But the Republicans seem to have a problem reading English... you kind of think it their second language!
You see their main language is "Newspeak"!
Fourteenth Amendment
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Okay do you see any asterisks there? Neither do I.
All persons born, that seem pretty straight forward, there are exceptions listed the only qualification is that they are subject to our laws. Note: ambassadors, embassy staff, and family members are not subject to our laws!
But the Trump adminstration keeps adding words to it... you know part of that "Newspeak" stuff!
CBS News
By Melissa Quinn
December 5, 2025
The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide the legality of President Trump's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship, which automatically grants citizenship to nearly everyone born in the U.S.
Issued at the start of his second term, the plan is the first from Mr. Trump's immigration agenda that the Supreme Court will evaluate on the legal merits. The justices have been asked to intervene in several challenges to Mr. Trump's immigration policies, but did so at early stages of the cases and through emergency requests for relief.
No lower court that has been confronted with legal challenges to the birthright citizenship order has embraced the Trump administration's interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Still, the Justice Department has argued that those decisions are wrong, claiming that the Constitution does not grant citizenship to the children of "temporary visitors or illegal aliens."
Hey if at first you don't succeed, try, try again!
Mr. Trump issued his executive order on birthright citizenship on his first day back in the White House. Under the plan, children born in the U.S. to parents who are either in the country illegally or on a temporary basis are not recognized as U.S. citizens.
The president's directive sought to reverse more than a century of understanding that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil, with exceptions for children born to diplomats and foreign military forces. The Supreme Court addressed the issue 127 years ago, ruling in 1898 that the Citizenship Clause ties U.S. citizenship to place of birth.
Like I said Trump and his cronies have a very hard time reading English!
SCOTUS Blog
By César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
on Mar 9, 2026
President Donald Trump’s attempt to narrow access to birthright citizenship is less than one month from argument. The Justice Department is urging the justices to side with Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause by incorporating into it the legal concept of domicile, which traditionally refers to the place where a person lives and intends to continue living, even though it doesn’t appear in the constitutional provision’s text. In doing so, the Justice Department also attempts to transform domicile from a broad principle to one that is remarkably more restrictive.
[...]
Since the citizenship clause doesn’t mention domicile, the solicitor general argues that it is implied in the constitutional text’s reference to residence. According to the 14th Amendment, everyone who satisfies the location and jurisdiction requirements are “citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” To close the gap between the word reside, which does appear in the constitutional text, and domicile, which doesn’t, the solicitor general explains “‘residence’ means ‘domicile,’” citing an 1878 decision Robertson v. Cease. Except that case isn’t about birthright citizenship at all. Instead, it concerns federal courts’ authority to decide certain civil lawsuits. Incorporating a concept from one area of law to another isn’t necessarily fatal, but it does stretch the decision’s relevance.
You see that's where Newspeak and Doublespeak come in! Where is there any mention of domicile? I don't see it neither... but Trump & Company says it is implied. I'm not the only one not buying it!
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones joins a multi-state coalition defending birthright citizenship against Trump's 2025 order, now challenged in the Supreme Court.
13 News Now
Kathleen Lundy
March 4, 2026
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones has joined a multi-state coalition defending birthright citizenship in a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jones joined the coalition in late February as part of a group of attorneys general filing a legal brief arguing that former President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.
[...]
Multiple lawsuits were filed shortly after the order was signed. Federal courts in Washington state and Massachusetts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking the policy from taking effect while legal challenges move forward.
The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering the legality of the order in a case known as Barbara v. Trump, which was brought by a group of children who could lose citizenship if the policy is upheld.
And even the Catholic Bishop had words on the invasion.
U.S. Bishops among supporters of lawsuit against Trump birthright citizenship executive order
Roman Catholic Diocese of Scranton, PA
The U.S. bishops and a Catholic immigration advocacy group were among those who offered their support to a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
Oral argument in the case, Trump v. Barbara, is scheduled for April 1.
[...]
A series of amicus briefs, sometimes called friend of the court briefs, were filed in either support or opposition to the order. Amicus briefs are filed by groups or individuals who are not a party to the case but have an interest in it, asking the court to consider certain arguments.
One such brief was filed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., also known as CLINIC.
Their brief argued they were “motivated by the teachings of the Catholic
Church,” including “the central belief that every person is imbued with an inviolable dignity, and that all human life, created in the image and likeness of God, is sacred.”
“It is through this lens that the Church stands for ‘treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have,'” the brief argued, citing comments made by Pope Leo XIV at Castel Gandolfo Nov. 18, 2025. “These teachings extend to immigrants in the United States without legal status and their American children who were born in the United States.”
“Not only is the principle of birthright citizenship woven into our Nation’s history and Western tradition, but it is also consistent with Catholic teaching,” the brief continued. “Birthright citizenship aligns with the Church’s teaching that humans were created as social beings and that political authority is morally bound to affirm and protect the inherent dignity of every human person in the community. In turn, birthright citizenship reflects the Catholic principle of subsidiarity by recognizing persons as members of the community from birth, thereby enabling their participation in civic life and ensuring that state power serves the human person as a social being.”
It seems that only Trump & Company sees those words in the 14th Amendment, the big question is will the Supreme Court see it Trump's way?
Update: 3/12 @ Midnight
Well Trump & Company are trying a new tack on the 14th Amendment!
SCOTUS Blog
By Pete Patterson
on Mar 11, 2026
Critics and supporters of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship often focus on the order’s barring of automatic citizenship to children born to individuals unlawfully present in the United States. In this column, I would instead like to focus on the order’s barring of such citizenship to children born to individuals lawfully but transiently present in the United States, because the order’s treatment of those children brings the dispute into sharp focus. One side argues that the 14th Amendment effectively codifies the English common law of subjectship to declare that the children of foreign visitors are birthright citizens. The other side argues that the 14th Amendment instead codifies an American rule of declaring as citizens those who have chosen to make this country their home. The latter view is the better one.
Okay I could possible by that argument on the Constitution but the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1866! That is over 90 years since the Revolution!
In adopting the 14th Amendment, the people of this nation sought once and for all to establish the meaning of citizenship under the Constitution on firm republican principles. Those principles were divorced from feudal British notions of the king’s sovereignty and based on American notions of consent of the governed. It follows that the children born to those visiting America are not citizens under the 14th Amendment. As Senator Lyman Trumbull explained, the citizenship provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the meaning of which the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to enshrine in the amendment’s citizenship clause, were expressly crafted to avoid making citizens of “persons temporarily residing in [the United States] whom we would have no right to make citizens.”
What it will boil down to is the discussion on the floor of Congress when they were debating the bill. From what I have read, all this bull about citizens is because of the Republicans are xenophobes.
