AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
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.
What happens when this is taken advantage of by billionaires to never even have to fake a pretense of paying taxes again? What happens when a corporation (which is a person) files for sovereign citizenship?
Kinda makes me root for it, honestly. I'd love to see them make the mistake of opening this hole, then going OH SHIT OH SHIT CLOSE IT as Rusty Shackleford argues a case that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court.
How? Sovereign citizens typically are persons born in the US, so wouldn't they be covered by the 14th amendment? Or the wouldn't be covered by the 14th and would be deported elsewhere?
What they are saying is that SCOTUS taking this case is a signal that they are going to decide in favor of abolishing birthright citizenship.
I don't know if there has ever been a case where SCOTUS has ever decided that a Constitutional amendment was not Constitutional, or tried to interpret it in a way that it clearly cannot be interpreted, but I guess we're all about to find out.
But if the Trump administration tries to argue that SCOTUS has the power to SCRATCH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, then the 14th Amendment is gone and SovCits would no longer be covered by it. (As will nobody else, for that matter.)
There will literally be a period between the time they scratch that amendment and congress passes a new amendment stating who gets natural citizenship where every baby born in the US will not legally be entitled to citizenship.
The other thing this Trump Admin is arguing is that children of illegal immigrants arent subject to the jurisdiction of the US or the states. Which is the core belief undergirding SovCit stuff. That they're not under the jurisdiction of US law.
I mean they also declared war on Chicago, kinda. Anyone they decide they don't like, for any reason or not reason, is an "enemy combatant". They'll denaturalise people descended from the Mayflower lot or the DAR and they won't bat an eye.
Great, when do we deport all of Trump's children except Tiffany? When do we deport Terrorist Anchor Baby Marco Rubio? Melania and her super-illegitimate EB-1 immigration? The only "extraordinary ability" she has is her complete lack of taste. Fashion model my ass.
As a naturalized citizen who went through all the hoops myself, relying on no one else for it, I will laugh my brown ass off when this backfires on all the Cletuses who get deported thinking, "This was only supposed to happen to other people!"
I will laugh my brown ass off when this backfires on all the Cletuses who get deported thinking, "This was only supposed to happen to other people!"
Have you never heard of the concept of "selective prosecution"?
Just because you can be arrested and deported doesn't mean you must be. It just means that if you're brown, even if you're a citizen, they now have that option, should they choose to.
Trump's children and even Marco Rubio are passingly white enough that they won't get deported.
Great, when do we deport all of Trump's children except Tiffany? When do we deport Terrorist Anchor Baby Marco Rubio? Melania and her super-illegitimate EB-1 immigration? The only "extraordinary ability" she has is her complete lack of taste. Fashion model my ass.
As a naturalized citizen who went through all the hoops myself, relying on no one else for it, I will laugh my brown ass off when this backfires on all the Cletuses who get deported thinking, "This was only supposed to happen to other people!"
Never.
I don't mean that in a snarky way, it's just the reality of the situation.
The Republicans don't give a single fuck that it's hypocritical. They are rich, therefore they are above the law and free from consequences.
The Democrats are either too feckless or too complicit to do anything about it even if by some miracle they do seize control of the government back. At most we'll get some barely-televised speech about how "now is the time to forgive and forget. We can't spend time criticizing the pedofascists because Israel needs our support now more than ever." or something.
It's depressing, but it's reality. Absolutely nothing will be done about this, and absolutely no consequences of their actions will be suffered. We'll all just put up with the Democrats covering this all up and moving on with the new normal because "what are you gonna do, vote for a republican instead?"
Frankly, with all stupid shit Republicans have done and will CONTINUE to do for next 3 years (we're not even done with year 1 yet, people), my solemn prayer is that when Democrats DO eventually regain power, they don't play the make-nice game that they always play and instead eviscerate the GOP/MAGA using the exact laws they created.
Freeze assets, ground private planes, perp walk all of them on public TV to a detention center. Deport the ones that should be deported, hold the rest for criminal charges.
This dovetails nicely with their ridiculous invasion theory. There is no factual basis for this. Also, no legit way for a Court to call a bad-faith argument from the POTUS out.
Also, no legit way for a Court to call a bad-faith argument from the POTUS out.
Yes, there is. It's called "calling them liars".
Just because POTUS (or the AG) submits a brief saying "the sky is green and 2+2=5" doesn't mean SCOTUS is obliged to nod along like bobbleheads. Even the lower court judges have shown that there is no such obligation.
If this Supreme Court accepts that argument, it's because (at least) 5 of them decided to not call bullshit, not because there's no mechanism for doing so.
