Federal Judge Blocks Trump Bid to Restrict Birthright Citizenship to Illegals

We knew there would be pushback but we are in for the long haul.Just to be clear, Trump was asserting the true meaning of the 14th amendment. Illegal parents are not part of the US jurisdiction, therefore the child is not a citizen. Illegals do not have any US Constitutional Rights.

Trump Is Right About Birthright Citizenship (Sean Davis, Federalist)

If you were wondering how long it would take for Democrats to sue the Trump administration, we have an answer. With the ink barely dry, eighteen Democrat state attorneys general, four additional Democrat state AGs, and a collection of outside groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union all filed federal lawsuits over President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. Their argument, that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship for practically anyone born here, is flatly wrong as a matter of law. The courts should use this opportunity to get it right.

ADVERTISEMENT

As Newshound pointed out:

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be “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.”

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Here’s the Library Of Congress archive that shows the writer of the amendment, congressman Howard, did not intend foreigners or aliens to receive birthright citizenship.

May 30, 1866 : The Congressional Globe

There’s additional reading besides the section that I marked. This… pic.twitter.com/DhJCKq4KVD

— Bad Kitty Unleashed 🦁💪🏻 (@pepesgrandma) January 22, 2025

Under no scenario do the children of foreign invaders get birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Illegal immigrants are foreign invaders.

And the President of the United States' highest constitutional duty is to repel foreign invaders.

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) January 22, 2025

Birthright citizenship should be for the children of US citizens only. Then, citizenship by naturalization has been a process that is clearly defined by the US govt and has been since 1790

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) January 22, 2025

Federal Judge Blocks Trump Bid to Restrict Birthright Citizenship

By: Breitbart, January 24, 2025;

A federal judge on Thursday put a temporary block on US President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship.

The ruling imposes a 14-day halt on the enforcement of one of the most controversial executive orders Trump signed in the hours after he was sworn into office for a second term.

“This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” US District Judge John Coughenour was reported as saying during the hearing in Washington state.

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is,” said Coughenour, who was appointed by a Republican president, Ronald Reagan.

ADVERTISEMENT

Birthright citizenship is fundamental to America’s national identity, with the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution decreeing that anyone born on US soil is a citizen.

It says, in part: “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.”

Trump’s order was premised on the idea that anyone in the US illegally, or on a visa, was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the country, and therefore excluded from this category.

An incredulous Coughenour chided Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate over his assertion that Trump’s order was constitutional.

“Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the Bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order,” Coughenour said.

“It just boggles my mind.”

The ruling comes after a flurry of lawsuits filed by 22 states, two cities and numerous civil rights groups.

It was hailed by states that took part in those legal actions.

“No president can change the constitution on a whim and today’s decision affirms that,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said.

The ruling is “the first of many wins to come as my office fights instances of executive overreach and any illegal actions the new administration may take.”

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said Trump’s order was “un-American.”

“Birthright citizenship makes clear that citizenship cannot be conditioned on one’s race, ethnicity or where their parents came from,” he said after the ruling.

“It’s the law of our nation, recognized by generations of jurists, lawmakers and presidents, until President Trump’s illegal action.”

Trump’s opponents have argued that the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 as the United States sought to knit itself back together after the Civil War, has been settled law for over a century.

They have cited an 1898 US Supreme Court ruling in the case of a San Francisco-born Chinese American man called Wong Kim Ark.

Wong was denied entry back into the United States after visiting relatives in China on the grounds that he was not a citizen.

The court affirmed that children born in the United States, including those born to immigrants, could not be denied citizenship.

Politics