed without one. The current stage is the most forceful.

Locals say that business and property owners soon came into the Russians’ sights—the better to indirectly pressure employees and to raise tax revenue for the Russian budget.

“They made Melitopol the administrative center and demanded that all property be re-registered there. They said they’d search for the owners, and if none appeared, the property would be declared vacant and auctioned off. To demonstrate your ownership, you had to come to occupied territory in person with the documents,” said Ihor Semyvolos, a Kyiv-based political analyst with family ties to the Zaporizhzhia region. “After the so-called referendums and annexations, they started to more actively persuade owners, businesses, and so on to receive Russian citizenship. Only after that could they sort out their property rights. And only after that were they guaranteed at least some level of protection from their property being looted,” Semyvolos continued.

“Now people are afraid not only about losing big property; they’re afraid of being deported and losing their house. But even in these conditions, people are refusing to take Russian citizenship. They believe that Ukraine will return,” Semyvolos noted.

Independent estimates of Ukrainians who have taken Russian passports vary wildly. Dmytro Lubinets, Ukraine’s ombudsman, told Foreign Policy that the real number is not known. As early as last June, Vladimir Rogov, the Moscow-imposed governor of the Zaporizhzhia region to which Melitopol belongs, told Russian media that 70,000 people across the region had applied for Russian passports. This came shortly after Putin signed a decree fast-tracking applications for Russian citizenship from the occupied Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine. However, Fedorov told Foreign Policy last month that in Melitopol, the largest city in the region under Russian occupation, less than 4,000 residents have taken citizenship—and only 1,000 of them enthusiastically.

Neither those who have fled or are yet to be born were exempt. In June, the Russia-imposed authorities of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson declared that all newborns in their respective regions would automatically become Russian citizens. A month after last September’s annexations, Putin even targeted residents of occupied Ukraine who had fled—they had a month to declare their allegiance.

The Russian authorities do not want to wait anymore. Ukrainian media suggest that coercion is becoming more violent, with locals who do not hold Russian passports increasingly harassed at military checkpoints. Residents of the occupied Zaporizhzhia region have told Associated Press reporters that receiving medical treatment required a Russian passport, as did registering a car.

To a Russian soldier at a checkpoint in a front-line region, a Ukrainian passport is grounds for suspicion. And as testimonies from civilians who lived under occupation indicate, those soldiers operate with impunity. Torture is a widespread method of control. Russia’s system of brutal “filtration camps” reportedly grades Ukrainians by perceived disloyalty.

The latest passportization steps could reflect a practical, if brutal, need to get the most out of a recalcitrant conquered population, say observers. Fedorov believes that Moscow wants the PR benefit of a good turnout from the “new territories” at Russia’s regional elections in September. On May 29, Putin signed a bill allowing elections to go ahead on territories under martial law. It also allows the “forcible and controlled” deportation of citizens to areas not under martial law—areas deep inside Russia.

Then there is the fact that new Russian citizens can be conscripted into the army. It’s a key point in Ukrainian government videos from last year urging citizens under occupation not to take Russian passports. It may be no coincidence that last September, on the same day as the annexation of four Ukrainian regions, Putin also signed a decree easing the path for Russian citizenship for foreigners who fight in Russia’s army. A Russian mobilization thereby forces Ukrainians under occupation to participate in the invasion of their own country—an invasion the Kremlin shows no intention of stopping.

And because that invasion drags on, the Russian authorities need to demonstrate their confidence to civilians in a deeply insecure situation, argued Mykhailo Podolyak, advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during an interview in downtown Kyiv. “In occupied Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, they are less certain of their position, so they’re more likely to burst into houses with weapons demanding that somebody take a passport. In Crimea, they think they’re there for a hundred, two hundred years, so they carry out a more drawn-out process, but still a forcible one,” Podolyak said.

Here in Kyiv, it’s apparent that Ukrainian officials’ declarations that they are determined to liberate Crimea are made in earnest, despite fears that the peninsula, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014, is a red line for Moscow. Crimea is where passportization began, say officials, and Crimea is where it must end.

Ukrainian officials who monitor Crimea believe that the peninsula is the testing ground for all Russia’s methods and technologies of occupation. Maria Tomak, head of the Crimea Platform Department at the Office of the Ukrainian President, told Foreign Policy that Crimea is the best-case scenario for Russian policymakers. “They want other occupied territories to resemble it,” said Tomak in an interview in the Ukrainian capital.

Thus, Crimea is important because it shows how passportisation can be played out in the longer term. Nine years after the illegal annexation, the vast majority of locals there are believed  by Ukrainian officials to have Russian passports, and thousands of Russian citizens have moved there. Moreover, in 2021 Putin signed a decree adding Crimea to a list of sensitive “border regions” of the country, prohibiting foreign citizens from owning land or property there. It was a potent move to impose Russian citizenship on those who still possessed Ukrainian passports. Nevertheless, some persisted—as in the case of Lenie Umerova, a Crimean Tatar woman arrested last month when she attempted to visit an ailing relative on the occupied peninsula. Family members believe it was precipitated by her still holding a Ukrainian passport.