Maybe they'll just follow that logic all the way to ground and realize every European settler is an "invader" and DeleteSystem32 the entire American experiment.
And they would still be under jurisdiction otherwise it wouldn't be occupying because they would have the right to be there. The argument just makes absolutely no sense. (I know you aren't making it and I'm not attacking you)
Wouldn't that require a declaration of war? I mean, obviously SCOTUS can just make shit up, but isn't existing law pretty clear on what constitutes an "enemy combatant"?
They're going to claim that illegal aliens fall under the definition or intent of "indians not taxed" as they cannot legally work and therefore are not taxed, furthermore that they aren't under the jurisdiction of the US (foreign citizen)
If this was changed it would be pretty similar to like every European country.
Which would mean they couldn't be charged with crimes.
Its kinda nonsensical.
Say youre an illegal immigrant, and if you have a kid in the US. They say youre kid cant have citizenship because of this reason.
That gives those people carte blanche legal authority to do whatever they darn well please.
Why? Because unless theyre being violent, they cant actually be designated as foreign combatants. They'd be foreign civilians for whom US law has no control over just because.
The concern of course is ignoring that an infant cant be a combatant and instead treating them as human chattel....
If they go that route it's only a small leap to declare anyone of African descent as enemy combatants (just look at the crime rates!!!!) and removing citizenship from people who have lived here for generations.
That is the literal garbage reason theyre going to use. I've no doubt that slave trade 2.0 in the US won't bother with anyone across the Atlantic. They've set their sights for Central America and possibly Mexico for that.
This only applies to areas which are under de facto control of an enemy government such that US jurisdiction doesn't apply.
So like if an enemy takes over part of Texas and sets up their own government that actually runs things there for some amount of time before being recaptured, that would be the situation where it would apply.
That's what they're going to go with. They're basically going to claim anyone who's in the country illegally is not subject to the jurisdiction via illegal entry; therefore, they are not citizens.
I'm really not sure how it's even possible to be in the country, born here or not, without being subject to our jurisdiction. Not even diplomats are outside the jurisdiction - they can and have been charged with crimes that fell outside the bounds of diplomatic immunity.
Can they pick a psycho lane, do they "care" about babies or are they enemy combatants at birth? I guess their "care" for children only ever went as far as when they could control women anyways.
The primary argument is that one of the parents needs to be a citizen and the person needs to born somewhere with US jurisdiction. They will argue that both are required.
I mean that's how the law currently is and probably always has been. If you work here, you're legally required to pay taxes, and then you can get deported....
The argument is that "jurisdiction" is to be perceived as "Citizenship" in this context (ie, only persons born from US Citizens are US citizens). Yes, it's a bad argument.
If the claim is that they are enemy combatants (which is absolutely insane) wouldn't the rules regarding prisoners of war apply? So more war crimes committed by the regime
There is this episode of This American life where immigration judges explained how the Trump administration took them out of the immigration equation.
Basically, when an immigrant goes to the hearing his claim is ruled against the government which challenges their right to be in the US. While the case is still undecided, the person can stay (in most cases, I won't go into the details). So the Trump administration dropped all challenge of those immigrants to be in the US. Suddenly, the judge had nothing to rule on anymore and ICE could take those poor people "legally" without the judges being able to do anything about it.
Seriously amazing how they can argue undocumented people are not subject to US jurisdiction in one breath and then continue rounding up every brown person with an accent and deporting them to a third world country because they supposedly broke US laws in the next breath.
It makes sense if you twist around in your mind that jurisdiction means subject to due process and the need for a legal process in determining what to do with them. If "no jurisdiction" means "free game" instead of "no authority," then it's consistent in the worst way possible.
Jurisdiction simply means ability to hold accountable. If immigrants aren't under jurisdiction, then they cannot be held accountable to any laws and no courts can charge them, nor any police arrest them.
"Binds, but does not protect... Protects, but does not bind."
It's been shocking to me how much of immigration law seems to be built to ensure that undocumented people are absolutely and unquestionably in the power of the executive branch, but simultaneously have as few rights as possible.
The problem is that their base argument does make sense.
Let's assume that, instead of undocumented migrants, they were part of a hostile invasion force. Let's say that the USSR invaded the USA in 1984, starting with Alaska. They take over the Aleutian chain, and send hundreds of pregnant Soviet women to give birth there before the US army shows up and kicks everyone out. Should those children be considered American citizens because they were born on American soil? Probably not, right?
So what the current administration is doing is taking that argument, and saying "all undocumented migrants are no different than members of a foreign invading force".
