As predicted in this corner, a District Court quickly blocked Trump’s unconstitutional order eliminating birthright citizenship.
Lawfare Media reports Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order Nationwide
On Jan. 23, District Judge John C. Coughenour of the Western District of Washington at Seattle granted an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order by the attorneys general of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, enjoining President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. Trump’s executive order states that citizenship is not automatically extended to those born on American soil and that it is instead contingent on the citizenship status of a child’s parents. In their emergency motion, the plaintiffs alleged that Trump’s order violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
During a hearing on the matter, Judge Coughenour said of Trump’s executive order, “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. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
Blatantly Unconstitutional
Judge Coughenour cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898, and Regan v. King 1943.
The restraining order was good for 14 days. I take that to mean arguments will be heard quickly and the whole thing will be tossed by then.
Trump’s Executive Order Ending Birth Citizenship Is Headed to the Gutter
On January 21, I commented Trump’s Executive Order Ending Birth Citizenship Is Headed to the Gutter
Let’s review Trump’s unconstitutional order ending citizenship by birth. There’s over a dozen challenges already.
Regardless of whether one believe birth citizenship should be the law of the land, it is the law of the land, in two different forms, with the meaning of both historically clear.
And I suggest that it would behoove Trump to stick to priorities that got him elected. Instead he is prancing with meme coins and issuing executive orders that will fail, possibly by unanimous decision.
I cited the 14th amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The 14th Amendment says “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.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 says “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 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.”
Both phrases need no clarification. The statements are clear in historical context to anyone to bothers to look.
Both clause pertain to foreign diplomats in the US who give birth in the US.
1866 Senate Discussion of the 14th Amendment
The Senate explicitly discussed birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.
In a floor debate on May 30, 1866. Senator Edgar Cowan “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?”
Sen. John Conness of California answered that the children of Chinese and Gypsy aliens “shall be citizens” and he was “entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.”
CATO comments
When the 14th Amendment was drafted, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” had a settled meaning: It referred to a person who was subject to U.S. law. Foreigners who visit are required to follow American laws. They are, in every sense, subject to U.S. “jurisdiction,” or control. An exception is the children of diplomats, who are immune from American laws. Additionally, certain Native Americans born on sovereign tribal lands were also exempted, though the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made them citizens by birth.
Every case since has affirmed citizenship, especially United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898, and Regan v. King 1943.
Regan v. King
Also consider Regan v. King
Plaintiff, a citizen of the United States and of the State of California, a registered voter of San Francisco, sues the Registrar of Voters of the City and County of San Francisco, alleging that more than “2600 Japanese of the full blood born in the United States and the State of California, of alien parents born in the Empire of Japan,” are erroneously registered to vote in San Francisco. He further alleges that his rights and privileges as an elector, secured to him by law, are impaired by permitting ineligible persons [Japanese] to exercise the rights and privileges of electors of the State of California. He prays that the Registrar be directed to strike the names of all Japanese from the register of voters on the ground that they are enemy aliens, citizens of Japan, and therefore ineligible to citizenship and the right to vote.
Defendant Registrar answers that Japanese born here are citizens of the United States and as such are entitled to be registered as voters, and asks to be dismissed with his costs.
This case is exceptional because the sole question it presents to this court is one which has been definitely decided by the United States Supreme Court: Is a person of the Japanese race, born within the United States, a citizen? The question has been answered in the affirmative in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890; Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 54 S. Ct. 281, 78 L. Ed. 664; and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S. Ct. 884, 83 L. Ed. 1320.
Counsel for plaintiff frankly stated that he was asking this court to overrule the leading case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, because he believed the decision was erroneous. Since the decision was rendered it has been twice cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. California, supra, and in Perkins v. Elg, supra. In the Morrison case Justice Cardozo, speaking for the Court, said [291 U.S. 82, 54 S. Ct. 283, 78 L.Ed. 664]: “A person of the Japanese race is a citizen of the United States if he was born within the United States.” In the Perkins case, Chief Justice Hughes delivering the opinion, it was held that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States.
Very Few Respect the Law
It is clear Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional. MAGA supporters don’t give a damn. They are willing to go along with anything Trump says or does.
This is no different that Democrats cheering Biden’s repeated flouting of the Supreme Court on student debt cancellations.
Hardly anyone looks beyond what they want.
Regarding citizenship: We may need a debate on what should be law, but there should be no debate on what is the law.
Unfortunately, we have partisan cheers from the Left and Right when presidents make unconstitutional executive orders, trying to hit home runs with the base.
Both Biden and Trump II said they would be uniters. Both are confirmed liars.
The election is over. Might I suggest we stop campaigning? There is no economic or partisan benefit to throwing red meat to a pack of howling hyenas.
If anything, this move by Trump may make it harder for Trump to get a deal on immigration.
Fortunately, this will be over quick, just as I stated.
Meanwhile …
Trump “Will Demand Interest Rates Drop Immediately”
In case you missed it, please note Economically Clueless Trump “Will Demand Interest Rates Drop Immediately”
Trump has done some great things, especially on DEI and energy. But his EO on birthright citizenship and interest rates are at best terribly reckless.
Please see above link for discussion of Trump at Davos and his statements on interest rates.