Birthright DECISION, Trump is WRONG.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
FastLane
Verified User
The ones granted citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
QP!
Verified User
No.
So, not "Indians".
No, an act of Congress cannot constitutionally limit birthright citizenship in that way.
The analogy to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 does not hold, and attempting to restrict citizenship at birth to those with at least one American parent would conflict with the 14th Amendment.
The Indian Citizenship Act Context
- The 14th Amendment (ratified 1868) states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."
- Native Americans born on U.S. soil were long treated as not fully "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. due to tribal sovereignty and treaties viewing tribes as separate nations (e.g., Elk v. Wilkins, 1884).
- The 1924 Act declared all non-citizen Indians born within U.S. territorial limits to be citizens. It resolved this specific jurisdictional ambiguity and extended citizenship to a group previously excluded or in limbo under prevailing interpretations.
This was an expansion/clarification in an area where the Constitution's application was disputed, not a narrowing of the core rule.
Birthright Citizenship for Others
- The Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) ruled that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen immigrant parents (legal residents, in that case) are citizens at birth, as they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. This affirmed the common-law jus soli (right of the soil) principle.
- Narrow exceptions exist: children of foreign diplomats (immune from U.S. jurisdiction), children of enemy aliens during hostile occupation, and (historically) certain tribal members before 1924.
- For nearly everyone else born on U.S. soil, citizenship is constitutionally guaranteed, independent of parents' status. This includes children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors (subject to U.S. law).
Congress has broad power over naturalization (immigration and citizenship for those not born citizens) and can grant citizenship more broadly. It cannot, however, enact a statute that redefines or narrows the constitutional minimum set by the 14th Amendment for birthright citizenship.
Why a Limiting Statute Would Fail
- Bills attempting to limit birthright citizenship to children with at least one U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident parent (e.g., various "Birthright Citizenship Acts") have been introduced repeatedly but never passed into law. Legal consensus holds they would be unconstitutional.
- Changing the rule requires a constitutional amendment (2/3 of both houses of Congress + 3/4 of states), not ordinary legislation. Courts have consistently rejected narrower interpretations.
- Recent attempts (e.g., executive actions or bills reinterpreting "subject to the jurisdiction") have faced strong legal challenges and judicial pushback affirming the broad reading of the 14th Amendment.
In short: Congress could (and did) grant citizenship to Native Americans to address a distinct historical exception. It cannot use statute to impose a parental citizenship requirement on those who qualify under the 14th Amendment's birthright rule. That would require amending the Constitution.
Congress Cannot Limit Birthright Citizenship | Shared Grok Conversation
If an act of Congress can grant citizenship to all Indians can an act of Congress limit citizenship
grok.com
Yep. I think that's why he didn't balk on the decision to not hear Trump's E. Jean Carroll appeal. Throw us off the scent of corruption.
Did it work for you? Me neither.
Kavanaugh’s dissent did, but Congress would have to repeal and replace an enabling statute that went along w the 14th.
Depends on how you define the 14th. You can’t violate the 14 with an unconstitutional law.
Interesting. Or pass a law simply granting a lessor "unrequested diplomatic status" to them thus ensuring that they are not "under the jurisdiction" of the US.
Why can't you leftist TDS infected people ever answer this simple question? WHY!
I'll tell you why. Because BR citizenship is in no way good for America after it's intended beneficiaries got what they needed.and you know that damned well. You also know very well it wasn't intended to allow anchor babies of illegals to be citizens.
Yet for some reason that has yet to be explained, even though everyone knows it's not benefitting America or it's citizens you continue to defend it with no explanation other than "Cuz it says so". Which of course it doesn't Which is why we should never have allowed stupid fucking cunts to be on the supreme court. Just like voting they are responsible for every reprehensible decision on the court.
Every one of those useless snatches needs to get their ass back in the kitchen and never come out again. Women simply cannot make logical conclusions reliably.
This applies to you man bun lap cucks who entertain them too.
Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
You poor lost soul, you are totally intellectually constipated, and there's no relief in sight.
FastLane
Verified User
If an act of Congress was needed to grant Indians citizenship clearly the understanding of the meaning of the 14th at the time it was written was people that were members of other governments were not citizens. If the child of two American Indians was not an American Citizen neither is the child of two illegal Mexicans an American citizen. Congress and SCOTUS in the 1920s were closer to understanding what the writer of the 14th meant.
This was a 5-4 decision the concept of Birthright citizenship is hanging by a thread.
At this point, laws or the constitution must change to make this different than it is right now. Asking that question, or how anyone answers it, does not change that real fact.
FastLane
Verified User
The LAW called them Indians.So, not "Indians".
No, an act of Congress cannot constitutionally limit birthright citizenship in that way.
The analogy to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 does not hold, and attempting to restrict citizenship at birth to those with at least one American parent would conflict with the 14th Amendment.
The Indian Citizenship Act Context
- The 14th Amendment (ratified 1868) states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."
- Native Americans born on U.S. soil were long treated as not fully "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. due to tribal sovereignty and treaties viewing tribes as separate nations (e.g., Elk v. Wilkins, 1884).
- The 1924 Act declared all non-citizen Indians born within U.S. territorial limits to be citizens. It resolved this specific jurisdictional ambiguity and extended citizenship to a group previously excluded or in limbo under prevailing interpretations.
This was an expansion/clarification in an area where the Constitution's application was disputed, not a narrowing of the core rule.
Birthright Citizenship for Others
- The Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) ruled that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen immigrant parents (legal residents, in that case) are citizens at birth, as they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. This affirmed the common-law jus soli (right of the soil) principle.
- Narrow exceptions exist: children of foreign diplomats (immune from U.S. jurisdiction), children of enemy aliens during hostile occupation, and (historically) certain tribal members before 1924.
- For nearly everyone else born on U.S. soil, citizenship is constitutionally guaranteed, independent of parents' status. This includes children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors (subject to U.S. law).
Congress has broad power over naturalization (immigration and citizenship for those not born citizens) and can grant citizenship more broadly. It cannot, however, enact a statute that redefines or narrows the constitutional minimum set by the 14th Amendment for birthright citizenship.
Why a Limiting Statute Would Fail
- Bills attempting to limit birthright citizenship to children with at least one U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident parent (e.g., various "Birthright Citizenship Acts") have been introduced repeatedly but never passed into law. Legal consensus holds they would be unconstitutional.
- Changing the rule requires a constitutional amendment (2/3 of both houses of Congress + 3/4 of states), not ordinary legislation. Courts have consistently rejected narrower interpretations.
- Recent attempts (e.g., executive actions or bills reinterpreting "subject to the jurisdiction") have faced strong legal challenges and judicial pushback affirming the broad reading of the 14th Amendment.
In short: Congress could (and did) grant citizenship to Native Americans to address a distinct historical exception. It cannot use statute to impose a parental citizenship requirement on those who qualify under the 14th Amendment's birthright rule. That would require amending the Constitution.
Congress Cannot Limit Birthright Citizenship | Shared Grok Conversation
If an act of Congress can grant citizenship to all Indians can an act of Congress limit citizenship
Because back then, native Americans, by large were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. You must be stupid, stupid stupid.
FastLane
Verified User
So they are legally Indians if they also want to be American citizens.
The Snyder Act made them citizens, Congress has Constitutional authority to define citizens so the law is Constitutional and everything.
FastLane
Verified User
AND that act called them Indians and granted citizenship to American Indians.