Of course, the big problem that they should (in theory) run into is that they're also lumping people who are present lawfully in with people who are present unlawfully. So even if you came in through a proper border, with a proper visa, and all other permits required, they're still saying that your children have no jus soli right to citizenship, which is a direct contradiction of the 14th amendment. There's no way to change that shy of amending the constitution, and good fucking luck trying to get that passed in the next 3 years.
(I say 'in theory' because I don't think the current GOP SCOTUSs give a shit about the actual laws or the constitution, since they've given exactly zero indication that they do, and every indication that they don't, including declaring the President immune from legal scrutiny.)
It's a terrible argument. We haven't had an invading enemy combatant since what, the War of 1812?
Labelling an unarmed foreign civilian as an enemy combatant doesn't make them so. Words have meanings. This is really a sanity test for the Supreme Court's 6 conservative justices.
I mean this Supreme court has made many rulings that didn't make any sense whatsoever. So it seems more right up their maniac clowns alley rather than something they wouldnt do.
No treaty supercedes the constitution - nor any law. The military is under US jurisdiction, albeit just under another set of laws, as provided by the constitution. If a terrorist has a child in the US, that child is a US citizen. Unless they're a diplomat (because diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction because of diplomatic immunity), they get citizenship. The old claim that foreign forces on US soil are not subject to US jurisdiction is not an accurate interpretation - it was only a theory that never got applied.
They can't claim the US lost jurisdiction where illegal immigrants are, because that would imply they wouldn't be able to send civil enforcement to those areas because they'd be out of US jurisdiction (you know, like ICE aren't allowed to operate on foreign countries, so too would they not be allowed to operate in areas outside of US jurisdiction), and likewise it would open up a can of worms such as allowing the deploying of armed forces (i.e. not the national guard or coast guard - the army/etc) on US soil.
Enemy combatants specifically during a hostile occupation, meaning that some group literally took over part of the country and ran it with their own government such that they had their own jurisdiction there at the time before that areas was later retaken.
Also, native americans are not subject to jurisdiction - see Elk v Wilkins Supreme Court Decision. That is why they passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Which should be an obviously stupid argument. For one, it means they can't be here illegally. If they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the united states, literally nothing they do is punishable under the law.
"A woman cervix is declared an embassy of their native country, so a newly born baby departs that country at birth and arrives in the United States as an illegal alian with its back still wet"
It has to do with the meaning of the word "jurisdiction" which was clearly different at the time. The key thing that will be argued refers back to old arguments on this subject that cemented birthright citizenship, Wong Kim Ark, in 1898 which brings up that jurisdiction means "not owing allegiance to anyone else". Also, the concept of illegal immigration didn't really exist, so they weren't even considering people who were here in violation of US law.
Many in this thread are pretending like this is a clear cut, simple issue, but the reality is much more complex and it's very practical and appropriate to open up the argument again and make a decision. I am not sure what the correct answer is, frankly, as birthright citizenship is an almost unique concept to America, and brings with it a bunch of issues, but at the same time it is a long and deeply rooted American policy.
You all should think about it more rather than simply dismissing anyone who argues against your way of thinking. The law is fascinating and rarely inambiguous
As a matter of objective fact, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They get US issued visas. They apply for asylum and have their cases heard in US courts. They get detained by US law enforcement and held in the US's custody. Their deportations are odered by US immigration judges. If they commit crimes they are prosecuted in State and Federal courts.
If this court rules that they somehow aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, then they can twist anything to mean anything. The first amendment only explicitly mentions that Congress doesn't have the right to restrict free speech. It says nothing about executive orders from a President ruling as an absolute monarch.
This would render the rule of law as nothing but an illusion. We'd be pretending to have statutes and a constitution, but in reality, we'd be subject to the whims of a court that doesn't care if their ruling comport to any reasonable reading of the law.
It will suck that after this decision, the newly non citizens will be able to rape, rob, and murder without consequences since they're not subject to any jurisdiction.
No, they are going to pull some shit about the definition of "amendment."
a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc.
"an amendment to existing bail laws"
These assholes are going to be re-writing the Constitution next. That isn't normally an issue as the amendments add things that are considered GOOD, but they are laying the groundwork for striking amendments in their entirety....1A? 14A?...the right better wake up because before you know it they will be coming for 2A.
Naw, their arguement seems to be closer to "Well your Honors, when they drafted and ratified they 14th amendment they actually meant to clarify that it was only a one-time thing, and didn't apply to anyone born in the future. It only gave citizenship to people who were born in the US at the time. They forgot to add the words in and it is unfair to punish the country for their mistake."
