Summary Thoughts on Birthright Citizenship

I see a lot of people saying that the language of the 14th Amendment is clear. I have to admit that I was once in that crowd but now I'm not so sure it's all that clear.

The issue is the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." 

What exactly does that mean? In 1898, the SCOTUS in US v. Wong Kim Ark ruled that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.

Elk v. Wilkins from 1884 was also still in effect, and would be until 1924, in which the Supreme Court found that Native Americans were not citizens by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chinese were a special case because the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited Chinese from entering the country or being naturalized, was still in effect. However Chinese that were already in the country prior to the Exclusion Act were legally permitted to stay and Wong's parents had been in the country since before the Exclusion Act was passed. Because they were legally permitted to stay, the court ruled that they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

Do we all see the problem here? Illegal immigrants are arguably not legally "permitted to stay" and this might be enough of a hook for the SCOTUS to further limit birthright citizenship.

I also think a good case can be made that temporary visitors owe allegiance to their country of origin and therefore are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.

Birthright Citizenship Discussion

I left a comment on a video which summarized the Birthright Citizenship controversy and got a response from someone else that I thought was interesting enough to capture.

Actually, that was a pretty good summary. However, you left out two sort of important things. First, the 14th Amendment extents citizenship to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Second, the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark ruled that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.

It's that same phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," that Trump and company are claiming excludes illegal immigrants and temporary visitors.  In a footnote in "Plyler v. Doe" in 1982 the court interpreted "Wong Kim Ark" as making "no plausible distinction...between legal and illegal resident aliens."

So the court would have to ignore or overturn two previous court opinions in order to declare that birthright citizenship doesn't apply to illegal immigrants. Of course the court may very well do that. I suspect that the idea that birthright citizenship extends to temporary visitors is on much shakier ground and I would be astounded if the court didn't rule that it doesn't apply to them.

This was the reply to my comment.

True the WKA did interpret subject to the jurisdiction to  include all except for those groups . However the court stated " so long as they are permitted by the US government to be here and that they had broken no laws here.

Elk v Wilkins was after WKA which showed allegiance is required to be subject to the jurisdiction. 

The slaughterhouse case excluded all children of foreigners from being subject to the jurisdiction of. 

Plyler v Doe was about jurisdiction within the territory of a state regarding equal protection (rights and privileges ) Nothing to do with citizenship like the other cases.

Then, my reply to the reply.

The quote from Wong refers to Wong's parents because at the time the Chinese exclusion act was still in effect.

The bottom line in Wong comes a little later:

"The fact, therefore, that acts of congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the constitution: 'All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'"

Elk v. Wilkins was in 1884 so it was prior to Wong in 1898. It also addresses Native American citizenship questions which was a whole different can of worms in the 19th century.

The Slaughterhouse Cases provided a very narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause which has effectively been overridden by the Court's adoption of the Incorporation Doctrine.

You're correct that Plyler is not about citizenship. However it references Wong and makes the observation that Wong did not differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants.

Trump's Agenda

 We're six month into 2025 and the Trump agenda appears to be taking hold. True, his parade was a joke which was sort of heartwarming to see but:

(1) Iran and Israel have a ceasefire which they might even keep. If you don't think Trump's attack on Iran, even if they didn't completely destroy the targets,  had anything to do with that you're probably mistaken. 

(2) The Stock Market has recovered from its crash in the early part of the year. Whether it won't crash again as the effects of Trump's economic policies take hold remains to be seen. 

(3) Trump is getting trade agreements that seem advantageous. Of course only time will tell if they actually are. 

(4) The Big Really Fucking Awful Bill has passed the Senate and is on the cusp of passing the House. 

(5) The deportations are a mixed bag. We can't get the crops picked or planted but we are getting rid of a fair number of people that we can do without. 

(6) DEI is dead. 

(7) It's beginning to look like having athletes that went through puberty as males competing against athletes that went through puberty as females is about to end.