Stories such as these have precipitated a fierce debate among Ukrainian policymakers about their legal response to passportization. Shortly after Putin’s decree, Ukrainian Minister of Temporarily Occupied Territories and Reintegration Iryna Vereshchuk advised Ukrainians living under occupation to leave if possible and not take a Russian passport. This prompted a response from the country’s ombudsman, Lubinets, who advised them to accept a Russian passport if they could not leave and their survival was at risk. Vereshchuk, who is also Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, has since told Ukrainian media that her position was misunderstood, and that she and Lubinets are “on the same wavelength” on the issue.

As Volodymyr Yavorskyy of the nongovernmental organization Human Rights House put it, this seeming clash of explanations reflects the tough position in which Ukrainian officials find themselves. They must make one statement in public and another directly to people under occupation. “If you say that Ukrainians can take Russian passports, Russian propagandists will say that Ukraine accepts Russia’s presence on these territories. If you say that people will be criminally responsible for taking Russian passports, that’s the wrong step because it’s not really possible to stay on these territories with only Ukrainian documents,” Yavorskyy said.

Lubinets told Foreign Policy in an email that the vagueness of Putin’s April 27 decree is likely a deliberate attempt to scare Ukrainians into applying for Russian citizenship as soon as possible. He added that as the Ukrainian government does not recognize Russia’s forced passportization, the process is not a grounds for losing Ukrainian citizenship. Moscow has reacted in kind; this March, it passed a law allowing Ukrainians to renounce their citizenship by making a declaration to the Russian, rather than the Ukrainian, authorities.

Podolyak, the presidential advisor, told Foreign Policy that Lubinets’s and Vereshchuk’s statements on the decree were not mutually exclusive. “They’re talking about two different situations. Ms. Vereshchuk is correct in saying that the state cannot accept people taking Russian passports by their own initiative, of their own will, not facing any threats. That’s an unpleasant situation, as it demonstrates a citizen’s disloyalty, as does active participation in the occupying authorities,” he explained at his office in Kyiv.

“Of course, if somebody is forced to give up their Ukrainian passport and take a Russian one under threat, then their life is the most important thing. They haven’t gone through a process of voluntary renunciation of their Ukrainian citizenship. We approach those situations with understanding; that’s passive acceptance, and I stress that it is different,” said Podolyak.

Podolyak suggested that a citizen who took a Russian passport in the first month of occupation would naturally be treated differently from somebody who waited a year and a half before giving in.

Lubinets also stressed the importance of perceived motivation. “After our victory, we will legally give every citizen the opportunity to declare their position and actions,” he wrote—from those who were forced to take Russian passports to survive to those who “compiled lists of Ukrainian children for forced deportation.”

“We should not punish everybody who lives on these territories but nor should we give a blanket amnesty to everybody; this is a state where the rule of law is a founding principle,” said Podolyak.

In short, the reckoning will be done on a case-by-case basis. It will be an enormous undertaking. As longtime observer of the Luhansk Region Brian Milakovsky, wrote, there are grounds to wonder whether a Ukrainian society traumatized by war will be understanding of the choices and dilemmas which their fellow citizens under occupation faced.

In Kyiv, raising the topic of Russia’s passportization elicits a telling phrase—“at the barrel of a gun.” It is a phrase which covers only the most extreme cases of duress. It does not account for what the Ukrainian analyst Elina Beketova called a “web of bureaucratic oppression”—the systematic constriction of the normal lives of Ukrainian citizens.

This is why in September, Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers presented a draft law on the concept of forcible passportization. “It changes the center of legal accountability from those who own a Russian passport to those who put them in the position where they have to accept one,” Podolyak  explained. The bill has yet to be adopted, pending what Podolyak called changes to the current “dynamic situation.”

The bar will be higher for Ukrainian state and local officials; if this law is passed, they will face criminal liability for taking Russian citizenship. So will anybody who propagandizes Russian citizenship.

Andrii Chernousov, the chief lawyer at the Voices of Children Foundation, stresses that the actions and statements of Kyiv officials also play a part in the decisions taken by those under occupation. “People are between two flames. On the one side, they’re afraid that after deoccupation they’ll be prosecuted; on the other, they are pressured by the occupiers who restrict everything,” he said in an interview at the offices of the Kyiv-based charity.

Chernousov emphasized that passportization is only one step in a broader process—“the process of Russification.”

The right bank of the Kherson region provides a glimpse of what may be to come. Russian occupation of this area was ended by Ukrainian forces last November, yet Kherson is still heavily shelled by Russian forces across the Dnipro River. This month, the regional prosecutor told Most, a local news outlet, that 162 people were implicated in cases of collaboration with Russia.

Moreover, Most reported that local farmers now feared legal repercussions for having re-registered their land with the Russian authorities—one of the requirements that also compelled locals to receive Russian passports. In response, Ukraine’s Agrarian Council decried the vagueness of laws defining collaboration.

“Many people want simple solutions. Here we are always stuck between zrada [betrayal] and peremoha [victory]. … Let’s say we prosecute everybody who is against Ukraine—everybody who took passports,” Chernousov explained. “In that case, I see no prospects not only for deoccupation of these territories, but more importantly—their reintegration.”