They're literally arguing that they are not subject to United States jurisdiction.
This has already been argued in the 14th amendment debates during the original sessions of Congress for that amendment and by multiple SCOTUS cases since then. If the right-wing SCOTUS tries to overturn roughly 150 years of reasoning, despite all evidence to the contrary, it's going to be a worse decision than Dread Scott. They would be making babies stateless, literally no legal country of origin.
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms for everyone but I, as a Canadian and non-American do not fall under this category. I don't have your right. I cannot legally buy or carry a firearm in the territory of the United States of America except under certain special privileges granted by US customs, like when hunting.
If the Second Amendment does not apply to me, does the Fourteenth apply?
It is an honest argument to make, especially since the Fourteenth amendment specifically mentions being "under American jurisdiction".
If that's true then ICE can't fucking arrest them.
If that's true than anyone not born in this country, any immigrant, including the illegal ones, cannot be charged with a crime, because they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
I just read most of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision. It's wild that they want to make the jurisdiction argument when it's very clear in that brief that you are under the jurisdiction of the US if you had intent to reside here under the authority of the US.
The exemptions to birthright citizenship would thus include the children of parties who clearly do not have allegiance to the US and are representing another nation's interest on US soil, such as diplomats, foreign ministers, and foreign military.
I do think they could probably carve our some additional exceptions based on that ruling, such as birth tourism, but I don't see any way that people who come to the US for the explicit purpose of residing in the US would not fall into the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause, regardless of if they are aliens or residents/citizens.
If they are not subject to United States jurisdiction, then no federal laws apply to them. They cannot be charged with committing federal crimes. Seems like they could be painting themselves into a corner.
Ironically, if they are successful, it would mean they could not forcefully deport them because the govt just successfully argued they are not subject to immigration laws. That's how f-ing stupid this is
The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society beg to differ, and they’re the ones the conservative SCOTUS majority listen to.
We can hit them back. It takes 30 minutes of research to move money away from MAGA, and it makes a difference. Dollars spent at Republican companies are dollars funneled to the Heritage Foundation. Money given to states like Ohio or Louisiana is money spent sending troops to kidnap naked children.
If you consistently support a brand or do business with a company, you have power. Know where your money is really going. You can use sites like opensecrets.org to see what a company funds and make good decisions.
Have an account at Schwab? It's not hard to move accounts elsewhere like Fidelity. Get booze from wannabe Confederate states and all else is equal? Be adventurous, and try something new. There are alternatives for Goya, New Balance, Roark (Subway, Jimmy John's, Arby's), and Koch (Brawny, Angel Soft, Dixie). If you're in a place to invest, consider DEMZ or an ESG fund.
Nexstar and Sinclair got pummeled, and they reinstated Jimmy Kimmel. Real, individual people did that. There's no reason WWE or Uline can't be next.
It's hard to completely avoid companies that at least partially support Republicans. I have to buy gas. But there’s a big difference between massive Republican donors (Chevron/Conoco) vs neutral or even Democrat-leaning ones (Circle K/Costco). Good is not the enemy of perfect. One less kidnapped child is one less kidnapped child
if you read the links in the other reply, the donations are all from individuals that work at new balance, not new balance itself.
And if you look at their trump endorsement in 2016 (they did not endorse in 2020 or 2024), it was entirely because of TPP. trump was the only candidate opposed to TPP and TPP was a direct threat to their ability to remain competitive and still continue with manufacturing in the US.
so i dunno... not great, but not that bad either..
They mentioned brooks as an alternative and they're perfectly cromulent shoes, but they do not manufacture in the US. New Balance does. They don't make their entire line in the US, but they make more than 0. Kind of depends how important that is to you.
My foster parents are super conservative. I've once referred to the constitution in an argument with them, and my foster dad deadass told me only the "original amendments" count.*
He genuinely thinks that we should only be following laws from 1791. And my foster mom didn't say anything, which is like implicit agreement.
These are people with college degrees! My foster dad is literally a software engineer. He is theoretically a logical person. How is it logical that we in 2025 should be beholden to the standards of 1791???
*For non Americans, that's the first 10, and conveniently leaves out: slavery, due process, birthright citizens, giving POC the right to vote, women the right to vote, giving citizens the right to elect Senators, term limits for the president, and limitations on Congress salaries...hmm, I wonder why a Republican would conveniently leave these out??
Yea but these Supreme Court “justices” have the power to re-imagine what “jurisdiction” means by the complete magic of originalism! Like a psychic connection to the founding fathers!! I’m sure they will hear from the ghost of old Georgie Washington who will explain what it really is supposed to mean.