Whether you agree with, or are horrified at, his agenda I think we have to recognize that Trump has been rather successful at getting it implemented even if his parade was a flop. On the bright side, at least he hasn't invaded Greenland or Panama.

SCOTUS Says No Nationwide Injunctions

In a case related to the Birthright Citizenship question the SCOTUS has ruled that federal courts do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

The question was triggered by Trump's Executive Orders excluding children born to illegal immigrants and temporary visitors from birthright citizenship.

But this has vexed several presidents both Democrat and Republican because it leads to "judge shopping." This is the art of getting your case heard by a federal judge sympathetic to your position and then getting that decision imposed on the whole country.

This is essentially what happened with the abortion drug mifepristone a few years back before the SCOTUS overruled the restriction.

So what exactly does this mean for Birthright Citizenship? Probably not a whole lot. The order won't go into effect for 30 days and that's plenty of time to file additional lawsuits, including a class action suit, against the EOs.

The SCOTUS really needs to get off its rear end and rule on whether "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes illegal immigrants and temporary visitors from Birthright Citizenship.

Personally I don't think it should exclude illegals because they're here pretty much on a permanent basis but I don't think it should apply to temporary visitors.

Of course what I think doesn't matter. What matters is what the court thinks and I expect it to exclude both when it gets around to deciding.

The Tariffs and Tariff Threats

Trump's tariff strategy actually seems to be working. Countries seem anxious to negotiate trade deals in order to maintain access to the US marketplace.

Of course willing to negotiate and coming to a deal are not the same thing but it seems to be moving in the right direction.

The Fed is still concerned about possible tariff fueled inflation so a rate cut in July looks up in the air but not completely off the table. Trump has made it clear that he will replace Jerome Powell as fed chairman when his term expires.

The stock market has sort of almost recovered from the series of shocks it experienced but is still very volatile and jumpy.

Iran-Israeli Ceasefire

Trump appears to have managed a fragile, but so far reasonably stable, ceasefire between Iran and Israel. How long that will hold up is up in the air.

In the meantime the Pentagon now says that the attack on Iranian nuclear sites wasn't a complete success and may have only delayed the Iranian nuclear program by 6-9 months.

Regardless, it appears to have gotten the Iranians to the negotiating table.

Iran Strikes Back

Iran has attacked a US military base in Qatar. The Qatari say that no damage was done and they sound kind of pissed. They have said they reserve the right to respond. So the conflict potentially spreads.

My question is why do we have a military base in Qatar?

Trump Bombs Iran

Last night Donald Trump announced that the US has bombed three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. 

Given that the site at Fordo was deep underground the US usedGBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) designed to penetrate and explode underground. Tomahawk missiles were apparently employed to attack the other sites.

I look at this from two angles. First, how sane was this move and second, how effective was it in destroying Iran's nuclear capability.

I think this was completely INSANE and a move that only an ignorant president with ignorant advisors would undertake. The country is also tired of military adventures in the Middle East.

When challenged about this J.D. Vance essentially said that all the past presidents that got involved in the Middle East were dumb and now there's a genius in the White House that knows what needs to be done. Then they wonder why we say it's a cult.

As for its effectiveness, last night Trump claimed a complete success. The Iranians claim they evacuated these facilities a while back and their nuclear capability has not been set back.

This morning, Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, reiterated the complete success claim but when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, was asked whether any nuclear capability remained, he responded that the battle damage assessment (BDA) was still ongoing and it was too early to say.

The post attack satellite photos that I saw from the BBC showed a bunch of big holes but not obvious total destruction at Fordo. But that's what you would expect with these bombs. They're designed to penetrate and explode deep underground.

So now what? Iran has declared that it will close the Strait of Hormuz through which an enormous amount of the world's oil passes. There are three US carrier groups in the region so It's not clear to me how they think they're going to accomplish that. Regardless the Stock Market should be a major disaster tomorrow.

Iran can't just do nothing so I suppose we will have to wait and see.

One last thing, Trump is a fucking idiot,