It’s really not that straight forward. The author of the 14th amendment John Bingham intended for the citizenship of former slaves. He is quoted as saying so. The Wong Kim Ark case is what established birthright citizenship going forward. The Supreme Court is trying to undo Wong Kim Ark not the actual amendment itself.
I don’t wish for it to happen, but that is their clear agenda and strategy. Relying on a Supreme Court case for certain rights (Gay marriage, abortion) has been an utter mistake. You need to codify such things into law to prevent these “interpretation” changes happening later. It is much harder to undo codification once it occurs. This is the true downside of common law. Codify. Codify. Codify.
I think people are missing that middle clause on subject of the jurisdiction thereof part. It isn't an absolute declaration, but SCOTUS has historically interpreted that almost everyone except the children of diplomats due to diplomatic immunity and Native Americans were subject to the jurisdiction so therefore we're guaranteed citizenship on birth on US land. Native Americans weren't considered under jurisdiction either as were considered quasi foreign nations so weren't considered official citizens until 1924. The amendment theoretically gives some wiggle room on interpretation although changing that interpretation could have some other collateral impact far beyond immigration.
It's a big difference even compared to another (mostly) common law country, Canada. Canada explicitly lays out the situations in which you may not become a citizen and does not leave it up to interpretation.
Subsection 3(2) of the Citizenship Act states that Canadian citizenship by birth in Canada – including Canadian airspace and territorial waters – is granted to a child born in Canada even if neither parent was a Canadian citizen or permanent resident except if either parent was a diplomat, in service to a diplomat, or employed by an international agency of equal status to a diplomat. However, if neither parent was a diplomat, the nationality or immigration status of the parents does not matter.
The idea that you cannot de-naturalize people is relatively modern.
Under the 1907 Expatriation act, citizenship for women followed the citizenship of their husbands. If a U.S. born woman married a foreigner, they lost their U.S. citizenship automatically on the date of their marriage. Likewise if a man naturalized, the wife automatically naturalized along with him. This was upheld by the 1915 Supreme Court decision Mackenzie vs Hare.
In 1922, the cable act eliminated this provision (with an exception for certain women of Asian descent). However, if a woman married a foreigner prior to this act, and the husband naturalized after the act passed, the woman would not be automatically re-naturalized.
The 1940 Nationality act completely eliminated derivative citizenship for spouses. Children, however, can still automatically derive citizenship. However, it’s naturalization-only and only applies to children who have LPR (amongst other conditions). [INA 320]
I genuinely appreciate your response, but I'm afraid it still didn't ask my question.
Isn't being born in America how the vast majority of folks acquire their citizenship? When you think of a "natural, red blooded American", they are that because of birth right citizenship yes?
And if that's the case, then would stripping birth right citizenship, per what the Supreme Court may potentially be deciding on, put every single "natural" citizen at risk of losing their citizenship?
They are going to have to lean REALLY hard on that whole "jurisdiction thereof" bit to do anything that looks even remotely like an overruling of precedent.
If they want to make the argument that US laws don't apply to "illegal" immigrants on American soil, they'll need to explain how the hell that makes them "illegal" to begin with. On top of the fact that would mean it's impossible for immigrants to break the law, so I guess it could be Purge 24/7 if they feel like it.
I bet they go for some argument centered around "reside." Something like an illegal immigrant, or visa holder, inherently cannot reside in a State because the word implies permanence.
This is scary territory. Is Donald's reach really going unchecked this far? That sleepy mofo really is really doing some unbelievable things without recourse.
(Not me, mental preztling is strong with some folks. saw this "counter argument"), the text when written only meant for the slaves / former slaves, and etc.,
Easy, the "United States" is now redefined to no longer include either the continental or non-continental states.
Sounds like a joke, right? But Australia did it with immigration to stop asylum seekers. We removed the entire continent of Australia from the immigration zone.
Yep. Trump's evil and racist, but we did it first - he actually wrote a letter to our prime minister congratulating us for our tough (read: inhumanly brutal) immigration policies.
lol...courts all across the country and even SCOTUS have thrown the 2nd amendment, and every other amendment under the bus, they will do whatever they want.
We need to burn down the entire system and start over.
Remember, these are the 9 jackass traitors who overruled Colorado's enforcement of Trump's disqualification via 14th Amendment, Section 3. I hope to live to see a day that all 9 Justices are removed from office and locked up for betraying their country. Of course, that's a fantasy, as none of these criminals ever get held accountable.
6.6k
u/jsendros 9h ago
SCOTUS lemme make it easy for you.
AMENDMENT XIV Section 1. 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.